The classification of river forms and processes has emerged as a major site for interdisciplinary cooperation and application of environmental science. Geomorphologists, ecologists, planners, and others have made concerted efforts to develop theoretical and empirical frameworks with which to classify rivers and their component parts for multiple, diverse applications. As the breadth and depth of classification logics continue to swell, this article takes stock of recent developments through three analytical lenses. First, the theoretical underpinnings of river classification are explored and summarized to provide a framework within which to situate and compare different classification approaches. Second, four emerging frameworks for river classification are described and compared to assess their epistemological, institutional, and governance implications. Different epistemic communities produce different kinds of classifications, which reveal different ‘realities’ of rivers to be acted upon by human agents. Third, by emphasizing how river classification practices are productive of environmental governance regimes and rationalities, the roles, responsibilities, and possibilities for environmental science are clarified and expanded. Rather than thinking about classification purely as a realist scientific project, attention needs to be paid to the ways in which ‘classifying mindsets’ relate to the production of social and environmental outcomes. WIREs Water 2014, 1:349–367. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1026 This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems

Researchers interested in studying the effects of fire or herbivory in the Kruger National Park (KNP) often focus their research activities on the experimental burn plots or herbivore exclosure camps, respectively. These are manipulated sites that apply treatments, for example annual fires or total exclusion of fire and herbivores. However, many projects aim to study or monitor patterns and processes emerging under non-manipulated conditions, typically at sites with contrasting geologies and rainfall. Yet, these sites are usually selected in a haphazard and uncoordinated manner for different projects and, as a consequence, it is often not possible to integrate datasets and knowledge. An alternative to the ever-increasing number of unrelated sites scattered across the park are the ‘KNP research supersites’ which have been earmarked to geographically focus future research effort, acting as data-rich, long-term sites for monitoring and research. In this paper, we introduced the four recently established KNP research supersites, which cover the rainfall gradient and geological contrast of the KNP, presenting their rationale, selection criteria and location, along with existing datasets that describe their herbaceous biomass, woody cover, phenology, fire history, levels of herbivory. Additional site-specific datasets, which are already available, or which are in preparation, were outlined together with details for assessing these open-source datasets online. Conservation implications: The KNP research supersites will become increasingly used for research, monitoring and remote-sensing calibration and ground-truthing purposes. Scientists are encouraged to gain from, and contribute towards, these sites, which will facilitate long-term data collection, data-sharing and co-learning and, ultimately, lead to a more integrated, multiscaled and multitemporal understanding of savannahs

We propose the use of archetypes as a way of moving between conceptual framings, empirical observations and the dichotomous classification rules upon which maps are based. An archetype is a conceptualisation of an entire category or class of objects. Archetypes can be framed as abstract exemplars of classes, conceptual models linking form and process and/or tacit mental models similar to those used by field scientists to identify and describe landforms, soils and/or units of vegetation. Archetypes can be existing taxonomic or landscape units or may involve new combinations of landscape attributes developed for a specific purpose. As landscapes themselves defy precise categorisation, archetypes, as considered here, are deliberately vague, and are described in general terms rather than in terms of the details that characterise a particular instance of a class. An example outlining the use of archetypes for landscape classification and mapping is demonstrated for granitic catenas in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Some 81% of the study area can be described in terms of archetypal catenal elements. However, spatial clustering of two classes that did not correspond to the archetypes prompted development of new archetypes. We show how the archetypes encoded in the map can be used to frame further knowledge in an ongoing, iterative and adaptive process. Building on this, we reflect on the value of vagueness in conservation science and management, highlighting how archetypes that are used to interpret and map landscapes may be better employed in the future.

Assertions of a ‘naughty world’ (Kennedy, 1979) point to the importance of place-based knowledge in informing landscape interpretations and management applications. Building upon conceptual and theoretical insights into the geomorphic character, behaviour and evolution of rivers, this paper outlines an approach to the practice of fluvial geomorphology: ‘reading the landscape’. This scaffolded framework of field-based interpretations explicitly recognizes the contingent nature of biophysical interactions within any given landscape. A bottom-up, constructivist approach is applied to identify landforms, assess their morphodynamics, and interpret the interaction and evolution of these features at reach and catchment scales. Reading the landscape is framed as an open-ended and generic set of questions that inform process-form interpretations of river landscapes. Rather than relying unduly on conceptual or theoretical representations of landscapes that suggest how the world ‘should’ ideally look and behave, appropriately contextualized, place-based understandings can be used to detect where local differences matter, thereby addressing concerns for the transferability of insights between locations and the representativeness of sample or reference sites. The approach provides a basis for scientifically informed management efforts that respect and work with the inherent diversity and dynamics of any given river system.

There is growing demand for biogeographical landscape classifications and ecological maps that describe patterns of spatially co-varying biotic and abiotic ecosystem components. This demand is fuelled by increasing data availability and processing capacity, by institutional practices of land and water resource management and planning and by the growth of transdisciplinary science that requires the development of a shared conceptual framework through which to view landscape character and behaviour. Despite the widespread use of ecological maps, and the extent to which they have become embedded in institutional practice, policy and law, no standard approach to ecosystem mapping has emerged, such that there are many valid ways of mapping the same landscape. Consensus is possible only when there is agreement on the spatial entities to be mapped. We propose a way of defining such entities and identifying them in any given landscape. Landscapes are conceived in terms of a conceptual biophysical template that constrains a wide range of ecological processes at various hierarchical levels. The template is conceived as comprising co-evolved associations of soils, vegetation, topography and hydrology that form a dynamic mosaic characteristic of a particular topographic, climatic and geological context that is continually being shaped by many perturbations. We synthesise themes from vegetation, soil and river sciences, using hierarchy theory to frame a perspective that facilitates the definition of mappable landscape entities at three hierarchical levels of organisation. These entities are conceived as archetypal structural-functional units, with form and process linked in conceptual models that underpin each archetype. We describe how our approach has been used to map ecological entities in Kruger National Park, South Africa, showing how the proposed framework integrates key system components, providing transparent foundations for transdisciplinary approaches to landscape management and science.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract