Elsevier

Geomorphology

Volume 76, Issues 1–2, 5 June 2006, Pages 109-121
Geomorphology

Deterministic chaos and historical geomorphology: A review and look forward

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.10.004Get rights and content

Abstract

The study of nonlinear dynamics in geomorphology has been dominated by analytical techniques derived largely from other fields. Ultimately, however, confronting nonlinear complexity requires problematizing from within a geomorphological context. This paper focuses on deterministic chaos. The major classes of techniques for detecting chaos in geomorphic systems are reviewed. While the long time series most amenable to traditional methods of chaos detection are only occasionally available to geomorphologists, there are methods for detecting chaos in spatial data, including qualitative and categorical data. Many of these are similar to, or are adaptations of, familiar techniques for partitioning within- and between-unit variation, and for identifying elementary uniform landscape units. The manifestations of chaos in landforms and landscapes take the form of divergent vs. convergent evolution (increasing vs. decreasing irregularity), disproportionality vs. proportionality of response to perturbations or initial variations, and the (lack of) geographical consistency or commonality of response. These also serve as criteria for distinguishing between achievement of a new steady-state and unstable divergence in interpreting geomorphic changes. Study of nonlinear dynamics in earth science need not be dominated by theoreticians and modellers, as complex nonlinear behaviors can be identified and diagnosed using the types of data, observations, and methods typically available to geomorphologists. Even more important is the need to further inform the study of nonlinear dynamics on the basis of field-based geomorphology.

Introduction

The study of nonlinear dynamics in earth surface processes and landscapes has been dominated by the application of analytical techniques derived largely from mathematics, statistics, physics, computational science, and other fields characterized by experimental laboratory techniques and numerical models. While much of this has been quite fruitful, geomorphology is dominantly (and appropriately) a field-based discipline where ground truth is paramount. Further, many aspects of geomorphology and the earth sciences differ fundamentally from the experimental laboratory sciences (Frodeman, 1995, Bishop, 1998, Harrison, 1999, Baker, 2000). Confronting complex nonlinear dynamics in geomorphology (and other field-based earth and environmental sciences) ultimately requires that we go beyond importing methods and concepts from other fields, and problematize nonlinear dynamics from within a geomorphological (geological, pedological, ecological, geographical, etc.) context (Harrison, 1999, Phillips, 1999, Phillips, 2003a).

This paper focuses on a particular form of nonlinear complexity-deterministic chaos. One major purpose is to review the available techniques for detecting chaos in geomorphic systems, with an emphasis on those developed within geomorphology and related fields and specifically adapted to the type of data and research questions typical of the field. This work also seeks to broaden the conceptual framework for detecting chaos in geomorphology, and to explore the issue of unstable/nonequilibrium systems, vs. stable systems achieving a new equilibrium following a change in boundary conditions. Though the emphasis is on field-based studies, detection of chaos in field evidence is quite relevant to modelling studies, too, as it allows independent evaluation of model implications with respect to chaotic dynamics. This applies equally well to long-term landform evolution models, and to shorter-term dynamical simulations. Such models often have visualizations as output, some of which have properties or implications amenable to testing via the methods described or developed in this paper.

Geomorphic systems are dominantly nonlinear — i.e., outputs or responses are not proportional to inputs or forcings across the entire range of the latter. While there are situations where geomorphologists may restrict themselves to spatial or temporal scales where linearity obtains, in many geomorphic problems nonlinearity cannot be circumvented. The sources and causes of nonlinearity in geology, physical geography, and hydrology, and the prevalence of nonlinearity have been thoroughly reviewed in previous work, by both this author (Phillips, 1992, Phillips, 1999, Phillips, 2003a, Phillips, 2005) and others (Christofoletti, 1998, Werner, 1999, Dearing and Zolitschka, 1999, Sivakumar, 2000, Sivakumar, 2004, Thomas, 2001, Hergarten, 2002, Sparks, 2003, Zehe and Blöschl, 2004).

Nonlinear systems are not all, or always, complex, and even those which can be chaotic are not chaotic under all circumstances. Conversely, complexity can arise due to factors other than nonlinear dynamics. Given this, and the important implications of dynamical instability and chaos (see below), it is advantageous for geoscientists be able to detect chaos in geomorphic systems, to distinguish chaos from other types of irregularity, inconstancy, and complexity.

Section snippets

Instability and chaos

Nonlinearity admits the possibility of dynamical instability and chaos, the equivalence of which has been demonstrated elsewhere in both mathematical (Wiggins, 1990, Zaslavsky et al., 1991) and earth science (Phillips, 1992, Phillips, 1999) contexts. Chaos is common in earth surface systems, but such systems are not all, or always, chaotic. Indeed, many appear to have both stable, non-chaotic modes and unstable, chaotic modes (Phillips, 1999, Phillips, 2005).

Geomorphic systems are

Instability vs. new equilibria

Over the long temporal and broad spatial scales characteristic of many geomorphic problems, it may be difficult to distinguish between changes in system state which represent chaotic sensitivity to small perturbations in nonequilibrium systems, and relaxation to new equilibrium states. This distinction is discussed below.

The most fundamental environmental changes are not merely quantitative variations in specific parameters, but qualitative shifts in system state. The difference is typified by,

Chaos detection in temporal and spatial data

The intrinsic and exploratory values of models and abstract theory notwithstanding, to be useful in geomorphology any theoretical or methodological construct must ultimately answer questions arising from field observations or generate field-testable hypotheses. Thus methods for analyzing chaotic behavior applicable strictly to models, as opposed to empirical data or observations, are not considered. However, as noted earlier, many of the techniques described below are useful for field-based

Chaos in historical sequences

Rather than a long numerical time sequence, historical data in geomorphology more often consists of reconstructions (qualitative or quantitative) at relatively few (sometimes just two) points or slices of time. “Traditional” chaos detection methods based on temporal or spatial series are not applicable. However, by conceptualizing stable vs. unstable dynamics in geomorphically relevant terms such as convergent vs. divergent evolution, chaos can be detected in historical data.

Chaos detection

The techniques for detecting chaos described above are applicable to different types of data and problems — thus no single case study can illustrate them all. Geomorphic examples of applications of time series analysis, phase space plots, spatial signatures, variability within elementary areas, QASA, and landscape entropy are already available in the literature, as cited earlier (4.1 Time series analysis, 4.2 Phase space plots, 4.3 Spatial signatures, 4.4 Variability within elementary areas,

Discussion and conclusions

Though the illustrative examples are weighted toward cases suggesting instability and chaos, there is no intent here to make a case for the relative importance or prevalence of chaotic vs. non-chaotic systems-indeed, it is worth reiterating that many geomorphic systems have both chaotic and non-chaotic modes, and that (in)stability is emergent and scale-contingent. The point is that geomorphic systems can be chaotic, and in many cases it is important to be able to determine whether, or the

Acknowledgements

Constructive criticism by two anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts led to a much different and improved final version.

References (71)

  • M.T. Rosenstein et al.

    A practical method for calculating largest Lyapunov exponents from small data sets

    Physica D

    (1993)
  • B. Sivakumar

    Chaos theory in hydrology: important issues and interpretations

    J. Hydrol.

    (2000)
  • B. Sivakumar

    A phase-space reconstruction approach to prediction of suspended sediment concentration in rivers

    J. Hydrol.

    (2002)
  • B. Sivakumar

    Chaos theory in geophysics: past, present, and future

    Chaos, Solitons Fractals

    (2004)
  • R.S.J. Sparks

    Forecasting volcanic eruptions

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (2003)
  • M.F. Thomas

    Landscape sensitivity in time and space—an introduction

    Catena

    (2001)
  • V.R. Baker

    Conversing with the earth: the geological approach to understanding

  • P. Bishop

    Griffith Taylor and the southeast Australia highlands: issues of data sources and testability in interpretations of long-term drainage history and landscape evolution

    Aust. Geogr.

    (1998)
  • J.H. Bretz

    Dynamic equilibrium and the Ozark land forms

    Am. J. Sci.

    (1962)
  • P.A. Brewer et al.

    Planform cyclicity in an unstable reach: complex fluvial response to environmental change

    Earth Surf. Process. Landf.

    (1998)
  • D. Brunsden et al.

    Landscape sensitivity and change

    Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr.

    (1979)
  • A. Christofoletti

    Noções básica para a compreensáo da establidade e mudanças nos sistemas geograficos

    Ciênc. Geogr.

    (1998)
  • W.E.H. Culling

    Ergodicity, entropy, and dimension in the soil-covered landscape

    Trans. Jpn. Geo. Union

    (1987)
  • W.E.H. Culling

    Dimension and entropy in the soil-covered landscape

    Earth Surf. Process. Landf.

    (1988)
  • J.A. Dearing et al.

    System dynamics and environmental change: an exploratory study of Holocene lake sediments at Holzmaar, Germany

    The Holocene

    (1999)
  • J.K. Elliott

    An investigation of the change in surface roughness through time on the foreland of the Austre Okstindbreen, north Norway

    Comput. Geosci.

    (1989)
  • M. Eppes et al.

    Spatial variability of soils developing on basalt flows in the Potrillo volcanic field: prelude to a soil chronosequence study

    Earth Surf. Process. Landf.

    (1999)
  • B.L. Foster et al.

    Dynamic and static views of succession: testing the descriptive power of the chronosequence approach

    Plant Ecol.

    (2000)
  • R. Frodeman

    Geological reasoning: geology as an interpretive and historical science

    Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.

    (1995)
  • M. Ghil et al.

    Advanced spectral methods for climate time series

    Rev. Geophys.

    (2002)
  • B. Gomez et al.

    Deterministic uncertainty in bedload transport

    J. Hydraul. Eng.

    (1999)
  • K.M. Gregory et al.

    Tectonic and climatic significance of a late Eocene low-relief, high-level geomorphic surface, Colorado

    J. Geophys. Res.

    (1994)
  • Y. Gunnell et al.

    The influence of rock hardness and divergent weathering on the interpretation of apatite fission track denudation rates

    Z. Geomorphol.

    (2000)
  • S. Harrison

    The problem with landscape

    Geography

    (1999)
  • S. Hergarten

    Self-Organized Criticality in Earth Systems

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text