Revisiting the geomorphological‐biological divide: An introspective biogeomorphological perspective

We suggest that biogeomorphology should challenge the traditional dichotomy between living and non‐living components of Earth surface systems. To achieve this, biogeomorphologists should gain a better understanding of eco‐evolutionary models and empirical findings developing at the interface between ecology and evolutionary biology. Eco‐evolutionary models explore feedback loops between genes, organisms and the physical or biological components outside the organism's body. This changes our understanding of how organisms interact with their environment and the functional and evolutionary significance of biologically induced landforms. In the niche construction framework, genes can be conceived as the foundational evolutionary units of selection and inheritance, and everything beyond of this unit can be considered as the ‘environment’ for gene expression, either packaged within or unpackaged outside the organism. Both the packaged biological and unpackaged environments can be influenced by genes and manufactured by organisms, respectively, in the form of phenotypes or niche constructions. We propose that biomineralized structures, such as bones, osteoderms, antlers and shells, which can be packaged at varying degrees within an organism, as well as external products of genes such as termite mounds, which are unpackaged at the periphery of the organism, form a gradient of variation in the relative dominance and functional integration of biotic and abiotic components in ecosystems. A more explicit consideration of the functional interrelationships between physical and biological components transcending their traditional boundaries should promote a re‐evaluation of the dichotomy between biological and geomorphological entities. Biomineralized structures, such as bones or shells that are packaged within the organism or at the periphery of the organism, and extended products of genes, such as termite mounds that are unpackaged outside the organism, form a continuum of variation in relative dominance and functional integration of biotic and abiotic components. We revisit the basic premises of biogeomorphology with the proposition that the clear dichotomy geomorphologists and biologists traditionally establish between living and non‐living components of biogeomorphological entities may be too limiting.