Abstract Soil and regolith creep have been analyzed for at least the last 140 years, using many methodological configurations and temporal and spatial scales. The general concept of creeping soil and its mechanism, first proposed by W.M. Davis and G.K. Gilbert at the end of the 19th century, evolved since the 1940s towards theoretical models and precise short- and long-term field measurements. This fruitful epoch continued with results enhanced at the turn of the 20th century by the application of new research methods (e.g. radiometry) and a redefinition of the term soil creep to encompass the sum of stochastic shallow subsurface and near-surface processes causing net downslope movement of soil or regolith. Simultaneously, another possibility of creep detection was noticed in dendrochronology, and since the 1970s, in the formally defined discipline of dendrogeomorphology, indirect evaluations of creep activity were performed based on tree-ring analyses of bent trees. This method found many followers, but was also heavily criticized as imprecise and lacking in evidence of which kind of tree trunk curvature (e.g. “pistol-butt”- like deformation, S-shape curvature) could be ascribed to creep movement. From the beginning, soil creep was associated with the activity of living organisms on hillslopes. However, this aspect of creep studies has never been fully developed, in spite of the solid foundations and directions of potential studies pointed out by Charles Darwin at the end of the 19th century. In this paper we focus on the historical context of soil creep studies, and highlight forest ecosystems as probably the most active environment of biogenic creep, mainly due to tree uprooting and other biomechanical effects of living and dead trees (root channel infilling, tree root mounding etc.) that are a factors in biotransport. In the final sections the position of biogenic creep in the structure of biogeomorphic systems is discussed in relation to such important conceptual frameworks as the biogeomorphic ecosystem, biogeomorphic feedback window and ecosystem engineering. We also describe several hypotheses that should be carefully tested in the future, and propose several research methods that have the ability to further our knowledge about soil creep: radiometry, laser scanning and soil micromorphology.

中文翻译：

---

土壤蠕变：生物地貌和成土域和系统的驱动因素、证据和意义——关键文献综述

摘要 至少在过去的 140 年里，已经使用许多方法配置和时间和空间尺度对土壤和风化层蠕变进行了分析。WM Davis 和 GK Gilbert 在 19 世纪末首次提出匍匐土壤及其机制的一般概念，自 1940 年代以来逐渐发展为理论模型和精确的短期和长期实地测量。通过应用新的研究方法（例如辐射测量）和重新定义术语土壤蠕变以包含导致净下坡运动的随机浅层地下和近地表过程的总和，这个富有成效的时代在 20 世纪之交继续取得成果。土壤或风化层。同时，在树木年代学中发现了另一种蠕变检测的可能性，并且自 1970 年代以来，在正式定义的树状地貌学学科中，蠕变活动的间接评估是基于弯曲树木的年轮分析进行的。这种方法发现了许多追随者，但也被严厉批评为不精确且缺乏证据表明哪种树干曲率（例如“枪托”状变形、S 形曲率）可归因于蠕动运动。从一开始，土壤蠕变就与山坡上生物的活动有关。然而，尽管查尔斯达尔文在 19 世纪末指出了潜在研究的坚实基础和方向，但蠕变研究的这一方面从未得到充分发展。在本文中，我们关注土壤蠕变研究的历史背景，并强调森林生态系统可能是最活跃的生物蠕变环境，主要是由于树木连根拔起和活树和死树的其他生物力学效应（根通道填充、树根丘陵等）是生物运输的一个因素。在最后几节中，讨论了生物地貌系统结构中生物蠕变的位置，涉及生物地貌生态系统、生物地貌反馈窗口和生态系统工程等重要概念框架。我们还描述了一些未来应该仔细测试的假设，并提出了几种能够进一步加深我们对土壤蠕变知识的研究方法：辐射测定法、激光扫描和土壤微形态学。在最后几节中，讨论了生物地貌系统结构中生物蠕变的位置，涉及生物地貌生态系统、生物地貌反馈窗口和生态系统工程等重要概念框架。我们还描述了一些未来应该仔细测试的假设，并提出了几种能够进一步加深我们对土壤蠕变知识的研究方法：辐射测定法、激光扫描和土壤微形态学。在最后几节中，讨论了生物地貌系统结构中生物蠕变的位置，涉及生物地貌生态系统、生物地貌反馈窗口和生态系统工程等重要概念框架。我们还描述了一些未来应该仔细测试的假设，并提出了几种能够进一步加深我们对土壤蠕变知识的研究方法：辐射测定法、激光扫描和土壤微形态学。