Comment on “Recasting geomorphology as a landscape science” by

Slaymaker et al. (2021) argue that geomorphology is poorly known and has little influence outside its practitioners and therefore should be recast as both a geoscience and a landscape science. The only evidence they evince for the claim about the lack of influence of geomorphology is that it is not evident in the publications from international environmental programs. This is far from a convincing case and does not support their view that geomorphology should be recast. We contend that most geomorphological influence is at the national, regional to local scale, not internationally. Our main concern with their proposal is however that a change of language could confuse potential users and students, with the opposite effect to what they wish.