Cycle of erosion

In the mature stage, slope decline becomes a more important phenomenon as the lateral erosion dominates,[4] and uplands lose height more rapidly than rivers incise, effectively diminishing relief.

[5] Davis acknowledged that a full cycle was a special case and that initial uplift was not necessarily rapid or followed by a prolonged period of quiescence.

[7] The model in its original form is intended to explain relief development in temperate landscapes in which erosion by running water is assumed to be of prime importance.

[5][7] Nevertheless, the cycle of erosion has been extended, with modifications, into arid, semi-arid, savanah, selva, glacial, coastal, karst and periglacial areas.

Three explorers, John Wesley Powell, Clarence Edward Dutton and Grove Karl Gilbert, wrote about the geomorphology and geology in the landscapes they encountered.

[18][C] It has been argued that Davis was also influenced by ideas from the field of biology, especially the Neo-Lamarckian thought that was current in the late 19th-century United States.

[22][23] Very much influenced by Davis Walter Wråk moved to study the relief of the northern Scandinavian Mountains, describing among other things the Borsu surface.

[20] According to Sheldon Judson up to Second World War reports on regional geology tended to include brief mentions of the local cycle of erosion and of peneplanization.

[26] Despite Davis's efforts, which included translating his work into German, being a visiting professor at Berlin and touring much of Europe, the cycle of erosion never did take firm root in Germany.

In general its reception in France was mixed with Émile Haug giving it limited attention and Paul Vidal de La Blache adopting it without reservations.

[29] Other notable French geographers influenced by Davis ideas on the cycle of erosion are Emmanuel de Martonne and Henri Baulig.

[29] In 1960 geomorphologist Sheldon Judson noted that American geographers had largely abandoned the concept and moved to study landscape and landforms from a process and statistical point of view.

[20] Eiju Yatsu opined, however, that despite the intention of many geomorphologists to abandon Davisian ideas after the Second World War, many ended up returning to them with some modifications.

[21] Further the validity of some whole concepts associated with the cycle of erosion have been questioned including stream grade,[21] slope decline,[D] base level[21] and most of all that of peneplains.

[21][E] Writing in 1971 geomorphologist Ronald Flemal summarized the situation as follows:[21] Despite considerable criticism the cycle of erosion model has remained part of the science of geomorphology.

[36] In contrast to its disputed status in geomorphology, the cycle of erosion model is a common approach used to establish denudation chronologies, and is thus an important concept in the science of historical geology.