Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
several fi elds. Although scholars from various disciplines may study the Earth locally
- in a tax district, a volcano, a thunderstorm, a patch of forest or a test tube - Earth
systems scientists put the accent on “systems”, the multiscale interactions of all these
small-scale phenomena' (Schneider, 2000, p. 5). The emphasis is clearly on holism
via stitching together all the reductionist components.
This appropriation of ESS into geology is intriguing, given Bretherton's (1985,
p. 1122) statement that 'though part of the Earth System, basic geology and geo-
physics are not directly relevant on these timescales [the 10,000 years of heightened
anthropic impacts on the environment] except as aids in interpreting drainage and
soil patterns'. Arguably, the redefi nition of geology as Earth-Systems Science is
about repositioning that discipline in a post-oil economy against a background of
dwindling and closing departments. It is for this 'brand' of ESS that the arguments
of Clifford and Richards (2005) more clearly hold. The same may probably be said
with regard to their argument about 'hegemonising tendencies', or at least homoge-
nising tendencies. This point can most clearly be seen by the attempt to standardise
undergraduate education in ESS by a series of fi xed templates and syllabus sugges-
tions (NASA/ESRA, 2007).
Life on Earth-System Science?
The second major component of Bretherton's (1985) blueprint for ESS is the bio-
sphere. He states that 'global model[l]ing on decades to centuries is dominated by
the changes in surface temperature and precipitation and by the sensitivity of pho-
tosynthesis and respiration by planets [sic] and phytoplankton to these and to the
concentration of CO
2
in the atmosphere' (p. 1124). Dutton (1987, p. 311) further
emphasises the role of biological processes, noting the need for 'theoretical and
empirical studies necessary to provide a dynamical systems representation of the
biological processes and biogeochemical cycles that clearly link the systems together
and provide important feedbacks and modifi cations of the entire planetary environ-
ment'. He suggests that it is more likely that local process studies will provide an
adequate basis for this work given the lack of theoretical biological work to provide
such an underpinning. Theoretical biologists, however, would probably beg to
differ.
In parallel to these suggestions, the disciplines of ecology, hydrology and geo-
morphology at least were already recognising the need for trans- or interdisciplinary
work. An early example was Eagleson's seven-paper
magnum opus
on the links
between vegetation and hydrology (Eagleson, 1978a-g), which has recently been
elaborated in book form (Eagleson, 2002). Ecohydrology has been steadily develop-
ing as a research focus (Baird and Wilby, 1999; Newman et al., 2006). Similarly,
in the fi eld of geomorphology, Viles (1988) and Thornes (1990) provided collections
of papers refl ecting the interactions between biological and geomorphic processes.
The papers of Viles' biogeomorphology are very much based on specifi c environ-
ments and often limited in terms of large-scale feedbacks. Thornes' work on vegeta-
tion and erosion also links back to earlier papers that develop an integrated modelling
approach (e.g. Thornes, 1985; 1988) but again with a scale that is essentially that
of the hillslope. A third parallel might be seen in the development of landscape
ecology. Originally, a term used by the German biogeographer Carl Troll in the
1930s, the idea was developed as a way of investigating the effects of spatial pattern
on ecological process among ecologists in the 1980s (Turner et al., 2001). Often
