Climatic geomorphology
13
of erosion, in which previously developed pediplains continue evolving, but the associated
scarp retreat rates diminish at distal locations in response to the development of new
pediments (Twidale, 1992). Successive erosion cycles gave place to the staircase
development of repeated pediplains at continental scale in a similar assemblage to that
illustrated by the Piedmonttreppen of Penck.
King's model was based on the process of parallel retreat of slopes and, as
aforementioned, elaborates upon the ideas of Davis and Penck (Higgins, 1975; Thorn,
1988). His ideas did not generate the relevant discussion of the predecessor models,
mainly because his theory was published at a time during which emergent methods of
process analysis and quantification were convulsing geomorphology with other new
thinking (Higgins, 1975).
Another much discussed contribution of King's was his introduction in 1962 of the
concept of cymatogeny. This would be added to the concepts of orogeny and epirogeny.
This process, apparently based upon the "Hebung" of Cloos (1939), involved the
upwarping and flexure of continental margins. Nonetheless, in opposition to the theory of
plate tectonics because of his favoured position on the idea of an expanding Earth, King
(1983) considered cymatogeny to be the dominant crustal movement.
The models of Davis, Penck and King today are the three main historical approaches to
large scale landscape development. The Davis and King proposals are based upon
cyclicity and have a clear climatic background, whereas the Penck approach represents a
continuous contest between the rates of fluvial incision and crustal uplift. All these models
are illustrated in Figure 1.4.
2.4. Process geomorphology
As another branch of science, geomorphology passed from its initial descriptive character
into a more quantitative approach, for which it was necessary to use the methods of
mathematics and physics. Although in the decades of the 1940s and 1950s some authors
analysed the dynamics of glaciers, beaches, dunes, fluvial bars and other landforms, it
was primarily during the second half of the 20th century when the revolution occurred in
the process - geomorphology paradigm. During that time geomorphologists were more
concerned with the workings of geomorphic processes than with the shape of the
landforms (Barry, 1997). Some authors considered processes analysis to be the key topic
of modem geomorphology (Hart, 1986). It has been estimated that in the year 1980, 75 per
cent of the geomorphologic research in the United Kingdom was focused on process
analyses at detailed scales (Gardner, 1983).
For many authors the revolution started with the paper by Strahler (1952), which can be
considered as the first essay on dynamic geomorphology (Higgins, 1975). Others think that
the works of Leopold and collaborators, partly synthesized in the volume Fluvial
Processes in Geomorphology (Leopold et al., 1964) are the genuine pioneers and
instigators of the implementation of quantitative process analysis.
Process analysis is included in the framework of process-response systems, in which
the process is the working geomorphic agent and the response is the resultant landform.
Process analysis may include numerous and different approaches, according to the variety of
the different existing geomorphic environments (Goudie, 1981 a,b). Some of the techniques
13
of erosion, in which previously developed pediplains continue evolving, but the associated
scarp retreat rates diminish at distal locations in response to the development of new
pediments (Twidale, 1992). Successive erosion cycles gave place to the staircase
development of repeated pediplains at continental scale in a similar assemblage to that
illustrated by the Piedmonttreppen of Penck.
King's model was based on the process of parallel retreat of slopes and, as
aforementioned, elaborates upon the ideas of Davis and Penck (Higgins, 1975; Thorn,
1988). His ideas did not generate the relevant discussion of the predecessor models,
mainly because his theory was published at a time during which emergent methods of
process analysis and quantification were convulsing geomorphology with other new
thinking (Higgins, 1975).
Another much discussed contribution of King's was his introduction in 1962 of the
concept of cymatogeny. This would be added to the concepts of orogeny and epirogeny.
This process, apparently based upon the "Hebung" of Cloos (1939), involved the
upwarping and flexure of continental margins. Nonetheless, in opposition to the theory of
plate tectonics because of his favoured position on the idea of an expanding Earth, King
(1983) considered cymatogeny to be the dominant crustal movement.
The models of Davis, Penck and King today are the three main historical approaches to
large scale landscape development. The Davis and King proposals are based upon
cyclicity and have a clear climatic background, whereas the Penck approach represents a
continuous contest between the rates of fluvial incision and crustal uplift. All these models
are illustrated in Figure 1.4.
2.4. Process geomorphology
As another branch of science, geomorphology passed from its initial descriptive character
into a more quantitative approach, for which it was necessary to use the methods of
mathematics and physics. Although in the decades of the 1940s and 1950s some authors
analysed the dynamics of glaciers, beaches, dunes, fluvial bars and other landforms, it
was primarily during the second half of the 20th century when the revolution occurred in
the process - geomorphology paradigm. During that time geomorphologists were more
concerned with the workings of geomorphic processes than with the shape of the
landforms (Barry, 1997). Some authors considered processes analysis to be the key topic
of modem geomorphology (Hart, 1986). It has been estimated that in the year 1980, 75 per
cent of the geomorphologic research in the United Kingdom was focused on process
analyses at detailed scales (Gardner, 1983).
For many authors the revolution started with the paper by Strahler (1952), which can be
considered as the first essay on dynamic geomorphology (Higgins, 1975). Others think that
the works of Leopold and collaborators, partly synthesized in the volume Fluvial
Processes in Geomorphology (Leopold et al., 1964) are the genuine pioneers and
instigators of the implementation of quantitative process analysis.
Process analysis is included in the framework of process-response systems, in which
the process is the working geomorphic agent and the response is the resultant landform.
Process analysis may include numerous and different approaches, according to the variety of
the different existing geomorphic environments (Goudie, 1981 a,b). Some of the techniques