Talk:Geomorphology

Geomorphology vs. Structural geology

Please clarify the difference between Geomorphology and Structural geology (in both articles). Respectively, make an order with category:Geomorphology vs. category:Structural geology: brief descriptions and membership. mikka (t) 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Not really sure what all you are asking. Geomorphology is the study of landforms. Structural geology is the study of structures (folds, faults, etc) within the rocks at scales varying from microscopic to continental. Now of course they are interrelated. Essentially, landforms are the product of erosive processes on the existing structure of the rocks involved and cannot be understood or explained without a good understanding of the geologic structure of the rocks. A geologist trying to decipher the structural geology of a region begins by studying the clues in the landforms. All is related. Now, there is a tendency of some geographers to think that geomorphology is a subdivision of geography and try to explain landforms without a thorough understanding of the structure, petrology, and stratigraphy on which the surface landforms develop. Landforms cannot be understood without knowledge of the geology on which they are formed.

Now, after all that, both articles are in need of improvement - as are most Wiki articles. So - someday someone will work 'em over (hopefully for improvement) and maybe I will (just don't hold your breath :-)

I don't really see the need for a category link from one category to the other as you have done - if we follow that to its logical end all categories would have to have links to all others as they are all inter-related. And that is an absurd proposition. Both are subcategories of Category:Geology aren't they?

Rambled enough for now. Vsmith 00:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to restore links between these two categories, since some things are obviously mixed across these two, until "someday someone..." . For example, I fail to see why Graben was in category:Structural geology but not in category:Landforms (only yesterday I created a new Category:Depressions and put Graben into it.). mikka (t) 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Let's see:

• "Geomorphology is the study of landforms, including their origin and evolution, and the processes that shape them"
• "Structural geology is the study of deformation of rock including breaking (fracturing and faulting) and bending or folding. More formally stated it is the branch of geology that deals with the geological processes through which the application of a force results in the transformation of a shape... etc."

I read that means that Str Geo is a subset of GeoMorf, a study of some particular ways of landforming. Or, quite probably, the definitions come from different schools of geology that don't quite match. This happens sometimes here in wikipedia.

So IMO the cross-links should sit here as a reminder that something is still out of nice order. mikka (t) 01:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Er... Did you read my post above? If the problem was with graben not showing up in Category:Geomorph, why not just put it there instead of all the non-standard contortions involving cross-linking categories? (I'l do that now) Seems much simpler, doesn't it? And - no, structural geology is not a subset of geomorph nor vice-versa. They are inter-related as are most all geologic topics, as I explained above, not subsets of each other. The two articles were written independently by different editors with differing perspectives - so, yes there will be conflicts and confusions (all part of the wonder of wiki.). Vsmith 02:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I provided a counter-agrument you apparently ignored. You are saying "not subset". I am saying "yes, subset". Read in my qoutations above: "...and the processes that shape them". Processes in rocks, isn't it the definition of StruGeo?

Until someone clearly defines the separation of the categories, people will assign articles to them quite randomly. Therefore a cross-link is useful.

Yes, everything is interrelated: wind and rock. But some things are not only interrelated, but also intermixed. A natural solution would be to put some articles inwo both cats. But until the "owners" of category:Geology will take the categorization under close scrutiny, people will throw articles into one cat or another pretty much at random.

I find this cross-link useful for laymen like me. Until a week ago I was not aware of Depression (geology). I noticed the whole category missing when I started systematically filling category:Mountain ranges of the Russian Federation and found that I have no place to put such things as Kuznetsk Depression. Until now no one bothered to figure out what to do with Geologic formation vs. Rock formation. Only an ignorant me drew the difference between Rock formation and Formation of rocks.

I am not bragging how smart I am. I am trying to say that geology is a rather neglected discipline here. (I suspect not only it; sexology, politics, videogames and vanity pages constitute, like, 70% of activity.) Therefore at this moment any additional "See also" is only helpful. mikka (t) 03:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If knowledgeable WP editors are unsure of the distinctions, think how confused the average reader will be! This is an especially good example of how cross-links, both in articles and categories, can clarify the situation for everybody all round. Stan 13:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Structural geology != Geomorphology

OK. Structural geology deals with the imposed texture of a rock, like Vsmith said, at all scales. Including chunks of rocks euphemistically called 'hand specimens', and on the microscopic scale. Geomorphology is more closely aligned to geography than structural geology.
For instance, can the roundness of a mountain tell you whether it is a fold, on the side of a fault, or whether it was created during an orogeny some 1600 million years ago or by a different one 500 million years ago which affected the rocks which the first one formed? No. You need structural geology for that.
Can geomorphology tell you whether one block of rock moved up relative to another, whether the fault which separates them is a thrust or a normal fault, whether the mountain will collapse on your head from geotechnical instability? No.
Geomorphology describes landforms and erosion and shallow, surficial effects. It describes events which are active now and are passive geologically. It has virtually no predictive abilities I can think of except, perhaps, with shallow groundwater, soil types and the like, and it cannot be analyzed for anything excet to provide structural geological information, example, "there might be a fault there looking at the lineations on this photo" or similar. Structural geology, the article, has been excessively poorly written, (not my fault, ba-da-boom) and is fairly much incomprehensible even to me. And I know enough about structural geology to qualifty as 'semi-expert'. Or not a geomorphologist in the very least. So, hopefully, when I give it a douche of sensibility it will be fairly clear that, while related in the way chickens and eggs are, structural geology is much, much, much more than geomorphology. Rolinator 15:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur that geomorphology and structural geology are very different sub-disciplines of geology. I tend to think of geomorphology as being concerned with surface processes (erosion, sedimentation, soils, weathering, and the like), whereas structural geology is concerned with large-scale tectonic forces causing the internal deformation of solid earth materials whether by folding, faulting, or shearing. This generally excludes deformation caused by gravity (i.e. landslides), which here would be grouped in with the surface processes under geomorphology. When you start talking about "landforms" and "geologic formations", things get tricky in terms of classification due to the imprecise nature of those terms. What exactly do you mean by a landform? Is it the shape of the mountain? The material it is made of? The processes which formed that shape? While many landforms are going to draw from both structural and geomorphic disciplines for their explanation, I think of the geomorphic (surface) processes as being overlain on top of the structural (internal) processes. Not all structural grabens (i.e. two parallel inward-dipping normal faults allowing a central block to move downward relative to surrounding blocks) are expressed as a "landform" (i.e. a valley). And vice versa, not all valleys are structural grabens. In order to achieve the idealized "landform" shape associated with a structural graben, particular geomorphic conditions must occur (i.e. subsequent lack of erosion of graben edges, lack of significant sedimentation on top of down-dropped graben floor; essentially minimal surface modifications to structural result). I hope this is helpful. – BlueCanoe 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

William Morris Davis

He actually was the one to RUIN geomorphology as we know it, so why does this article paint him so neutrally?

Geomorphology is the study of the earth's landforms. William Morris Davis founded this subfield of geography. Though at his time the traditional idea of the development of landforms was through the great biblical flood, Davis and others began to believe that other factors were responsible for shaping the earth.

Davis developed a theory of landform creation and erosion, which he called the "geographical cycle." This theory is more commonly known as the "cycle of erosion," or more properly, the "geomorphic cycle." His theory explained that mountains and landforms are created, mature, and then become old.

He explained that the cycle begins with the uplift of mountains. Rivers and streams begin to create V-shaped valleys among the mountains (the stage called "youth"). During this first stage, the relief is steepest and most illregular. Over time, the streams are able to carve wider valleys ("maturity") and then begin to meander, leaving only gently rolling hills ("old age"). Finally, all that is left is a flat, level plain at the lowest elevation possible (called the "base level.") This plain was called by Davis a "peneplain," which means "almost a plain" for a plain is actually a completely flat surface). Then, "rejuvenation" occurs and there is another uplift of mountains and the cycle continues.

Though Davis' theory is not entirely accurate, it was quite revolutionary and outstanding at its time and helped to modernize physical geography and create the field of geomorphology. The real world is not quite as orderly as Davis' cycles and certainly erosion occurs during the uplift process. However, Davis' message was communicated quite well to other scientists through the excellent sketches and illustrations that were included in Davis' publications.

In all, Davis published over 500 works though he never earned his Ph.D. Davis was certainly one of the greatest academic geographers of the century. He is not only responsible for that which he accomplished during his lifetime, but also for the outstanding work done across geography by his disciples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.132.23 (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit August 2010

I've been meaning to make some modifications to this page for some time, so I finally bit the bullet and went ahead and did it. I don't think I've removed anything, this has mainly been expanding and restructuring to give the article a slightly more consistent tone.

I'd be interested to know what people think. I had written a fairly extensive rationale for what I'd done, but I managed to close the window before saving, and it's now 1.30 in the morning, so I'll try to revisit this talk page ASAP to clarify!

Hope this is of some use. DanHobley (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks great. I have sporadic internet access for the time being, but I will take a closer look and see what I can add when I can. Awickert (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now done a bit more tweaking in the processes section; I think this is now a bit more "modern" in style. I've got some references in there now too. Couple of things still bugging me though:

1. Weathering. I reckon a lot of people visiting this page will be vaguely familiar with the idea of weathering, so I think it could really do with a bit more prominence, but it certainly shouldn't be in the list of processes as it was before. As it is now is a bit of a halfway house I think, but it'll do for now? It's always felt to me like a pretty unhelpful word anyway; it's a geography-style classifying term, and doesn't have any interpretative power. If we mean chemical breakdown of surfaces, we should say so, and there's plenty of more specific ways of talking about what you might loosely term "physical weathering". For instance, is fluvial abrasion a weathering process? I think not, but I suspect it would be considered so under the formal definition...

Thanks to VSmith for sorting this out!DanHobley (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

2. The taxonomy section. This is good stuff, but I'm not familiar with this scheme, and I wouldn't say it's of particularly great importance to the grand overview of geomorphology (though of course the scale dependency it addresses very much is). I suspect this section might want to be rewritten and expanded without the formal taxonomy and renamed something like "Importance of scale", with the formal orders hived off into their own sub-page people can go through to if they want. It's just a bit of a weak finish for me. I'm leaving it for now, but might have it as a future recommendation?

I've now had a go at this. The details of the taxonomy remain, but I've changed the section title and intro paragraph to make it a bit more of general interest too.DanHobley (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DanHobley (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I am not a big fan of the geology infobox which appeared recently. It's cluttering the article very badly. Anyone object if I remove it?

Might be good to replace it with a strap rather than a box, but I don't know if such a thing exists. DanHobley (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd favor removing it as it is a distraction. Seems the only place the distracting template (Template:Geology2) might be useful is the basic geology article. Vsmith (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Snapshots on topics that are not discussed in article

I changed the image because arches are not discussed in the article, and nothing in their article raises the issue of geomorphology, and they are not a common topic in introductory texts, the couple I have, on geomorphology, from which I hoped to clarify the reason for including this image. From editing Wikipedia for the last month or so, I often wind up confused as to why a picture belongs in the article, particularly in the lead. So, why does this one belong in the lead of this article?

How about this one? File:Ferguson-slide.jpg|Ferguson Slide on California State Route 140 in June 2006

MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem with the Ferguson landslide image. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I subbed out the slide image for one of some of Gilbert's badlands in Utah. Basis was that this links very explicitly to the history section. Slide image is still there, in processes. We can switch them back around if people feel strongly. DanHobley (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

History of Geomorph

There was a bunch of uncited material in the historical section (which I think I might have put there in the first place. Oops). I found an ideal ref to support this section (Oldroyd & Grapes, in a GSA Special Pub), was gratified to find my remembering of most of this stuff was fairly accurate, and added the supporting refs as needed. Also had some nice stuff about the Davis/Penck brouhaha. The material about physiography remains uncited. Also, of our list of early modern geomorphologists, O&G don't talk explicitly about several of these guys, especially the Europeans. We need another source for them: Bagnold, Einstein, Ahnert, John Hack, Luna Leopold, Shields, Maddock (note they should stay!) DanHobley (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Edited my above comment to reflect new refs added. We still lack cites for importance of: Einstein, Ahnert, Shields, Shreve, Schumm. DanHobley (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Seismic Geomorphology?

What is it called to study the "shapes" of ancient geological features such as depositional environments and structures using geophysical techniques like 3D reflection seismology? Does it qualify as geomorphology? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if there is an actual name for this. Facies analysis? Paleo-environmental reconstruction? Seismic stratigraphy? Pretty sure it's not a variety of geomorphology though. DanHobley (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You're also covering things like paleogeography, paleostructural analysis (more or less section restoration), plate reconstruction and basin modelling. It's what we (geoscientists) do all the time, trying to understand how things were in the past. Actually I just searched on paleomorphology and it does get some hits [1], so maybe that's what you're looking for. Mikenorton (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Globalize tag

Page has a newly acquired globalize tag at its top. I disagree that this is the case. 3rd opinions very welcome here. Can anyone point out to me where this gets US-centric? DanHobley (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree that this is the case. There is no mention of the U.S. nor any particular focus on U.S. ideas or perspectives. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the motivation for the adding the US-centric tag refers to the photos? 10 photos in the article, 6 from the US (Utah (x2), Arizona, California (x2) and Texas), and 4 for the rest of the world. GeoWriter (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is about the photos. Most of them are from the United States. The photos of Argentina (Cono de Arita) and Chile (Beaver dam) are not well explained either: how is a water-body zoogeomorphology? What kind of landform is Cono de Arita. Over-all i see that images from Africa, Asia and the Middle East are missing. No "tropical" landform, process or landcape is showed. Lappspira (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Glad it wasn't the text. We now have images from Africa and Asia (and a bit more Europe, plus Mars!) in place of some of those US images. I think the dam text is clear (the *dam* is the feature), but I'll modify the text for the Cono. DanHobley (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geomorphology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317082407/http://www.geomorphology-iag-paris2013.com/en/s3-%E2%80%93-planetary-geomorphology-iag-wg to http://www.geomorphology-iag-paris2013.com/en/s3-%E2%80%93-planetary-geomorphology-iag-wg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Scales

I did a literature search for the source for the taxonomy in the Scales section. I can't find it, and neither could whoever put the citation needed tag on. I'm removing the section entirely. DanHobley (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)