Landforms as combined expressions of multiple reciprocally interacting species: Refining the ecosystem engineering concept

Kim, Dae Hyun; Lee, Keonhak

doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104152

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 215 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since 2000, research related to the above integrative concepts has highlighted many aspects of plant-fluvial process interactions in varied biogeographical settings. Research on contemporary and recent interactions includes an innovative model of neotropical carbon pumping (Salerno et al, 2023); regional investigations of different biogeomorphological interactions (e.g., Bätz et al, 2015Bätz et al, , 2016Belletti et al, 2015;Räpple et al, 2017, Stromberg et al, 2010a; and at-a-site considerations of the combined role of several plant species (e.g., Allen et al, 2018;Corenblit et al, 2018;Hortobágyi et al, 2018;Kim & Lee, 2022). Research concerned with extremely long time periods has also stressed the important role of plants in the development of river environments (e.g., Brooks et al, 2003;Davies et al, 2022;Davies & Gibling, 2010;Gibling & Davies, 2012;Tooth et al, 2008).…”

Section: Integrative Concepts and Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plants and river morphodynamics: The emergence of fluvial biogeomorphology

Gurnell,

Bertoldi

2024

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we track the evolution of fluvial biogeomorphology from the middle of the 20th century to the present. We consider the emergence of fluvial biogeomorphology as an interdisciplinary research area that integrates knowledge drawn primarily from fluvial geomorphology and plant ecology, but with inputs from hydrology and landscape ecology. We start by assembling evidence for the emergence of the field of fluvial biogeomorphology with a keyword search of the Web of Science and a detailed analysis of papers published in two scientific journals: a geomorphology journal—Earth Surface Processes and Landforms; a multidisciplinary river science journal—River Research and Applications. Based on this evidence, we identify three distinct time periods in the development of fluvial biogeomorphology: the ‘early years’ before 1990; the transitional decade of the 1990s; and the period of rapid expansion and diversification in themes, methods and investigation scales since 2000. Because the literature is vast, we can only summarize developments in each of these time periods, but we refer to recent in‐depth reviews and conceptual perspectives on relevant topics. Thus, rather than a full and deep review, we present an annotated bibliographic overview of the development of fluvial biogeomorphology, whereby the text describes broad trends but is supported by tables of citations that can deliver greater detail. We end with a brief consideration of likely future developments.

show abstract

Section: Integrative Concepts and Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plants and river morphodynamics: The emergence of fluvial biogeomorphology

Gurnell,

Bertoldi

2024

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Expansion of beaver ponds feeds back to enhance permafrost melting rates and landscape instability, essentially exacerbating the effects of climate change (Tape et al, 2022). As a physical geography community, can we help to identify other examples of actual or potential links between climate change, biotic responses, and landscape changes, perhaps building on recent work that has refined the ecosystem engineering concept by looking at landforms as combined expressions of multiple reciprocally interacting species (Kim and Lee, 2022)?…”

Section: New Study Areas For Physical Geographymentioning

confidence: 99%

A horizon scan for novel and impactful areas of physical geography research in 2023 and beyond

Anderson,

Tooth,

Kim

et al. 2023

Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This editorial reports on a horizon scan exercise that was undertaken to identify new frontier topics, new or emerging themes/concepts, or new philosophical questions of relevance to physical geography. Researchers with broad geographical and disciplinary scope, all of whom were members of the journal's editorial board or editorial advisory board, were invited to join a horizon scan panel. The horizon scan Chair canvassed panel members for ideas, resulting in an initial 32 independently proposed topics. Similar topics were merged by the Chair, and panel members were then invited to vote on and score anonymously the remaining 28 topics, bearing in mind the perceived importance/relevance and novelty for the discipline. The final ranking and sifting phase produced a list of 12 topics, which were categorised as being either new study areas or new epistemological frameworks for physical geography. In this editorial, we outline these 12 topics, some of which have been inspired by developments outside of the discipline, but we identify how potentially fertile contributions could be added by physical geographers. We discuss how new studies of extreme event geographies, the impacts of compound stressors, cross-system pollution and toxicity, the geomorphological basis of zoonoses, ancient environmental DNA, the projection and visualisation of landscape futures, and planetary sciences can all benefit from additional physical geography perspectives. We then consider the ways in which physical geographers may engage further with new approaches in personalised and internet-of-things monitoring, artificial intelligence, innovative technologies for teaching physical geography, the study of human-climate impacts, and the raising of the profile of physical geography thinking alongside other knowledge forms. We encourage more physical geographers to apply their unique skillsets and ways of thinking to these topics. The journal will welcome new submissions, or proposals for special issues, that address these topics from physical geographers and their colleagues.

show abstract

“…A decade ago, the integration of insights from geomorphology and evolutionary biology gave rise to the sub-discipline of evolutionary geomorphology, as described by Steiger and Corenblit (2012). Compared with earlier, more general concepts of non-Darwinian evolutionary geomorphology (Huggett, 1995;Phillips, 2009bPhillips, , 2006, this new sub-discipline considers the reciprocal couplings between organism evolution and Earth surface processes and landforms connected to biological activity (Corenblit et al, 2011(Corenblit et al, , 2021Kim & Lee, 2022;Phillips, 2016aPhillips, , 2016bStallins & Corenblit, 2018). The field of biogeomorphology has since expanded with complementary conceptual models seeking to understand feedback loops between genes, organisms and geomorphological component of their environment, for example, the biogeomorphological life cycle (Corenblit et al, 2014), extended composite phenotypes (Phillips, 2016a) and the biogeomorphic feedback window (Eichel et al, 2016).…”

Section: Toward a Biogeomorphological Eco-evolutionary Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the geomorphological‐biological divide: An introspective biogeomorphological perspective

Corenblit,

Corbara,

Lala

et al. 2023

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We suggest that biogeomorphology should challenge the traditional dichotomy between living and non‐living components of Earth surface systems. To achieve this, biogeomorphologists should gain a better understanding of eco‐evolutionary models and empirical findings developing at the interface between ecology and evolutionary biology. Eco‐evolutionary models explore feedback loops between genes, organisms and the physical or biological components outside the organism's body. This changes our understanding of how organisms interact with their environment and the functional and evolutionary significance of biologically induced landforms. In the niche construction framework, genes can be conceived as the foundational evolutionary units of selection and inheritance, and everything beyond of this unit can be considered as the ‘environment’ for gene expression, either packaged within or unpackaged outside the organism. Both the packaged biological and unpackaged environments can be influenced by genes and manufactured by organisms, respectively, in the form of phenotypes or niche constructions. We propose that biomineralized structures, such as bones, osteoderms, antlers and shells, which can be packaged at varying degrees within an organism, as well as external products of genes such as termite mounds, which are unpackaged at the periphery of the organism, form a gradient of variation in the relative dominance and functional integration of biotic and abiotic components in ecosystems. A more explicit consideration of the functional interrelationships between physical and biological components transcending their traditional boundaries should promote a re‐evaluation of the dichotomy between biological and geomorphological entities.

show abstract

Landforms as combined expressions of multiple reciprocally interacting species: Refining the ecosystem engineering concept

Cited by 5 publications

References 215 publications

Plants and river morphodynamics: The emergence of fluvial biogeomorphology

Plants and river morphodynamics: The emergence of fluvial biogeomorphology

A horizon scan for novel and impactful areas of physical geography research in 2023 and beyond

Revisiting the geomorphological‐biological divide: An introspective biogeomorphological perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About