Biogeomorphology: Understanding different research approaches

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 136-138

  Haussmann, N S ^a  

^a STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Biogeomorphology; Scientific approach; Statistics

Indexed keywords

BIOGEOMORPHOLOGY; DATA COLLECTION; INTEGRATED RESEARCH; KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE; PARAMETER MEASUREMENT; RESEARCH APPROACH; SCIENTIFIC APPROACH; SIGNIFICANCE TESTING;

ECOLOGY;

GEOMORPHOLOGY;

ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; GEOMORPHOLOGICAL RESPONSE; INTEGRATED APPROACH; PARAMETERIZATION; RESEARCH WORK; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 78650490642     PISSN: 01979337     EISSN: 10969837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/esp.2097     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 912-923.
2. Boyce MS. 2002. Statistics as viewed by biologists. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 7: 306-312. DOI. 10.1198/108571102267
3. Cox NJ. 2006. Assessing agreement of measurements and predictions in geomorphology. Geomorphology 76: 332-346. DOI. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.12.001
4. Cox NJ. 2007. Kinds and problems of geomorphological explanation. Geomorphology 88: 46-56. DOI. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.009
5. Koricheva J. 2003. Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise. Oikos 102: 397-401. DOI. 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.12353.x
6. Kreyling J, Beierkuhnlein C, Pritsch K, Schloter M, Jentsch A. 2008. Recurrent soil freeze-thaw cycles enhance grassland productivity. New Phytologist 177: 938-945. DOI. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02309.x
7. Martínez-Abraín A. 2008. Statistical significance and biological relevance: a call for a more cautious interpretation of results in ecology. Acta Oecologica 34: 9-11. DOI. 10.1016/j.actao.2008.02.004
8. McIntire EJB, Fajardo A. 2009. Beyond description: the active and effective way to infer processes from spatial patterns. Ecology 90: 46-56. DOI. 10.1890/07-2096.1
9. Molau U. 2008. On the interface between ecology and geomorphology. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 62: 52-54. DOI. 10.1080/00291950802094700
10. Naylor LA, Viles HA, Carter NEA. 2002. Biogeomorphology revisited: looking towards the future. Geomorphology 47: 3-14. DOI. 10.1016/S0169-555X(02)00137-X
11. Reinhardt L, Jerolmack D, Cardinale BJ, Venacker V, Wright J. 2010. Dynamic interactions of life and its landscape: feedbacks at the interface of geomorphology and ecology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35: 78-101. DOI. 10.1002/esp.1912
12. Renschler CS, Doyle MW, Thoms M. 2007. Geomorphology and ecosystems: challenges and keys for success in bridging disciplines. Geomorphology 89: 1-8. DOI. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.07.011
13. Richards K. 1996. Samples and cases: generalisation and explanation in geomorphology. In The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology: Proceedings of the 27th Binghamton Symposium in Geomorphology, Rhoads BL, Thorn CE (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester; 171-190.
14. Stallins JA. 2006. Geomorphology and ecology: unifying themes for complex systems in biogeomorphology. Geomorphology 77: 207-216. DOI. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.01.005
15. Tooth S. 2009. Invisible geomorphology? Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 43: 752-754. DOI. 10.1002/esp.1724
16. Urban MA, Daniels M. 2006. Introduction: exploring the links between geomorphology and ecology. Geomorphology 77: 203-206. DOI. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.01.004
17. Viles HA. 1988. Introduction. In Biogeomorphology, Viles HA (ed.). Blackwell: Oxford; 1-8.
18. Viles HA, Naylor LA, Carter NEA, Chaput D. 2008. Biogeomorphological disturbance regimes: progress in linking ecological and geomorphological systems. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 33: 1419-1435. DOI. 10.1002/esp.1717