A case for stronger integration of physical landscape processes in conservation science and practice

Abstract

In this perspective, I argue that the dynamic nature of contemporary landscape‐shaping (geomorphic) processes deserves more consideration within conservation science and practice. I begin by presenting a simple bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science, which reveals that, during last two decades, key geomorphic terms have appeared in a small fraction (<2%) of the conservation biology literature. I interpret this result as reflective of a rather peripheral attention that, more generally, landscape‐shaping processes currently receive in the field of conservation. I contend that in the current conservation paradigm, physical habitat is often perceived as largely static, with consideration of its dynamic aspects (processes) often limited to extreme events. Focusing on river‐floodplain environments as a model system, I then highlight multifaceted reciprocal interactions between biota and erosional and depositional processes. These strong and ubiquitous interdependencies underscore the fact that geomorphic processes (regardless of their magnitude or intensity) are an integral part of ecosystem dynamics at the timescales relevant for conservation. I proceed to show that, because of these close links, erosional and depositional landscape responses modulate many environmental influences associated with past and current anthropogenic activities. As a result, I submit that the absence of more explicit and widespread consideration of geomorphic processes in conservation science and practice is not only surprising but also detrimental to their effectiveness. I conclude with a call for efforts, among both conservation and geoscience communities, to integrate the contemporary landscape dynamics within the modern conservation framework. Although such integration across disciplines is always challenging, given different conceptual and methodological paradigms, in this case, I believe that recent developments have created the right set of conditions. These developments include the rise of the ecosystem‐based and social‐ecological systems approaches in conservation as well as the growth of interdisciplinary subdisciplines within the geosciences, including biogeomorphology, ecohydraulics, and geoconservation.Article Impact statement: This perspective contributes to debate on how improvements to conservation science and practice can facilitate better conservation outcomes.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved