The role of fieldwork in rock decay research: Case studies from the fringe

Ronald Dorn, Steven J. Gordon, Casey D. Allen, Niccole Cerveny, John C. Dixon, Kaelin M. Groom, Kevin Hall, Emma Harrison, Lisa Mol, Thomas R. Paradise, Paul Sumner, Tyler Thompson, Alice V. Turkington

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Researchers exploring rock decay hail from chemistry, engineering, geography, geology, paleoclimatology, soil science, and other disciplines and use laboratory, microscopic, theoretical, and field-based strategies. We illustrate here how the tradition of fieldwork forms the core knowledge of rock decay and continues to build on the classic research of Blackwelder, Bryan, Gilbert, Jutson, King, Linton, Twidale, and von Humboldt. While development of nonfield-based investigation has contributed substantially to our understanding of processes, the wide range of environments, stone types, and climatic variability encountered raises issues of temporal and spatial scales too complex to fit into attempts at universal modeling. Although nonfield methods are immensely useful for understanding overarching processes, they can miss subtle differences in factors that ultimately shape rock surfaces. We, therefore, illustrate here how the tradition of fieldwork continues today alongside laboratory and computer-based investigations and contributes to our understanding of rock decay processes. This includes the contribution of fieldwork to the learning process of undergraduates, the calculation of activation energies of plagioclase and olivine dissolution, the high Arctic, the discovery of a new global carbon sink, the influence of plant roots, an analysis of the need for protocols, tafoni development, stone monuments, and rock coatings. These compiled vignettes argue that, despite revolutionary advances in instrumentation, rock decay research must remain firmly footed in the field.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)59-74
Number of pages16
JournalGeomorphology
Volume200
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 15 2013

Fingerprint

fieldwork
rock
hail
carbon sink
monument
soil science
activation energy
instrumentation
coating
plagioclase
olivine
learning
dissolution
geology
engineering
modeling
stone
laboratory

Keywords

  • Chemical weathering
  • Education
  • Fieldwork
  • Geomorphology
  • Physical weathering
  • Weathering

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Earth-Surface Processes

Cite this

Dorn, R., Gordon, S. J., Allen, C. D., Cerveny, N., Dixon, J. C., Groom, K. M., ... Turkington, A. V. (2013). The role of fieldwork in rock decay research: Case studies from the fringe. Geomorphology, 200, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.012

The role of fieldwork in rock decay research : Case studies from the fringe. / Dorn, Ronald; Gordon, Steven J.; Allen, Casey D.; Cerveny, Niccole; Dixon, John C.; Groom, Kaelin M.; Hall, Kevin; Harrison, Emma; Mol, Lisa; Paradise, Thomas R.; Sumner, Paul; Thompson, Tyler; Turkington, Alice V.

In: Geomorphology, Vol. 200, 15.10.2013, p. 59-74.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dorn, R, Gordon, SJ, Allen, CD, Cerveny, N, Dixon, JC, Groom, KM, Hall, K, Harrison, E, Mol, L, Paradise, TR, Sumner, P, Thompson, T & Turkington, AV 2013, 'The role of fieldwork in rock decay research: Case studies from the fringe', Geomorphology, vol. 200, pp. 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.012
Dorn, Ronald ; Gordon, Steven J. ; Allen, Casey D. ; Cerveny, Niccole ; Dixon, John C. ; Groom, Kaelin M. ; Hall, Kevin ; Harrison, Emma ; Mol, Lisa ; Paradise, Thomas R. ; Sumner, Paul ; Thompson, Tyler ; Turkington, Alice V. / The role of fieldwork in rock decay research : Case studies from the fringe. In: Geomorphology. 2013 ; Vol. 200. pp. 59-74.
@article{8bcc243f6f9e43bf9351bfa1e6f10fb5,
title = "The role of fieldwork in rock decay research: Case studies from the fringe",
abstract = "Researchers exploring rock decay hail from chemistry, engineering, geography, geology, paleoclimatology, soil science, and other disciplines and use laboratory, microscopic, theoretical, and field-based strategies. We illustrate here how the tradition of fieldwork forms the core knowledge of rock decay and continues to build on the classic research of Blackwelder, Bryan, Gilbert, Jutson, King, Linton, Twidale, and von Humboldt. While development of nonfield-based investigation has contributed substantially to our understanding of processes, the wide range of environments, stone types, and climatic variability encountered raises issues of temporal and spatial scales too complex to fit into attempts at universal modeling. Although nonfield methods are immensely useful for understanding overarching processes, they can miss subtle differences in factors that ultimately shape rock surfaces. We, therefore, illustrate here how the tradition of fieldwork continues today alongside laboratory and computer-based investigations and contributes to our understanding of rock decay processes. This includes the contribution of fieldwork to the learning process of undergraduates, the calculation of activation energies of plagioclase and olivine dissolution, the high Arctic, the discovery of a new global carbon sink, the influence of plant roots, an analysis of the need for protocols, tafoni development, stone monuments, and rock coatings. These compiled vignettes argue that, despite revolutionary advances in instrumentation, rock decay research must remain firmly footed in the field.",
keywords = "Chemical weathering, Education, Fieldwork, Geomorphology, Physical weathering, Weathering",
author = "Ronald Dorn and Gordon, {Steven J.} and Allen, {Casey D.} and Niccole Cerveny and Dixon, {John C.} and Groom, {Kaelin M.} and Kevin Hall and Emma Harrison and Lisa Mol and Paradise, {Thomas R.} and Paul Sumner and Tyler Thompson and Turkington, {Alice V.}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "200",
pages = "59--74",
journal = "Geomorphology",
issn = "0169-555X",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The role of fieldwork in rock decay research

T2 - Case studies from the fringe

AU - Dorn, Ronald

AU - Gordon, Steven J.

AU - Allen, Casey D.

AU - Cerveny, Niccole

AU - Dixon, John C.

AU - Groom, Kaelin M.

AU - Hall, Kevin

AU - Harrison, Emma

AU - Mol, Lisa

AU - Paradise, Thomas R.

AU - Sumner, Paul

AU - Thompson, Tyler

AU - Turkington, Alice V.

PY - 2013/10/15

Y1 - 2013/10/15

N2 - Researchers exploring rock decay hail from chemistry, engineering, geography, geology, paleoclimatology, soil science, and other disciplines and use laboratory, microscopic, theoretical, and field-based strategies. We illustrate here how the tradition of fieldwork forms the core knowledge of rock decay and continues to build on the classic research of Blackwelder, Bryan, Gilbert, Jutson, King, Linton, Twidale, and von Humboldt. While development of nonfield-based investigation has contributed substantially to our understanding of processes, the wide range of environments, stone types, and climatic variability encountered raises issues of temporal and spatial scales too complex to fit into attempts at universal modeling. Although nonfield methods are immensely useful for understanding overarching processes, they can miss subtle differences in factors that ultimately shape rock surfaces. We, therefore, illustrate here how the tradition of fieldwork continues today alongside laboratory and computer-based investigations and contributes to our understanding of rock decay processes. This includes the contribution of fieldwork to the learning process of undergraduates, the calculation of activation energies of plagioclase and olivine dissolution, the high Arctic, the discovery of a new global carbon sink, the influence of plant roots, an analysis of the need for protocols, tafoni development, stone monuments, and rock coatings. These compiled vignettes argue that, despite revolutionary advances in instrumentation, rock decay research must remain firmly footed in the field.

AB - Researchers exploring rock decay hail from chemistry, engineering, geography, geology, paleoclimatology, soil science, and other disciplines and use laboratory, microscopic, theoretical, and field-based strategies. We illustrate here how the tradition of fieldwork forms the core knowledge of rock decay and continues to build on the classic research of Blackwelder, Bryan, Gilbert, Jutson, King, Linton, Twidale, and von Humboldt. While development of nonfield-based investigation has contributed substantially to our understanding of processes, the wide range of environments, stone types, and climatic variability encountered raises issues of temporal and spatial scales too complex to fit into attempts at universal modeling. Although nonfield methods are immensely useful for understanding overarching processes, they can miss subtle differences in factors that ultimately shape rock surfaces. We, therefore, illustrate here how the tradition of fieldwork continues today alongside laboratory and computer-based investigations and contributes to our understanding of rock decay processes. This includes the contribution of fieldwork to the learning process of undergraduates, the calculation of activation energies of plagioclase and olivine dissolution, the high Arctic, the discovery of a new global carbon sink, the influence of plant roots, an analysis of the need for protocols, tafoni development, stone monuments, and rock coatings. These compiled vignettes argue that, despite revolutionary advances in instrumentation, rock decay research must remain firmly footed in the field.

KW - Chemical weathering

KW - Education

KW - Fieldwork

KW - Geomorphology

KW - Physical weathering

KW - Weathering

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884988929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884988929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.012

DO - 10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.012

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84884988929

VL - 200

SP - 59

EP - 74

JO - Geomorphology

JF - Geomorphology

SN - 0169-555X

ER -