3.8 Review

Sources of nonlinearity and complexity in geomorphic systems

期刊

PROGRESS IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 1-23

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1191/0309133303pp340ra

关键词

chaos; complexity; dynamical instability; geomorphology; nonlinearity; self-organization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonlinearity is common in geomorphology, though not present or relevant in every geomorphic problem. It is often ignored, sometimes to the detriment of understanding surface processes and landforms. Nonlinearity opens up possibilities for complex behavior that are not possible in linear systems, though not all nonlinear systems are complex. Complex nonlinear dynamics have been documented in a number of geomorphic systems, thus nonlinear complexity is a characteristic of real-world landscapes, not just models. In at least some cases complex nonlinear dynamics can be directly linked to specific geomorphic processes and controls. Nonlinear complexities pose obstacles for some aspects of prediction in geomorphology, but provide opportunities and tools to enhance predictability in other respects. Methods and theories based on or grounded in complex nonlinear dynamics are useful to geomorphologists. These nonlinear frameworks can explain some phenomena not otherwise explained, provide better or more appropriate analytical tools, improve the interpretation of historical evidence and usefully inform modeling, experimental design, landscape management and environmental policy. It is also clear that no nonlinear formalism (and, as of yet, no other formalism) provides a universal meta-explanation for geomorphology. The sources of nonlinearity in geomorphic systems largely represent well-known geomorphic processes, controls and relationships that can be readily observed. A typology is presented, including thresholds, storage effects, saturation and depletion, self-reinforcing feedback, self-limiting processes, competitive feedbacks, multiple modes of adjustment, self-organization and hysteresis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据