Storytelling in Earth sciences: The eight basic plots

Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Earth-Science Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev

Storytelling in Earth sciences: The eight basic plots Jonathan Phillips Department of Geography, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506–0027, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 31 July 2012 Accepted 21 September 2012 Available online 29 September 2012 Keywords: Storytelling Earth science Plot Narrative Scientific communication

a b s t r a c t Reporting results and promoting ideas in science in general, and Earth science in particular, is treated here as storytelling. Just as in literature and drama, storytelling in Earth science is characterized by a small number of basic plots. Though the list is not exhaustive, and acknowledging that multiple or hybrid plots and subplots are possible in a single piece, eight standard plots are identified, and examples provided: cause-and-effect, genesis, emergence, destruction, metamorphosis, convergence, divergence, and oscillation. The plots of Earth science stories are not those of literary traditions, nor those of persuasion or moral philosophy, and deserve separate consideration. Earth science plots do not conform those of storytelling more generally, implying that Earth scientists may have fundamentally different motivations than other storytellers, and that the basic plots of Earth Science derive from the characteristics and behaviors of Earth systems. In some cases preference or affinity to different plots results in fundamentally different interpretations and conclusions of the same evidence. In other situations exploration of additional plots could help resolve scientific controversies. Thus explicit acknowledgement of plots can yield direct scientific benefits. Consideration of plots and storytelling devices may also assist in the interpretation of published work, and can help scientists improve their own storytelling. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2. 3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Storytelling in Earth sciences . . The eight basic plots of Earth Science 3.1. Cause and effect . . . . . 3.2. Genesis . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Emergence . . . . . . . . 3.4. Metamorphosis . . . . . 3.5. Destruction . . . . . . . 3.6. Convergence . . . . . . . 3.7. Divergence . . . . . . . . 3.8. Oscillation . . . . . . . . 4. Plots, evidence, and interpretations 4.1. Stream longitudinal profiles 4.2. Regolith thickness . . . . 4.3. Other examples . . . . . 5. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 154 155 156 156 157 157 157 157 158 158 158 158 159 159 159 160 160

1. Introduction

E-mail address: [email protected]. 0012-8252/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2012.09.005

Communicating the results of geoscience research is analyzed here as a form of storytelling. The notion of scientific storytelling can be applied to experimental, theoretical, and model-based work, but is especially

154

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

relevant to field-based sciences, where the irreducible effects of geographical and historical contingency make it inevitable that some local, idiosyncratic knowledge (as well as applicable laws and generalizations) is necessary for understanding. Just as universally applicable laws and principles are inadequate, by themselves, for full understanding of Earth surface systems, purely descriptive work is of limited value beyond the immediate study area (this is sometimes denigrated as “just” or “mere” storytelling; as will become clear I do not consider storytelling an inferior part of science). Most geoscientists would probably agree that the best research is both fully grounded in theory and universal principles, and attentive to local geographical and historical details. I have previously advocated cultivating these links by treating laws and generalities as constraints on the outcomes of contingent processes and interactions, and by treating local, contingent factors as the context for the manifestation of universal laws and generalizations (Phillips, 2006a, 2007a,b). This paper is intended to explore another way of tying the local, idiosyncratic stories of specific places, situations, and phenomena together with more broadly (ideally universally) applicable concepts and principles. Specifically, the goal is to see whether Earth science stories share any common narrative or expository structures (plots), and whether identifying these provides any insight into Earth system sciences (and their component and allied disciplines) themselves, or into scientific practice. This attention to storytelling, broadly defined, does not advocate a social constructivist view, or question the utility of any particular set of norms for conducting science or communicating results and ideas. I have no wish to engage arguments that scientific stories are just another narrative, or that scientists manipulate observations and data via storytelling (though certainly that happens, just as it does in social sciences, humanities, politics, business, and other forms of discourse). Neither am I attempting to deny all relevance to social constructivist views, or deny the presence of epistemic communities in Earth science; I merely acknowledge that these issues are beyond the scope of this paper (and my own interests and expertise). Neither does this paper address debates in the philosophy of science and in geology over the role of narrative in scientific explanation (e.g., Hempel, 1942; Danto, 1985; Lennox, 1985; Schumm, 1991; Cronon, 1992; Dodick and Argamon, 2006). Rather, this paper considers any account of scientific results to be a story, and seeks to identify common devices (plots) used in these stories. The hope is that Earth scientists recognize—and perhaps even embrace—our role as storytellers, so that we can more effectively use (and evaluate) storytelling to advance our science. The plots I discuss are all compatible with traditional scientific, naturalist metanarratives, and I am not supporting (or otherwise engaging) constructionism, some of which strikes many geoscientists as essentially nihilistic. The attention to stories—and later in this paper, multiple plots assigned to the same observations—is not to suggest that Earth science has not discovered real structures and processes. Rather, when data permit more than one interpretation, narrative, or plot, geoscientists do not retreat to explanatory agnosticism. Instead, we may often prefer one plot over another for reasons not necessarily inherent in the data or observations. Several motivations led to this work. First, rather than treating place-based and historical research as a necessary evil, precursor to more sophisticated work, or “mere storytelling,” I along with others (e.g., Tausch et al., 1993; Parker, 1995; Shermer, 2002; Ernoult et al., 2006; Goldberg et al., 2008; Glasser et al., 2009; Gustavsson and Kolstrup, 2009; Brierley, 2010; Fryirs and Brierley, 2010; Marston, 2010; Splinter et al., 2010; Pattison and Lane, 2011) have increasingly come to feel that local/contingent factors must be placed on equal footing with universal factors in geoscience research. Thus, rather than attempt to distance ourselves from the storytelling aspects of geoscience, we should perhaps acknowledge and maybe even cultivate them. Second, Smith (1996) showed that a relatively small number of specific tropes and modes of appeal characterize publications in

geography, suggesting that it is not unreasonable to search for commonalities in research communication in other fields. Finally, the identification by literature scholars of a small number of basic plots (c.f. Booker, 2006) that characterize fictional storytelling led me to wonder whether there are analogous basic plots in scientific storytelling. There have long been suggestions that there exist a finite number of basic plots in drama and literature. The most extensive analysis is Booker's (2006) Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. These are listed in Table 1, to give a broad sense of the level of generality in Booker's framework. The notion of basic plots in drama and literature goes back at least to Polti (1916), who outlined 36 “dramatic situations.” Polti indicated that his list was based on one from Goethe, who in turn credited Carlo Gozzi (1720–1806). Booker (2006) held that these can be accommodated within his seven basic plots. Plots also play a major role in scenarios developed in planning, business, economics, government, politics, and military affairs. Schwartz (1991); see also Ogilvy and Schwartz, 1998) identified three standard plots most common and most useful in scenario building, and five other relatively common plots applicable to special situations. The three standard plots are winners and losers (who or what profits or benefits, or suffers and declines?), challenge or crisis and response, and evolution, which Schwartz (1991) depicts as gradual change in a consistent direction. The five others are revolution (rapid and drastic change), cycles, infinite possibility, the “lone ranger” (individual vs. “the system” scenarios), and “my generation” (evolutionary or revolutionary change arising from social and demographic shifts). Ogilvy and Schwartz (1998) later added “tectonic shifts,” referring to “structural alterations which produce dramatic flare-ups,” that in turn cause “major discontinuities.”

2. Storytelling in Earth sciences Any Earth science communication may be treated as a form of storytelling, but the more obviously and explicitly narrative forms of communication (i.e., those that most obviously resemble fictional stories in structure and form) have often been denigrated by scientists as, at best, a preliminary or ancillary exercise preceding or accompanying purportedly more valid science (cf. Baker, 1999; Harrison, 1999, 2001; Cleland, 2001). The strongest criticism is reserved for so-called “just-so stories,” named for Kipling's famous collection of children's stories, which fancifully “explain” the origin of animal characteristics. In geology, biology, and anthropology, the term is used to characterize supposedly unfalsifiable and unsatisfactory narrative explanations (e.g., Gould, 1997; Berkenbusch and Rowden, 2003). Table 1 The seven basic plots of literature and drama, with examples, according to Booker (2006). Basic plot

Examples

Overcoming the monster (and the thrilling escape from death) Rags to riches The quest

Perseus, Beowulf, War of the Worlds, Star Wars-A New Hope

Voyage and return Comedy1 Tragedy Rebirth

Cinderella, Aladdin, Jane Eyre, Great Expectations The Odyssey, Watership Down, Pilgrim's Progress, King Solomon's Mines Orpheus, Alice in Wonderland, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Peter Rabbit Aristophanes, War & Peace, Pride and Prejudice, Much Ado About Nothing MacBeth, Carmen, Bonnie & Clyde, Anna Karenina Sleeping Beauty, A Christmas Carol, The Secret Garden, Peer Gynt

1 The comedy metaplot is considered in its classical sense by Booker as building an absurdly complex set of problems which are unexpectedly resolved at the end, and is not limited to plots involving humor.

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

Lennox (1985) analyzed several of Charles Darwin's narratives in the Origin of the Species that have been characterized as just-so stories. He showed the legitimate role such stories play in Darwin's work and, more broadly, pointed out that exactly the same kinds of stories are presented nowadays via simulation models. The latter are generally accepted, to varying degrees, as valid forms of argument by Earth and environmental scientists, but Lennox (1985) noted that the difference between these and Darwin's imaginary narratives is primarily the tools used for storytelling. Shermer's (2002) model of contingent-necessity, developed in the context of evolutionary biology, biogeography, and paleontology, holds that “in the development of any historical sequence the role of contingencies in the construction of necessities is accentuated in the early stages and attenuated in the latter” (p. 301). Several corollaries include one that “the actions of any historical sequence are generally postdictable, but not specifically predictable” (p. 301). Thus, while many chains of events could have occurred, only one did occur, and thus it is perhaps inevitable that some postdictions or reconstructions will have the appearance of just-so stories. It could be argued, in fact, that in some situations historical narratives are a higher form of explanation than alternatives, because the narratives deal with what actually did happen, rather than deductions as to what could have happened. Despite this, there exists apparent dissatisfaction with narratives in Earth sciences, which appears to derive largely from applying standards and practices of experimental laboratory sciences to historical sciences. The latter have different—but equally valid—norms for both investigations and communications (Baker, 1999; Cleland, 2001; Dodick and Argamon, 2006). This paper is hardly the first analysis of storytelling in the geosciences. Smith's (1996) insightful analysis of geographical rhetoric has already been mentioned. Cronon (1992) has argued eloquently for the role of stories and narrative in environmental history; many of his arguments apply to the historical Earth and environmental sciences. French (1994) contended that the development of proto-scientific natural history in ancient Greece and Rome was not driven by what we would now recognize as scientific goals. Rather, ancient natural history was undertaken and deployed to serve a variety of philosophical, moral, practical, cultural, and political goals, and only rarely by scientific aims. Further, French (1994) showed that communications about natural history in ancient times commonly took an explicit form of narrative stories. Beer's (1983) book on plots and storytelling in Darwin's Origin of the Species and its influence on fiction is considered a classic in studies of Victorian-era literature. Darwin used many narratives of “imaginary” situations to argue his points; these were analyzed as thought experiments and stories by Lennox (1985). Dodick and Argamon (2006) conducted a linguistic analysis of scientific texts, showing that the distinctive methods of historical sciences such as geology and paleontology are systematically reflected in scientific language. Karasti et al. (2002) examined the role of scientific storytelling within scientific institutions and cultures, in this case the long-term ecological research (LTER) network. They did not, however, address the role of plots and narratives in communication of research results. Several geologists and soil scientists have noted the poetic qualities of Earth sciences, and the mutual influences of the artistic and scientific among individuals practicing both Earth science and poetry (Blackwood, 1994; Belasky, 2009; Meriaux, 2009). From a historical perspective, separation of arts and literature from science is a relatively recent phenomenon. For instance, though Wolfgang Goethe is best known as a poet and novelist, the 18th century German polymath also made significant scientific contributions. Despite an ill-fated dispute with Newton on the optics of color, Goethe made contributions to biology that were influential to Charles Darwin, and in Earth science, had the largest private collection of minerals in Europe (he is the namesake for the iron oxyhydroxide mineral goethite). According to his biographer Williams (1998), “Goethe's holistic

155

worldview saw no radical break between literary and scientific expression” (p. 98). Williams (1998) outlined, for example, how Goethe's work on metamorphosis in plants and animals is paralleled by poetry outlining principles of metamorphosis. It was in geology, however, that Goethe “arguably acquired his highest level of scientific expertise, able to hold his own with the likes of Alexander von Humboldt and Abraham Werner” (Williams, 1998: 268), though few of his views stood the test of time. Here, too, the lines of artistic and scientific expression are blurred, e.g., in his arguments for granite as Earth's “primal rock,” in the form of a two-part essay in a style similar to his sturm and drang fictional prose. Goethe is from an era, however, when it was more common for intellectuals to be well known for accomplishments in both the arts and science, and the lines between them less certain. In Goethe's Faust, for example, Act II of the Second Part contains a dialog between Seismos and the Sphinxes, who personified the positions of the Plutonists and Neptunists respectively, the main camps in the major geological debate of the day. And in Act IV, Goethe through the voice of Faust identifies himself with the Neptunist camp, while Mephistopheles speaks for the Huttonian/Plutonist view (Adams, 1938: 248–249). Certainly many 20th and 21st century geoscientists have or had interests and accomplishments in the arts, and no doubt in many cases these activities inform each other. However, they are kept generally separate. One notable 20th century exception is the Russian “Pocheveniks” (poets of the soil, or “soil-heads”), who comprised what has been called the geological school of 20th century poetry. The Pocheveniks were a group of St. Petersburg (Leningrad) based professional geologists (ranging from field technicians to research geologists), many of whom achieved high levels of public acclaim and literary credibility as poets, and whose poetry was strongly influenced by geology and geological fieldwork (Belasky, 2009). Despite occasional literary allusions, and more than a few clever and/or profound turns of phrase, the plots of Earth Science are not those of drama and fiction, or of scenario building. Also, given the fundamental differences between field-based historical sciences and experimental sciences, it is unlikely that standard plots of Earth science are the same as those of other sciences. With that in mind, we turn toward an attempt to identify the basic plots of Earth science. 3. The eight basic plots of Earth Science Based on my reading of the literature (inevitably biased toward areas where I have research and teaching experience: geomorphology, pedology, hydrology, and Earth system science) I propose below eight basic plots. I did not detect any direct analogies from works of fiction and entertainment to works of science, and did not apply methods of literary criticism. Before proceeding, I acknowledge that (in common with the literary typologies): (1) The categories are by no means mutually exclusive. Mixed or hybrid types are not uncommon; (2) The categories are not exhaustive. While the intent is that most stories can be readily fit into one or more of the basic plot types, there will inevitably be exceptions; (3) The plot types could be subdivided almost indefinitely, depending on the level of detail and discrimination desired. This is a characteristic of most taxonomies, and in this case is probably inevitable, given the extraordinary variety of both Earth science phenomena, and of scientists/storytellers. Humanities scholars often make subtle distinctions between terms such as story, narrative, and plot (e.g. Abbott, 2002). Here the term “plot” is used to refer to the storyline, plan, scheme, or main story of geoscience reports. Likewise, stories are sometimes considered to refer to an account of an event or series of events, but here I use a broader definition that includes any account designed to interest or instruct (or in other contexts, amuse) the reader.

156

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

I have also attempted to be reflective in this exercise, and do not exempt my own work from the characterization of storytelling. Thus in each category I have identified any of my own writings that could be considered an example. The eight basic plots are summarized in Table 2, and discussed in more detail below.

3.1. Cause and effect How do Earth systems respond to disturbances, changes in boundary conditions, or external inputs of matter and energy? A straightforward answer to this type of question is the basis of the cause and effect or stimulus and response plotline. These stories may concern the way whole systems or parts thereof respond to external changes, or the influence of processes on patterns and forms. Because Earth systems experience changes and disturbances at essentially all time scales, the cause–effect plot is a fundamental motif in geosciences and the most common of the standard storylines. In addition to being the most common plot, there are often cause-and-effect subplots within the other story types below. This type of plot includes unequivocal stimulus–response storylines, where the relationship between changes or fluxes on one hand and responses on the other is explicit. These storylines have at least two fundamental variants. One starts with a process, disturbance, or forcing, and seeks to determine the result. For example, how does climate change affect river sediment flux (Inman and Jenkins, 1999)? The other starts with an outcome or state of a system and seeks to determine the processes or forces responsible. For instance, what are the major controls of global variations in river sediment loads (Ludwig and Probst, 1998)? Most research on process mechanics, dynamics, and phenomenology is also characterized by an implicit, if not an explicit, cause–effect

plot. Earth system processes are the result of applications of energy, force, work, and power, which in turn drive processes (uplift, erosion, weathering, sediment transport, sedimentation, lithification, etc.). G.K. Gilbert (1877, 1914) is often credited as a pioneer in formalizing this approach in surficial geology, geomorphology, and Quaternary studies. Many precursors could be identified, though, at least as far back as portions of Hutton's (1795) seminal Theory of the Earth, and De Saussure (1796), who interpreted the origin of the Alps as the result of folding and compressional stress. An even earlier example of the process approach, as cited by Adams (1938), is Lemery's (1700) experiments on the origins of earthquakes. Another variant is the “factorial” study, whereby the phenomenon of interest is described, modeled, or interpreted on the basis of multiple controlling factors, though the latter may include relatively static or passive controls as well as processes or external changes. The best known is Jenny's (1941) factorial model of soil formation, but the approach is common in both implicit and explicit forms in several areas of Earth and environmental sciences. Some examples framed explicitly in factorial terms include Pope et al.'s (1995) work on variations in weathering, and Huggett's (1995) “brash” model of geoecosystems. The framework and the factorial variant of the cause–effect plot ultimately derives from Dokuchaev's (1883, 1899) work on the geographical zonation of soils, vegetation, landforms, and geological features. Complications and complexities in cause-and-effect connections identified by Schumm (1991) could be considered the genesis of several of the other plots below. Schumm (1991), for instance, identified convergence and divergence as problems in relating causes and processes in Earth science, and some of the other problems he outlined are readily interpreted as suggesting alternatives to causeand-effect plots. A recent example of my own work using a cause–effect plot seeks to determine the factors causing Holocene and historical avulsions in the San Antonio River delta, Texas (Phillips, 2012). 3.2. Genesis

Table 2 The eight basic plots of Earth science. Plot Cause and effect

Description

Describes/explains relationships between processes, mechanisms, forces, fluxes, disturbances, boundary conditions, environmental controls, etc. on one hand; and responses, forms, outputs, outcomes, or system states on the other. Genesis Origin stories describing or explaining the creation or development of specific features or phenomena. Emergence Explanation of observed phenomena as emergent properties or outcomes. Metamorphosis Accounts of wholesale reorganization, rearrangement, or modification of Earth systems or phenomena. Destruction Describes/explains loss, disappearance, degradation. Convergence

Divergence

Oscillation

Relationship to other plots Most common type of Earth science plot; common subplot in other plots.

Frequently combined with other plots or employing latter as subplots. Often deployed as alternative explanation of convergence.

Sometimes applied to changes larger, faster than can be accommodated by cause– effect. Frequently combined with other plots or employing latter as subplots. Other plotlines often Stories of development, evolution, or history postulating developed as alternatives when convergence narratives or emphasizing convergent paths toward similar outcomes. are unsatisfactory. Occurs as subplot in oscillation Stories of development, evolution, or history postulating and other plots. or emphasizing divergent paths toward different outcomes. Accounts of cyclical or recurring May be similar to convergence transitions. plots.

Genesis stories in Earth science are concerned with the origin of phenomena. The key research question involves the creation or origin of a specific feature, or a specific type or class of features. The most obvious examples are studies of well known but unexplained phenomena, locally or regionally anomalous features, or features whose origin is disputed or controversial. Genesis stories are by no means limited to these types, however. Some are histories or geographies that may not involve mysteries or oddities; others are straightforward explanations of the origins of particular types of, e.g., landforms, soils, or sedimentary structures. The origin of the iconic Uluru (Ayers Rock) in central Australia, the largest monolith on the planet, for instance, has been the subject of several genesis stories. Stuwe (1994), for example, explored two scenarios: pinned boundary conditions at the modern base of Uluru, with rapid denudation on all sides occurring before the shaping of the landform, and boundaries of the rock incising linearly over time during the entire geomorphic evolution. Twidale and colleagues (e.g. Bourne and Twidale, 2000; Twidale, 2002; Twidale and Campbell, 2005) have championed a theory based on double planation, whereby the form was first developed by weathering beneath a regolith cover, and subsequently exposed by erosion. Less controversial is the origin story of Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, the world's longest cave, where the narrative developed by Palmer (1989, 1991) is, at least in its general outlines, widely accepted. A third well-known example is the channeled scablands of eastern Washington, USA, whose origin was subject to much uncertainty and controversy through the mid-20th century. The genesis of the scablands, now attributed to a glacial outburst flood as proposed in a series of publications by J Harlan Bretz's, is described by Baker and Nummedal (1978). Genesis plots are also readily identifiable in attempts to explain the origins of regional anomalies. The coastal plain of the southeastern U.S.,

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

for instance, particularly in the Carolinas, is home to features for which no generally accepted explanation exists. Carolina Bays are shallow, elliptical depressions with a consistent shape and orientation. An early study is Prouty (1952), but numerous explanations have been proposed, right up to the present (Rodriguez et al., 2012). Explanations include extraterrestrial impacts, peat fires, aeolian processes, karst and karst-like processes, but no explanation has yet emerged that is consistent with all the aspects of Carolina Bay distributions, orientation, morphology, drainage, mineralogy, and stratigraphic relationships. Genesis storylines do not necessarily deal with disputed or unusual features, however, and they may be regional (focusing on origin issues for a given place, region, or landscape), or generic, dealing with genesis of specific features or phenomena. A regional example is Moore et al.'s (2009) study of landscape evolution in Zimbabwe. A generic example is the origin of anastamosing river channel patterns, reviewed by Makaske (2001). Examples of my own work in this category include genetic studies of the origin of vertical texture contrast soils, and of soil layering more generally (Phillips, 2004, 2007c; Phillips and Lorz, 2008).

3.3. Emergence Stories of emergence concern patterns arising from a multiple interactions among system components. Emergent properties and behaviors cannot be predicted from, and are not necessarily preordained by, the laws governing interactions within the system, or by the structure and function of the system. Emergent phenomena are in essence byproducts of the rules governing systems, rather than direct outcomes of those rules. The general concept of emergent phenomena in geosciences was discussed by Harrison (2001) and Phillips (2011). Weinstock (2010) outlined a general perspective on emergence as the source of form in both natural and human systems, and included ecological systems, climate, and surface forms and topography among his examples. In some instances emergence plots could be considered to overlap, or to be a subset of, genesis stories. This is most clearly the case when genesis of a feature or phenomenon is the primary concern, and the emergent properties simply part of the genesis story. However, in some cases the primary concern is with the emergent phenomena themselves, which in my view justifies a separate plotline. While many older (pre-1990s) studies show evidence of emergent phenomena, it was not until more recently that the language of, and explicit concern with, emergence developed. Thus the examples focus on work that explicitly references emergent properties. Much of the work on emergence is based on self-organization, nonlinear dynamical systems, and other aspects of complexity theory, and is concerned with the development of regular and/or complex patterns and forms from simpler “rules.” Rodriguez-Iturbe and Rinaldo (1997) treatise on formation of river channel and drainage basin patterns is a detailed example. Coco et al. (2000) showed that models with simple rules can produce emergent patterns of beach forms, and Gomez et al. (2002) explained properties of sediments derived from landslides as an emergent property of self-organization in landsliding. Emergent pattern formation has been described in a number of phenomena, including chemical weathering (Nahon, 1991); periglacial patterned ground (Hallet, 1990), banded vegetation and associated soillandform patterns in semi-arid areas (e.g., Barbier et al., 2006), pedogenesis (Targulian and Krasilnikov, 2007), soil-vegetationlandform patterns in coastal dunes (Stallins, 2001), and many others. My own work in this vein has focused on posing alternative explanations for fluvial phenomena generally considered to be steady-state equilibria. These stories are based on features such as longitudinal profiles, branching channel networks, and apparent adjustments of sediment transport capacity to sediment supply as emergent outcomes of a few basic rules that do not predict or preordain “equilibrium” forms (Phillips and Lutz, 2008; Phillips, 2010a, 2011).

157

3.4. Metamorphosis Accounts of the wholesale reorganization, rearrangement, or modification of Earth systems are stories of metamorphosis, such as landscape metamorphosis driven by glacial/interglacial cycles. Besides the obvious examples of biological metamorphosis and of metamorphic rock, explicit use of the term in geosciences is probably best known in fluvial geomorphology, via the concept of river metamorphosis, the wholesale change in river characteristics, such as a transition from a meandering to a braided planform (e.g., Schumm, 1969; Marston et al., 1995). Invasion of grasslands by woody plants is a global phenomenon, and as it often both involves and influences a variety of geomorphological, hydrological, pedological, and ecological processes, the stories of these transformations are often stories of landscape metamorphosis (see review by Naito and Cairns, 2011). Some sedimentary facies models are also characterized by metamorphosis plots outlining the environmental changes causing, and reflected by, sedimentary units. Coastal and estuarine deposits are a good example (see reviews by Dalrymple et al., 1992; Cattaneo and Steel, 2003). Over longer time scales, metamorphosis—and thus the associated plot—characterizes the evolution of various aspects of Earth systems. The evolution of Earth's atmosphere is essentially a story of long-term metamorphosis; a more specific example is metamorphosis of the soil cover accompanying evolutionary shifts in plants and animals at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary (Retallack, 1994, 2004). My own metamorphosis stories are characteristic of another common variety, explicating landscape transformations driven by human agency (e.g., Phillips, 1997). 3.5. Destruction Destruction stories are accounts of the (not necessarily total) loss, disappearance, or degradation of phenomena. Studies of extinction events and environmental degradation are obvious examples. Losses and throughputs of matter and energy play a key role in many Earth processes, and are therefore included in many stories. The destruction plot is distinct in that a loss or diminution is the central focus. Recent studies of the decline of Arctic sea ice are a good example (e.g., Wang and Overland, 2009; Holland and Stroeve, 2011). Disappearance or degradation of a resource critical to humans is a common source of destruction plots. A classic example is Bennett's (1939) treatise on soil erosion and conservation in the United States. The destruction storyline is also common in coastal geomorphology, in describing net losses of coastal wetlands and shorelines in response to sea level rise and other forcings (e.g., Rosen, 1980; Walker et al., 1987; Feagin et al., 2005; Ericson et al., 2006). Destruction scenarios are also deployed in geoscience-based studies of social and economic disasters. Stahle and Dean (2011), for example, explored the potential role of climate extremes in such events in North America. Lowdermilk (1953) examined soil erosion as a cause in the decline of societies; a key theme of several subsequent works, including Montgomery (2007). Other destruction stories have sought to explain the absence of known or hypothesized features or sites from history or mythology. A fascinating if ultimately misguided example is Rudbeck's 2,500-page Atlantica, published in 1679, seeking to explain the disappearance of the lost city of Atlantis (King, 2005). My own destruction stories include examples of the soil erosion (Phillips, 1990) and coastal marsh loss (Phillips, 1986) genres. 3.6. Convergence Convergence and divergence stories outline the development, evolution, or history of phenomena. Convergence stories are accounts of development involving increasing similarity, decreasing differentiation,

158

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

and convergence toward common states or conditions. Convergence plots have traditionally dominated theories of Earth system evolution, from classic monotonic models of vegetation succession (Cowles, 1911; Clements, 1916) to the notion of development of mature zonal soils (Dokuchaev, 1899; Marbut, 1923), to Davis’ cycle of erosion (1902, 1932). The latter is, as the name implies, a cyclic concept, but applications of the theory typically focused on convergent topographic evolution towards the final stage of the cycle, a low-relief peneplain. More generally, downwasting, whereby ridges and summits experience net erosion and valleys and depressions net deposition, is a story of convergence, regardless of the conceptual framework. However, many other geoscience plots, including some proposed as alternatives to the ideas above, are also convergent. “Dynamic equilibrium” approaches to geomorphology are firmly based on a story of convergence toward a steady-state condition (Strahler, 1957; Hack, 1960). The application of self-organized criticality in geomorphology is presented in some cases as an emergence story, as described above. However, in other cases the emphasis is on convergence, in this case toward the “critical state,” such as the hillslope angle of repose or a particular channel network topology (e.g., Rigon et al., 1994; Hergarten and Neugebauer, 1998; Stolum, 1998; Hergarten, 2002). Conceptual frameworks involving a monotonic sequence of developmental stages are also convergence plots. Examples include the models of channel evolution following incision developed by Schumm et al. (1984) and Simon (1989) and widely applied in river management (Watson et al., 2002). 3.7. Divergence In divergence stories differentiation increases and similarity decreases over time. Biological evolution is often presented as a story of divergence, with increasing differentiation of taxa over time (on average) from common ancestors. Just as convergence is exemplified by downwasting, divergence is represented by topographic evolution involving increasing relief, such as fluvial dissection of a plateau. Examples of divergent stories of landscape dissection include Schumm (1956), Harvey (1978), Gilchrist et al. (1994), and Ibáñez (1994). Other divergence stories involve increasing landscape differentiation in the story of increasingly complex spatial patterns and mosaics over time. These include studies of marsh response to sea level rise (e.g., Reed, 1990; Orson and Howes, 1992). Similarly, there exist a number of divergence stories involving regolith and soil landscapes (e.g., Thompson, 1983; Barrett and Schaetzl, 1993; Price, 1994; Dubroeucq and Volkoff, 1998). Niche differentiation involves divergence, so studies of this process in both ecology and paleoecology often involve divergence stories (e.g., Ausich, 1980; McFadden, 1998; Schneider et al., 2004). Nonlinear dynamical systems approaches in the geosciences have increased the visibility of divergence narratives, because these approaches are more likely to identify phenomena associated with dynamical instability and chaos, both of which lead to divergent evolution. Examples include Slingerland (1981), Scheidegger (1983), Trofimov and Moskovkin (1984), and Marzocchi et al. (1997); see also reviews by Sivakumar (2004) and Phillips (2006b). Divergence due to instability and chaos has been the main plot in much of my work; earlier examples are synthesized in Phillips (1999). 3.8. Oscillation Reports of cycles and (regular or irregular) transitions between states or conditions are stories of oscillation. These may involve phase changes in a given location or system (e.g., aggradation vs. degradation in a river), or changes in the character of a substance or object through time and space (e.g., the carbon cycle). W.M. Davis's cycle of erosion is a well-known, classic example (though often treated as a convergence story; see above), as are the ocean/atmosphere transitions of ENSO

(El Nino-Southern Oscillation), and glacial/interglacial cycles of the Quaternary. Cyclicity plays a major role in geosciences, particularly via the rock cycle of geological sciences, and biogeochemical cycles (H2O, C, N, P, S, etc.) for Earth and environmental sciences more broadly. See Charlson et al. (1992), Schlesinger (2005), and Berner and Berner (2012) for examples and syntheses of biogeochemical cycling studies. Periods of apparent high and low levels of landscape change have been interpreted as cycles by some authors, resulting in oscillation-type stories. A good example is the k-cycle proposed by Butler (1959, 1982) to explain soil and landscape evolution in Australia on the basis of long periods of surface stability punctuated by episodes of denudation. Also developed in Australia is Warner's (1987a,b, 1992) notion of alternating flood- and drought-dominated regimes in river systems, subsequently applied by others (e.g., Erskine et al., 1992; Arnaud-Fassetta, 2002). Oscillation plots also figure strongly in coastal, estuarine, and coastal plain environments, where Quaternary sea-level oscillations have repeatedly changed base levels and accommodation space. This results, for example, in oscillations between flooding and ravinement surfaces, and between periods of incision and aggradation in rivers. These phenomena have been particularly well studied in the Gulf of Mexico region of North America (e.g., Fisk, 1944; Saucier and Fleetwood, 1970; Morton et al., 1996; Anderson and Rodgriguez, 2008). 4. Plots, evidence, and interpretations Though we recognize differences in storytelling skill, style, and details, we tend to think of stories as relatively immanent with respect to the message or outcomes, whether fictional (e.g., Little Red Riding Hood), historical (e.g., battle of Waterloo), or Earth science (e.g., global tectonics). However, consideration of Earth science stories in terms of different plots shows that the same facts or observations yield different implications or meanings in different plotlines. 4.1. Stream longitudinal profiles An example where different plots lead to different interpretations is the longitudinal profile of streams (a plot of channel bed elevation over distance). Many longitudinal profiles are concave upward, with steeper slopes in the upper and flatter slopes in the lower reaches. Traditionally a convergent plot has been employed, based on the notion that streams adjust so as to equilibrate sediment supply and transport capacity (a function of discharge and slope). The convergent plot holds that in the upper reaches, where discharge is lower, steeper slopes are required to transport the available sediment. As discharge increases, lower slopes are required, and profiles converge toward the smoothly concave-up profile (e.g., Gilbert, 1877; Davis, 1902; Mackin, 1948; Hack, 1957; Smith et al., 2000; Snyder et al., 2000; Roe et al., 2002; Duvall et al., 2004; Goldrick and Bishop, 2007). An emergent plot for explaining stream longitudinal profiles began emerging about five years ago, based on observations of deviations from the smoothly concave trend, skepticism over the steady-state assumptions underlying the convergent plot, and observations that simpler, emergent phenomena could produce the same result. In the emergent plot, concave profiles are a byproduct of a few basic principles of flow hydraulics that do not require balancing sediment supply and transport capacity and do not lead to any particular profile geometry (Harmar and Clifford, 2007; Larue, 2008; Phillips and Lutz, 2008; Phillips et al., 2010). Thus, the same evidence—a stream longitudinal profile, regardless of its concavity—might be evaluated very differently according to the convergent or emergent plots. A convergent story, for example, would likely view a convexity as a feature likely to be removed and smoothed as the system moves toward a graded state. An emergent perspective, by contrast, would not necessarily forecast removal of the convexity, but would interpret it as a local outcome of the basic physical principles in the context of reach specific environmental controls and history.

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

A social scientist colleague, commenting on an earlier draft of this paper, was struck by the “example of the stream longitudinal profile, where equally competent scientists presented with the same evidence strongly disagree as to the best interpretation/narration/plot. When two plots fit the evidence . . . and there is, nevertheless, a strong division among scientists (not just a general agreement that both plots are imperfect), it seems obvious that the judgment of the scientists is being influenced by something in addition to the evidence. The most probable explanation of such a division is that each side has a preference for the way the data is presented, or plotted.” He continued: “One group wants the world to be the kind of place in which plot number 1 is true, the other group wants the world to be the kind of place in which plot number 2 is true; the evidence alone is not sufficient to compel conviction, and so each group plunks for the plot it prefers.” The commenter stressed that this is “not suggesting that scientists are locked into an ideology or scheme, and that they will stick to their pet theories and plot preferences even in the teeth of the evidence. This is obviously false. Plot preferences are relevant only when the data admit to more than one interpretation.” 4.2. Regolith thickness A similar example relates to the concept of steady-state regolith thickness (see Phillips, 2010b). Dosseto et al. (2012), for instance, determined regolith formation rates based on lithogenic radionuclides. Because these values fell well within the band of observed and estimated rates of soil erosion and surface lowering, Dosseto et al. (2012) interpreted the evidence as suggesting a prevalence of steady-state, with regolith formation and removal rates approximately balanced. However, I see the same data as consistent with nonsteady-state, due to the several orders of magnitude in the variation of regolith formation rates. Since erosion rates may vary from negligible to extreme, it is inevitable (in my view) that any measurements or estimates of regolith formation rates will lie within those ranges. The very thick regoliths (≥ 15 m) found at the study sites used by Dosseto et al. (2012) also argue for non-steady-state in my interpretation (Phillips, 2010b). Plot preferences may perhaps help explain the fundamental difference of my interpretation of Dosseto et al.'s results (with respect to steady-state) with the authors’. My experience in field studies of regolith thickness (e.g. Phillips et al., 1996, 1999, 2005; Phillips and Marion, 2005) is tied to an interest in the spatial variability of soils and weathering profiles. Results indicate predominantly divergence-type plots, based on increasing variability of soil and regolith over time. Most empirical studies of regolith evolution (including Dosseto et al., 2012) are concerned primarily with other issues, and are characterized primarily by the plots of genesis (origin of a regolith cover or weathered mantle), metamorphosis (conversion of rock or parent material to soil and regolith), or oscillation, focusing on episodes of landscape stability and regolith thickening vs. episodes of regolith stripping). My analysis of genesis, metamorphosis, oscillation (and cause-andeffect) plots, synthesized in the context of a divergence metaplot, argues against steady-state regolith thickness as a normative condition (Phillips, 2010b, 2011). The same (type of) evidence, interpreted by someone with a preference for convergence plots, might result in the opposite interpretation (e.g., Dosseto et al., 2012). 4.3. Other examples The previous examples involve debates I am involved in, the advantage being that I can confidently assign the plot preferences of at least one side. Many geoscience controversies and debates could profitably be assessed in similar terms, however. As has already been acknowledged, many publications may involve multiple or hybrid plots. The examples above suggest that in many

159

cases the fundamental empirical story is told via a cause-and-effect, genesis, metamorphosis, or oscillation plot, whereas an additional plot, such as convergence, divergence, emergence, or destruction, guides the assignment of meaning and significance to the results. For example, a destruction plot based on the biblical flood of Noah once guided the interpretation of some sedimentary deposits and fossils. Subsequently, other metanarratives resulted in different interpretations of the same evidence. Similarly, oscillation and convergence plots associated with W.M. Davis’ (1902, 1922) cycle of erosion long influenced the interpretation of many erosion surfaces as relic or uplifted peneplains. Geologists not predisposed to the Davisian plotlines assigned entirely different meanings to the same geologic evidence. This example also shows, however, that different versions of the same type of plot can yield varying interpretations. Accordant summits have been viewed by some geologists, guided by a convergence plot of peneplanation, as evidence of uplifted former erosion surfaces. However, at least seven alternative explanations exist (see Palmquist, 1975; Beckinsale and Chorley, 1991; Ollier, 1995; Cui et al., 1999) and these multiple potential causes of accordant summits can also be characterized as a convergent metaplot. This shows that in some cases it is different specific plots, not the general type of plot, that is critical. 5. Concluding remarks Reporting of results and the promotion of ideas in science in general, and Earth science in particular, is an exercise in storytelling. Just as in literature and drama, storytelling in Earth science is characterized by a small number of basic plots that characterize most of the stories. While recognizing that the list is not all-inclusive, and that multiple plots and subplots are possible in a single piece, eight standard plots were identified: cause-and-effect, genesis, emergence, destruction, metamorphosis, convergence, divergence, and oscillation. The plots of Earth science stories are not those of literary traditions, nor those of persuasion or moral philosophy, and deserve separate consideration. Because Earth science plots are not contrived to conform or relate to those of storytelling more generally, this implies that Earth scientists may have fundamentally different motivations than other storytellers. Further, it suggests that the basic plots of Earth Science derive from the characteristics and behaviors of Earth systems themselves, and are therefore fundamental to the latter. These implications deserve further attention. Examples exist, such as in cases of stream longitudinal profiles and regolith thickness presented here, of problems where adherence or affinity to different plots results in fundamentally different interpretations and conclusions of the same evidence. This suggests that consideration of alternative plots can result in new and different readings of field evidence. Testing and comparing the alternatives in turn advances Earth science by either producing a better understanding, reinforcing the original interpretation, or identifying uncertainties. Thus, explicit acknowledgement of plots can yield direct scientific benefits. Consideration of plots and storytelling devices may also assist in the interpretation of published work. Scientists/authors likely have predilections toward certain plot types. While I was able to pigeonhole some of my own work into several of the plots, I have a predilection for emergence and divergence stories. Others exhibit clear preferences for other plots. Recognizing this facilitates critical analysis by providing alternative plots for the reader/critic to apply to the work being evaluated. Recognition of scientific stories and plots may also help scientists improve their own storytelling. It is all too easy to become formulaic in one's communication, and consideration of various plot lines may help one to break out of a rut or to identify more effective ways to communicate a particular idea. In a practical sense, certain plots and storytelling norms are more or less acceptable in specific journals. Genesis stories, for instance, may be quite welcome and common in journals

160

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

with a strong historical focus, but much more difficult to publish in journals with a modeling or process-mechanics emphasis. These trends are dynamic. Emergence and divergence stories were common in only a few theoretically oriented journals in the 1980s and early 1990s, for example, and rare in mainstream or more empirically focused outlets. Now divergence and emergence plots appear in a much broader range of the literature, including mainstream Earth science journals. Again, I stress that attention to storytelling need not imply a social constructivist view, or doubts in regard to the utility of any particular set of norms for conducting science or communicating results and ideas. Neither am I advocating the de-emphasis of other forms of storytelling for more explicitly narrative forms (though I do argue that the latter are not necessarily inferior). Rather, the hope is that Earth scientists will recognize—and embrace—our role as storytellers, so that we can more effectively use (and evaluate) storytelling to advance our science. Acknowledgements Jonathan Smith provided a very thorough and insightful critique of an earlier version of this paper, and Chris Van Dyke, Tony Stallins, and Daehyun Kim provided valuable comments and encouragement to proceed with this work. Vic Baker also gave a very thoughtful review. References Abbott, H.P., 2002. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge University Press, New York. Adams, F.D., 1938. The Birth and Development of the Geological Sciences. Dover, New York. Anderson, J.B., Rodgriguez, A.B. (Eds.), 2008. Response of Upper Gulf Coast Estuaries to Holocene Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America Special Paper 443. Arnaud-Fassetta, G., 2002. Geomorphological records of a ‘flood-dominated regime’ in the Rhone Delta (France) between the 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD. What correlations with the catchment paleohydrology? Geodinamica Acta 15, 79–92. Ausich, W.I., 1980. A model for niche differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology 54, 273–288. Baker, V.R., 1999. Geosemiosis. Geological Society of America Bulletin 111, 633–645. Baker, V.R., Nummedal, D. (Eds.), 1978. The Channeled Scabland. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~matthewt/ scablands/. Barbier, N., Couteron, P., Lejoly, J., Deblauwe, V., Lejeune, O., 2006. Self-organized vegetation patterning as a fingerprint of climate and human impact on semi-arid ecosystems. Journal of Ecology 94, 537–547. Barrett, L.R., Schaetzl, R.J., 1993. Soil development and spatial variability on geomorphic surfaces of different age. Physical Geography 14, 39–55. Beckinsale, R.P., Chorley, R.J., 1991. The History of the Study of Landforms or the Development of Geomorphology. Historical and Regional Geomorphology 1890 – 1950, vol. 3. Routledge, London. 496 pp. Beer, G., 1983. Darwin's Plots. Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Elliott, and Nineteenth Century Fiction. Cambridge University Press, New York. Belasky, P., 2009. “Pochevniks”—“The Poets of the Soil”; the geological school of 20th Century poetry in Leningrad, USSR (St. Petersburg, Russia). In: Landa, E.R., Feller, C. (Eds.), Soil and Culture. Springer, Berlin, pp. 173–204. Bennett, H.H., 1939. Soil Conservation. McGraw-Hill, New York . 993 pp. Berkenbusch, K., Rowden, A.A., 2003. Ecosystem engineering—moving away from ‘justso’ stories. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27, 67–73. Berner, E.K., Berner, R.A., 2012. Global Environment: Water, Air, and Geochemical Cycles, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Blackwood, R.F., 1994. Presidential address: the poetry of geology. Geoscience Canada 21, 45–48. Booker, C., 2006. The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. Continuum, New York. Bourne, J.A., Twidale, C.R., 2000. Stepped landscapes and their significance for general theories of landscape development. South African Journal of Geology 103, 105–120. Brierley, G.J., 2010. Landscape memory: the imprint of the past on contemporary landscape forms and processes. Area 42, 76–85. Butler, B.E., 1959. Periodic Phenomena in Landscapes as a Basis for Soil Studies. Melbourne, CSIRO Soil Publication, p. 14. Butler, B.E., 1982. A new system for soil studies. Journal of Soil Science 33, 581–595. Cattaneo, A., Steel, R.J., 2003. Transgressive deposits: a review of their variability. Earth-Science Reviews 62, 187–228. Charlson, G.H., Orians, S.S., Butcher, S.S., Wolfe, G.V., 1992. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. Academic Press, London. Cleland, C.E., 2001. Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology 29, 987–990.

Clements, F.E., 1916. Plant Succession. An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Carnegie Institution, Washington . Pub. No. 242. Coco, G., Huntley, D.A., O'Hare, T.J., 2000. Investigation of a self-organization model for beach cusp formation and development. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JC900095. Cowles, H.C., 1911. The causes of vegetational cycles. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 1, 3–20. Cronon, W., 1992. A place for stories: nature, history, and narrative. The Journal of American History 78, 1347–1376. Cui, Z.J., Li, D.W., Wu, Y.Q., Liu, G.G., 1999. Comment on planation surface. Chinese Science Bulletin 44, 2017–2022. Dalrymple, R.W., Zaitlin, B.A., Boyd, R., 1992. Estuarine facies models: conceptual basis and stratigraphic implications. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62, 1130–1146. Danto, A., 1985. Narration and Knowledge. Columbia University Press, New York. Davis, W.M., 1902. Base level, grade, and peneplain. Journal of Geology 10, 77–111. Davis, W.M., 1922. Peneplains and the geographical cycle. Geological Society of America Bulletin 33, 587–598. De Saussure, H.B., 1796. Voyages dans les Alpes, Vol. IV. Neuchatel, France. Dodick, J., Argamon, S., 2006. Rediscovering the historical methodology of the earth sciences by analyzing scientific communication styles. In: Manduca, C.A., Mogt, D.W. (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think. Special Papers, 413. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, pp. 105–120. Dokuchaev, V.V., 1883. Russian Chernozem. Selected Works of V.V. Dokuchaev, Vol. 1, pp. 14–419. Moscow, 1948. Israel Program for Scientific Translations Ltd. (for USDA-NSF), S. Monson, Jerusalem, 1967. (Translated from Russian into English by N. Kaner). Dokuchaev, V.V., 1899. K ucheniyu o Zonakh Prirody (Toward a Theory of the Zones of Nature). St. Petersburg. Dosseto, A., Buss, H.L., Suresh, P.O., 2012. Rapid regolith formation over volcanic bedrock and implications for landscape evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 337, 47–55. Dubroeucq, D., Volkoff, B., 1998. From Oxisols to Spodosols and Histosols: evolution of soil mantles in the Rio Negro basin (Amazonia). Catena 32, 245–280. Duvall, A., Kirby, E., Burbank, D., 2004. Tectonic and lithologic controls on bedrock channel profiles and processes in coastal California. Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface 109, F03002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JF000086. Ericson, J.P., Vörösmarty, C.J., Dingman, S.L., Ward, L.G., Meybeck, M., 2006. Effective sea-level rise and deltas: causes of change and human dimension implications. Global and Planetary Change 50, 63–82. Ernoult, A., Friere-Diaz, S., Langlois, E., Alard, D., 2006. Are similar landscapes the result of similar histories? Landscape Ecology 21, 631–639. Erskine, W.D., McFadden, C., Bishop, P., 1992. Alluvial cutoffs as indicators of former channel conditions. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 17, 23–27. Feagin, R.A., Sherman, D.J., Grant, W.E., 2005. Coastal erosion, global sea-level rise, and the loss of sand dune plant habitats. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3, 359–364. Fisk, H.N., 1944. Geological Investigation of the Alluvial Valley of the Lower Mississippi River. War Department, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Mississippi River Commission. French, R., 1994. Ancient Natural History. Routledge, London. Fryirs, K., Brierley, G.J., 2010. Antecedent controls on river character and behavior in partly confined valley settings: Upper Hunter River catchment, NSW, Australia. Geomorphology 117, 106–120. Gilbert, G.K., 1877. Report on the Geology of the Henry Mountains. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. Gilbert, G.K., 1914. The Transportation of Debris by Running Water. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. Gilchrist, A.R., Summerfield, M.A., Cockburn, H.A.P., 1994. Landscape dissection, isostatic uplift, and the morphologic development of orogens. Geology 22, 963–966. Glasser, N.F., Harrison, S., Jansson, K.N., 2009. Topographic contols on glacier sedimentlandform associations around the temperate North Patagonian icefield. Quaternary Science Reviews 28, 2817–2832. Goldberg, D., Wildova, R., Herben, T., 2008. Consistency vs. contingency of trait-performance linkages across taxa. Evolutionary Ecology 22, 477–481. Goldrick, G., Bishop, P., 2007. Regional analysis of bedrock stream long profiles: evaluation of Hack's SL form, and formulation of an alternative (the DS form). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32, 649–671. Gomez, B., Page, M., Bak, P., Trustrum, N., 2002. Self-organized criticality in layered, lacustrine sediments formed by landsliding. Geology 30, 519–522. Gould, S.J., 1997. Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism. New York Review of Books, pp. 47–52. 26 June, 1997. Gustavsson, M., Kolstrup, E., 2009. New geomorphological mapping system used at different scales in a Swedish glaciated area. Geomorphology 110, 37–44. Hack, J.T., 1957. Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 267-A . Washington, D.C. 43 pp. Hack, J.T., 1960. Interpretation of erosional topography in humid temperate regions. American Journal of Science 258-A, 80–97. Hallet, B., 1990. Self-organization in freezing soils: from microscopic ice lenses to patterned ground. Canadian Journal of Physics 68, 842–852. Harmar, O.P., Clifford, N.J., 2007. Geomorphological explanation of the longitudinal profile of the lower Mississippi River. Geomorphology 84, 222240. Harrison, S., 1999. The problem with landscape: some philosophical and practical questions. Geography 84, 355–363. Harrison, S., 2001. On reductionism and emergence in geomorphology. Transctions of the Institute of British Geographers 26, 337–339. Harvey, A.M., 1978. Dissected alluvial fans in southeast Spain. Catena 5, 177–211. Hempel, C.G., 1942. The function of general laws in history. Journal of Philosophy 39, 459–471.

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162 Hergarten, S., 2002. Self-Organized Complexity in Earth Systems. Springer, Berlin. Hergarten, S., Neugebauer, H.J., 1998. Self-organized criticality in a landslide model. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 801–804. Holland, M.M., Stroeve, J., 2011. Changing seasonal sea ice predictor relationships in a changing Arctic climate. Geophysical Research Letters 38, L18501 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1029/2011GL049303. Huggett, R.J., 1995. Geoecology. Routledge, London. Hutton, J., 1795. Theory of the Earth (in four parts). Edinburgh. Ibáñez, J.J., 1994. Evolution of fluvial dissection landscapes in Mediterranean environments: quantitative estimates and geomorphic, pedologic and phytocenotic repercussions. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 38, 105–119. Inman, D.L., Jenkins, S.A., 1999. Climate change and the episodicity of sediment flux of small California rivers. Journal of Geology 107, 251–270. Jenny, H.A., 1941. The Factors of Soil Formation. McGraw-Hill, New York. Karasti, H., Baker, K.S., Bowker, G.C., 2002. Ecological storytelling and collaborative scientific activities. SIGGROUP Bulletin 23 (2), 29–30. King, D., 2005. Finding Atlantis. A True Story of Genius, Madness, and an Extraordinary Quest for a Lost World. Three Rivers Press, New York. Larue, J.-P., 2008. Effects of tectonics and lithology on long profiles of 16 rivers of the southern Central Massif border between the Aude and the Orb (France). Geomorphology 93, 343–367. Lemery, N., 1700. Explication Physique & Chemique des Feux Souterrains, des Tremblemens des Terre, des Ouragans, et Eclairs et du Tonnier. Royal Academy of Sciences, Paris. Lennox, J.G., 1985. Darwin's thought experiments: a function for just-so stories. In: Horowitz, T., Massey, G.J. (Eds.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy. Center for Philosophy of Science, pp. 223–246. Lowdermilk, W.C., 1953. Conquest of the Land Through 7,000 Years. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 99. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington. Ludwig, W., Probst, J.-L., 1998. River-sediment discharge to the oceans: present-day controls and global budgets. American Journal of Science 298, 265–295. Mackin, J.H., 1948. Concept of the graded river. Geological Society of America Bulletin 59, 463–512. Makaske, B., 2001. Anastomosing rivers: a review of their classification, origin, and sedimentary products. Earth-Science Reviews 53, 149–196. Marbut, C.F., 1923. Soils of the Great Plains. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 13, 41–66. Marston, R.A., 2010. Geomorphology and vegetation on hillslopes: interactions, dependencies, and feedback loops. Geomorphology 116, 206–217. Marston, R.A., Griel, J., Pautou, G., Peigay, H., Bravard, J.P., Arneson, C., 1995. Channel metamorphosis, floodplain disturbance, and vegetation development—Ain River, France. Geomorphology 13, 121–131. Marzocchi, W., Mulargia, F., Gonzato, G., 1997. Detecting low- dimensional chaos in geophysical time series. Journal of Geophysical Research 102B, 3195–3209. McFadden, B.J., 1998. Tale of two rhinos: isotopic ecology, paleodiet, and niche differentiation of Aphelops and Teleoceras from the Florida Neogene. Paleobiology 24, 274–286. Meriaux, S., 2009. To join the real and the mental place: the written Earth. In: Landa, E.R., Feller, C. (Eds.), Soil and Culture. Springer, Berlin, pp. 169–172. Montgomery, D.R., 2007. Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations. University of California Press, Berkeley. Moore, A.E., Cotterill, F.P.D., Broderick, T., Plowes, D., 2009. Landscape evolution in Zimbabwe from the Permian to present, with implications for kimberlite prospecting. South African Journal of Geology 112, 65–88. Morton, R.A., Blum, M.D., White, W.A., 1996. Valley fills of incised coastal plain rivers, southeastern Texas. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 46, 321–331. Nahon, D.B., 1991. Self-organization in geochemical lateritic weathering. Geoderma 51, 5–13. Naito, A.T., Cairns, D.M., 2011. Patterns and processes of global shrub expansion. Progress in Physical Geography 35, 423–442. Ogilvy, J., Schwartz, P., 1998. Plotting Your Scenarios. Global Business Network. http:// www.gbn.com/articles/pdfs/gbn_Plotting%20Scenarios%20new.pdf (last accessed 28 February 2012). Ollier, C.D., 1995. Tectonics and landscape evolution in southeast Australia. Geomorphology 12, 37–44. Orson, R.A., Howes, B.L., 1992. Salt marsh development studies at Waquoit Bay Massachusetts: influence of geomorphology on long-term plant community structure. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 35, 453–471. Palmer, A.N., 1989. Stratigraphic and structural control of cave development and groundwater in the Mammoth Cave region. In: White, W.B., White, E.B. (Eds.), Karst Hydrology: Concepts from the Mammoth Cave Area. Springer, New York, pp. 293–315. Palmer, A.N., 1991. Origin and morphology of limestone caves. Geological Society of America Bulletin 103, 1–21. Palmquist, R.C., 1975. The compatibility of structure, lithology, and geomorphic models. In: Melhorn, W.N., Flemal, R.C. (Eds.), Theories of Landform Development. Publi. Parker, K.C., 1995. Effects of complex geomorphic history on soil and vegetation patterns on arid alluvial fans. Journal of Arid Environments 30, 19–39. Pattison, I., Lane, S.N., 2011. The link between land-use management and fluvial flood risk: a chaotic conception? Progress in Physical Geography 36, 72–92. Phillips, J.D., 1986. Coastal submergence and marsh fringe erosion. Journal of Coastal Research 2, 427–436. Phillips, J.D., 1990. Relative importance of factors influencing fluvial soil loss at the global scale. American Journal of Science 290, 547–568. Phillips, J.D., 1997. A short history of a flat place: three centuries of geomorphic change in the Croatan. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, 197–216. Phillips, J.D., 1999. Earth Surface Systems. Complexity, Order, and Scale. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

161

Phillips, J.D., 2004. Geogenesis, pedogenesis and multiple causality in the formation of texture-contrast soils. Catena 58, 275–295. Phillips, J.D., 2006a. Evolutionary geomorphology: thresholds and nonlinearity in landform response to environmental change. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 10, 731–742. Phillips, J.D., 2006b. Deterministic chaos and historical geomorphology: a review and look forward. Geomorphology 76, 109–121. Phillips, J.D., 2007a. The perfect landscape. Geomorphology 84, 159–169. Phillips, J.D., 2007b. Perfection and complexity in the lower Brazos River. Geomorphology 91, 364–377. Phillips, J.D., 2007c. Formation of texture contrast soils by a combination of bioturbation and translocation. Catena 70, 92–104. Phillips, J.D., 2010a. The job of the river. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35, 305–313. Phillips, J.D., 2010b. The convenient fiction of steady-state soil thickness. Geoderma 156, 389–398. Phillips, J.D., 2011. Emergence and pseudo-equilibrium in geomorphology. Geomorphology 132, 319–326. Phillips, J.D., 2012. Log-jams and avulsions in the San Antonio River Delta, Texas. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 37, 936–950. Phillips, J.D., Lorz, C., 2008. Origins and implications of soil layering. Earth-Science Reviews 89, 144–155. Phillips, J.D., Lutz, J.D., 2008. Profile convexities in bedrock and alluvial streams. Geomorphology 102, 554–566. Phillips, J.D., Marion, D.A., 2005. Biomechanical effects, lithological variations, and local pedodiversity in some forest soils of Arkansas. Geoderma 124, 73–89. Phillips, J.D., Perry, D., Carey, K., Garbee, A.R., Stein, D., Morde, M.B., Sheehy, J., 1996. Deterministic uncertainty and complex pedogenesis in some Pleistocene dune soils. Geoderma 73, 147–164. Phillips, J.D., Slattery, M.C., Gares, P.A., 1999. Truncation and accretion of soil profiles on coastal plain croplands: implications for sediment redistribution. Geomorphology 28, 119–140. Phillips, J.D., Marion, D.A., Luckow, K., Adams, K.R., 2005. Nonequilibrium regolith thickness in the Ouachita Mountains. Journal of Geology 113, 325–340. Phillips, J.D., McCormack, S., Duan, J., Russo, J.P., Schumacher, A.M., Tripathi, G.N., Brockman, R.B., Mays, A.B., Pulugurtha, S.P., 2010. Origin and interpretation of knickpoints in the Big South Fork River basin, Kentucky-Tennessee. Geomorphology 114, 188–198. Polti, G., (trans. Ray, L). 1916. The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations. Kessinger, 202 pp. Pope, G.A., Dorn, R.I., Dixon, J.C., 1995. A new conceptual model for understanding geographical variations in weathering. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85, 38–64. Price, A.G., 1994. Measurement and variability of physical properties and soil water distribution in a forest podzol. Journal of Hydrology 161, 347–364. Prouty, W.F., 1952. The origin of the Carolina Bays. Geological Society of America Bulletin 63, 167–224. Reed, D.J., 1990. The impact of sea-level rise on coastal salt marshes. Progress in Physical Geography 14, 465–481. Retallack, G.J., 1994. A pedotype approach to latest Cretaceous and earliest Tertiary paleosols in eastern Montana. Geological Society of America Bulletin 106, 1377–1397. Retallack, G.J., 2004. Late Oligocene bunch grassland and early Miocene sod grassland paleosols from central Oregon, USA. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 207, 203–237. Rigon, R., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Rinaldo, A., 1994. On landscape self-organization. Journal of Geophysical Research 99B, 11971–11973. Rodriguez, A.B., Waterns, M.N., Piehler, M.F., 2012. Burning peat and reworking loess contribution to the formation and evolution of a large Carolina Bay basin. Quaternary Research 77, 171–181. Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Rinaldo, A., 1997. Fractal River Basins. Chance and Self-Organization. Cambridge University Press. Roe, G.H., Montgomery, D.R., Hallet, B., 2002. Effects of orographic precipitation variations on the concavity of steady-state river profiles. Geology 30, 143–146. Rosen, P.S., 1980. Erosion susceptibility of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay shoreline. Marine Geology 34, 45–59. Saucier, R.T., Fleetwood, A.R., 1970. Origin and chronologic significance of late Quaternary terraces, Ouachita River, Arkansas and Louisiana. Geological Society of America Bulletin 81, 869–890. Scheidegger, A.E., 1983. The instability principle in geomorphic equilibrium. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 27, 1–19. Schlesinger, W.H., 2005. Biogeochemistry. Treatise on Geochemistry, vol. 8. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Schneider, K., Migge, S., Norton, R.A., Scheu, S., Langel, R., Reineking, A., Maraun, M., 2004. Trophic niche differentiation in soil microarthropods (Oribatida, Acari): evidence from stable isotope ratios (15N/14N). Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36, 1769–1774. Schumm, S.A., 1956. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Geological Society of America Bulletin 67, 597–646. Schumm, S.A., 1969. River metamorphosis. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Hydraulics Division 95, 255–273. Schumm, S.A., 1991. To Interpret the Earth: Ten Ways to Be Wrong. Cambridge University Press, New York. Schumm, S.A., Harvey, M.D., Watson, C.C., 1984. Incised Channels: Morphology, Dynamics and Control. Water Resource Publications, Littleton, CO. Schwartz, P., 1991. The Art of the Long View. Doubleday, New York. Shermer, M., 2002. In Darwin's Shadow. The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace. Oxford University Press. Simon, A., 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 14, 11–26.

162

J. Phillips / Earth-Science Reviews 115 (2012) 153–162

Sivakumar, B., 2004. Chaos theory in geophysics: past, present, and future. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 19, 441–462. Slingerland, R.L., 1981. Qualitative stability analysis of geologic systems, with an example from river hydraulic geometry. Geology 9, 491–493. Smith, J.M., 1996. Geographical rhetoric: modes and tropes of appeal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 86, 1–20. Smith, T.R., Merchant, G.E., Birnir, B., 2000. Transient attractors: towards a theory of the graded stream for alluvial and bedrock channels. Computers & Geosciences 26, 541–580. Snyder, N.P., Whipple, K.X., Tucker, G.E., Merritts, D.J., 2000. Landscape response to tectonic forcing: digital elevation model analysis of stream profiles in the Mendocino triple junction region, northern California. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112, 1250–1263. Splinter, D.K., Dauwalter, D.C., Marston, R.A., Fisher, W.L., 2010. Ecoregions and stream morphology in eastern Oklahoma. Geomorphology 122, 117–128. Stahle, D.W., Dean, J.S., 2011. North American tree rings, climatic extremes, and social disasters. Dendroclimatology 11, 297–327. Stallins, J.A., 2001. Soil and vegetation patterns in barrier-island dune environments. Physical Geography 22, 79–98. Stolum, H.-H., 1998. Planform geometry and dynamics of meandering rivers. Geological Society of America Bulletin 110, 1485–1498. Strahler, A.N., 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 8, 913–920. Stuwe, K., 1994. Process and age constraints for the formation of Ayers Rock Australia—an example for 2-dimensional mass diffusion with pinned boundaries. Zietschrift fur Geomorphologie 38, 435–455. Targulian, V.O., Krasilnikov, P.V., 2007. Soil system and pedogenic processes: selforganization, time scales, and environmental significance. Catena 71, 373–381. Tausch, R.J., Wigand, P.E., Burkhardt, J.W., 1993. Viewpoint: plant community thresholds, multiple stable states, and multiple successional pathways: legacy of the Quaternary? Journal of Range Management 46, 439–447.

Thompson, C.H., 1983. Development and weathering of large parabolic dune systems along the subtropical coast of eastern Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Suppl. 45, 205–225. Trofimov, A.M., Moskovkin, V.M., 1984. The dynamic models of geomorphological systems. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 28, 77–94. Twidale, C.R., 2002. The two-stage concept of landform and landscape development involving etching: origin, development, and applications of an idea. Earth-Science Reviews 57, 37–74. Twidale, C.R., Campbell, E.M., 2005. Australian Landscapes. Rosenberg, Dural, NSW, Australia. Walker, H.J., Coleman, J.M., Roberts, H.H., Tye, R.S., 1987. Wetland loss in Louisiana. Geografiska Annaler Series A 69, 189–200. Wang, M., Overland, J.E., 2009. A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years? Geophysical Research Letters 36, L07502 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL037820. Warner, R.F., 1987a. Impacts of Alternating Flood and Drought-Dominated Regimes on Channel Morphology at Penrith, New South Wales, Australia. The Influence of Climate Change and Climatic Variability on the Hydrologic Regime and Water Resources: International Association of Hydrological Sciences, IAHS Publication, 168, pp. 327–338. Warner, R.F., 1987b. Spatial adjustments to temporal variations in flood regimes in some Australian rivers. In: Richards, K.S. (Ed.), Rivers: Environment and Process. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 14–40. Warner, R.F., 1992. Floodplain evolution in a New South Wales coastal valley, Australia: spatial process variations. Geomorphology 4, 447–458. Watson, C.C., Biedenharn, D.S., Bledsoe, B.P., 2002. Use of incised channel evolution models in understanding rehabilitation alternatives. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38, 151–160. Weinstock, M., 2010. The Architecture of Emergence. Evolution of Form in Nature and Civilisation. John Wiley, Chichester. 280 pp. Williams, J.R., 1998. The Life of Goethe. Blackwell, Oxford.