The generic danger and the idiosyncratic support

A.J.A.M. Temme, J.J. Nijp, W.M. van der Meij, J. Samia, R.J.H. Masselink

Research output: Contribution to journalAbstractAcademic

Abstract

This contribution argues two main points. First, that generic landscapes used in some modelling studies sometimes
have properties or cause simulation results that are unrealistic. Such initially flat or straight-sloped landscapes,
sometimes with minor random perturbations, e.g. form the backdrop for ecological simulations of vegetation
growth and competition that predict catastrophic shifts. Exploratory results for semi-arid systems suggest that the
results based on these generic landscapes are end-members from a distribution of results, rather than an unbiased,
typical outcome. Apparently, the desire to avoid idiosyncrasy has unintended consequences.
Second, we argue and illustrate that in fact new insights often come from close inspection of idiosyncratic case
studies. Our examples from landslide systems, connectivity and soil formation show how a central role for the
case study – either in empirical work or to provide model targets – has advanced our understanding.
Both points contribute to the conclusion that it is dangerous to forget about annoying, small-scale, idiosyncratic
and, indeed, perhaps bad-ass case studies in Earth Sciences.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberEGU2016-18033
Number of pages1
JournalGeophysical Research Abstracts
Volume18
Publication statusPublished - 2016
EventEGU General Assembly 2016 - Austria, Vienna, Austria
Duration: 17 Apr 201622 May 2016

Fingerprint

Earth science
simulation
connectivity
landslide
perturbation
modeling
inspection
distribution
soil formation

Cite this

Temme, A. J. A. M., Nijp, J. J., van der Meij, W. M., Samia, J., & Masselink, R. J. H. (2016). The generic danger and the idiosyncratic support. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 18, [EGU2016-18033].
Temme, A.J.A.M. ; Nijp, J.J. ; van der Meij, W.M. ; Samia, J. ; Masselink, R.J.H. / The generic danger and the idiosyncratic support. In: Geophysical Research Abstracts. 2016 ; Vol. 18.
@article{62dac274b107400aaaf57e903db9503e,
title = "The generic danger and the idiosyncratic support",
abstract = "This contribution argues two main points. First, that generic landscapes used in some modelling studies sometimeshave properties or cause simulation results that are unrealistic. Such initially flat or straight-sloped landscapes,sometimes with minor random perturbations, e.g. form the backdrop for ecological simulations of vegetationgrowth and competition that predict catastrophic shifts. Exploratory results for semi-arid systems suggest that theresults based on these generic landscapes are end-members from a distribution of results, rather than an unbiased,typical outcome. Apparently, the desire to avoid idiosyncrasy has unintended consequences.Second, we argue and illustrate that in fact new insights often come from close inspection of idiosyncratic casestudies. Our examples from landslide systems, connectivity and soil formation show how a central role for thecase study – either in empirical work or to provide model targets – has advanced our understanding.Both points contribute to the conclusion that it is dangerous to forget about annoying, small-scale, idiosyncraticand, indeed, perhaps bad-ass case studies in Earth Sciences.",
author = "A.J.A.M. Temme and J.J. Nijp and {van der Meij}, W.M. and J. Samia and R.J.H. Masselink",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
journal = "Geophysical Research Abstracts",
issn = "1029-7006",

}

Temme, AJAM, Nijp, JJ, van der Meij, WM, Samia, J & Masselink, RJH 2016, 'The generic danger and the idiosyncratic support', Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol. 18, EGU2016-18033.

The generic danger and the idiosyncratic support. / Temme, A.J.A.M.; Nijp, J.J.; van der Meij, W.M.; Samia, J.; Masselink, R.J.H.

In: Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU2016-18033, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalAbstractAcademic

TY - JOUR

T1 - The generic danger and the idiosyncratic support

AU - Temme, A.J.A.M.

AU - Nijp, J.J.

AU - van der Meij, W.M.

AU - Samia, J.

AU - Masselink, R.J.H.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - This contribution argues two main points. First, that generic landscapes used in some modelling studies sometimeshave properties or cause simulation results that are unrealistic. Such initially flat or straight-sloped landscapes,sometimes with minor random perturbations, e.g. form the backdrop for ecological simulations of vegetationgrowth and competition that predict catastrophic shifts. Exploratory results for semi-arid systems suggest that theresults based on these generic landscapes are end-members from a distribution of results, rather than an unbiased,typical outcome. Apparently, the desire to avoid idiosyncrasy has unintended consequences.Second, we argue and illustrate that in fact new insights often come from close inspection of idiosyncratic casestudies. Our examples from landslide systems, connectivity and soil formation show how a central role for thecase study – either in empirical work or to provide model targets – has advanced our understanding.Both points contribute to the conclusion that it is dangerous to forget about annoying, small-scale, idiosyncraticand, indeed, perhaps bad-ass case studies in Earth Sciences.

AB - This contribution argues two main points. First, that generic landscapes used in some modelling studies sometimeshave properties or cause simulation results that are unrealistic. Such initially flat or straight-sloped landscapes,sometimes with minor random perturbations, e.g. form the backdrop for ecological simulations of vegetationgrowth and competition that predict catastrophic shifts. Exploratory results for semi-arid systems suggest that theresults based on these generic landscapes are end-members from a distribution of results, rather than an unbiased,typical outcome. Apparently, the desire to avoid idiosyncrasy has unintended consequences.Second, we argue and illustrate that in fact new insights often come from close inspection of idiosyncratic casestudies. Our examples from landslide systems, connectivity and soil formation show how a central role for thecase study – either in empirical work or to provide model targets – has advanced our understanding.Both points contribute to the conclusion that it is dangerous to forget about annoying, small-scale, idiosyncraticand, indeed, perhaps bad-ass case studies in Earth Sciences.

M3 - Abstract

VL - 18

JO - Geophysical Research Abstracts

JF - Geophysical Research Abstracts

SN - 1029-7006

M1 - EGU2016-18033

ER -