Untitled

Abstract

The influence of the Geological Society of America Bulletin on the development of quantitative geomorphology is demonstrated by three papers: Horton (1945), Mackin (1948), and Strahler (1952a), allpublished in the Bulletin. Horton (1945) advocated a move from qualitative to quantitative approaches in the study of landforms. He proposed quantitative tools and techniques by which we could analyze the landscapes around us. His paper not only stimulated statistical and mathematical approaches to geomorphic research and description but raised fundamental questions such as the randomness or determinism of surface processes. Mackin's (1948) paper was influential in the development of quantitative geomorphology because it prompted the work of Leopold and many others on the hydraulic geometry of river channels. In that paper, he also proposed several concepts fundamental to the dynamic geomorphology system of Strahler. Strahler's (1952a) paper set forth some guiding principles underlying quantitative methods of investigating landforms. He advocated the use of statistical techniques in landscape analyses of all geomorphic processes. In that paper, Strahler also integrated Mackin's (1948) concept of system and that of a dynamic equilibrium into a new "dynamic" geomorphology. These three papers were fundamental in the origin and growth of quantitative, process-oriented geomorphology. Future trends lie in the fields of environmental geomorphology, global and planetary studies, and morpho-tectonics with accent on applied problems and cooperation with other disciplines.he synthesized the scattered elements of geomorphology and made it into a coherent subject for the first time ... His aim was ... to enable the trained reader to understand the descriptions of the trained observer of landforms, as both would speak the same language and have the same concepts. To this extent he succeeded magnificently. His work has proved to be a simple and effective vehicle for teaching and it has had a profound effect on the development of geomorphology in the English-speaking world, firing the imaginations of generations of students and accounting in no small measure for the popularity of the subject as a field of study (Hart, 1986, p. 15).Overlapping in time the work of Davis, but essentially disregarded by the mainstream of geomorphic studies at the time, there appeared papers by Gilbert (1914), Rubey (1938), Hjulstrom (1935, and Bagnold (1941) 13 on June 5, 2015 specialpapers.gsapubs.org Downloaded from

Wettability and Adhesion of Synthetic Marine Adhesive Proteins and Related Model Compounds

“…From the contact angles and surface free energies of solutions (50 ml; 0.1%, w/v; 7.7 1 10 04 deca repeating M these six solvents and from Eq. glass slides, 0.5 ml of suspended sperm cell solutions of the As for the protein molecules adsorbed on the solid surgoby fish in 0.02 M TrisrHCl-500 mM NaCl buffer at pH faces, the work of adsorption (W ads ), i.e., the work of adhe-7.0 was dropped; immediately the motility and adhesion of sion of PLL and protein molecules in water, was calculated the sperm cells were videorecorded microscopically, and the taking into consideration the interactions between waternumber of the adhered cells was counted (15,16). protein and water-solid from…”

Two Re-Evaluations of Davis’ “Geographical Cycle” at the Turn of the 1960s

“…As M. Morisawa (1985) clearly stated, "the real legacies of the hydrophysical approach were the rapid demise of the Davisian system and also the tendency of much geomorphology in the second half of the century to concentrate on the smaller scales of space and time and on the effects of measurable processes" (in CHORLEY, 1995, p. 552). The issue of the quantitative revolution in geomorphology, well documented (e.g., KEYLOCK, 2003;KENNEDY, 1996, therefore does not seem to ask for further development.…”