the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
TopoToolbox 3, a laboratory for quantitative geomorphology
Abstract. TopoToolbox has been widely used to analyze and model landscapes across geomorphology and other geospatial disciplines for the past 15 years. Its documentation and accessible interfaces have made it a valuable resource for teaching and learning quantitative geomorphology while its customizability and efficiency have allowed researchers to use it as a platform for experimentation and implementation of their own analyses and models. Its third version, TopoToolbox 3, builds on these developments by improving access to the software, integrating with a larger ecosystem of geomorphology software, and establishing sustainable research software engineering practices. TopoToolbox, previously available only on the MATLAB platform, is now also available to users of Python, and an R interface is under development. The redesigned architecture of TopoToolbox 3 is based on a shared library of core computational routines that makes these and other integrations possible while maintaining the MATLAB interface for existing users of the software. We illustrate the power of this design with examples of how users can integrate TopoToolbox into their workflows. First, we compare the implementation of a basic application, $\chi$ maps, in MATLAB and Python. Second, we use the GraphFlood hydraulic model, now available in TopoToolbox, to showcase the potential of integrating simulation tools and analyzing their output in one computational environment. Third, we demonstrate a two-way coupling between TopoToolbox and the Python-based Landlab landscape evolution modeling framework. Finally, we show how property-based testing can successfully identify bugs in the absence of known solutions to test cases. We conclude by discussing how improved quality assurance and community-driven development practices ensure that TopoToolbox continues to serve the evolving needs of the geomorphology community.
Competing interests: Some authors are members of the editorial board of journal Earth Surface Dynamics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(1460 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Jul 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2478', Benoît Bovy, 01 Jun 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', William Kearney, 08 Jun 2026
reply
> This manuscript presents TopoToolbox 3, a re-designed set of software
> components that provide tools for both topographic analysis and
> modelling.> The manuscript illustrates well how the development of TopoToolbox 3
> follows the principles of Findability, Accessibility,
> Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR) for research software. For
> example, section 2.3.4 describes how it integrates with Landlab,
> another software widely used for landscape evolution modelling.> I'd like to emphasize that developing research software according to
> the FAIR principles is a significant undertaking (API and architecture
> design, documentation, testing and continuous-integration, packaging,
> reviews, etc.) that has the potential of greatly benefiting an entire
> community. I believe that TopoToolbox 3 will be no exception for the
> Geomorphology community. Such effort merits recognition and credit,
> and I sincerely hope that TopoToolbox 3 maintainers and contributors
> will get all the credit they deserve!Thanks for the very kind words.
> I'd also like to note that besides TopoToolbox 3 (and Landlab),
> there exists other stacks of software that share similar broad — more
> or less ambitious — objectives and features, that have been developed
> using the same FAIR principles and that together have been benefiting
> the same community. This includes, among others, Fastscape
> (https://github.com/fastscape-lem) and LSDTopoTools
> (https://github.com/LSDtopotools). The manuscript could certainly be
> more effective at mentioning such relevant projects, perhaps with some
> brief sentences on how they compare with TopoToolbox 3 and/or how they
> might be integrated with each other, conceding that an exhaustive
> review or thorough comparison is well outside of the scope
> here. Sadly, though, this appears to have been completely overlooked
> in the current version of the manuscript (e.g., no citation found for
> any of the aforementioned projects). Improving this aspect in the
> manuscript would be useful, much appreciated and — mostly — fair.This point is well taken. The manuscript does not thoroughly review
the many tools that do similar tasks to TopoToolbox. The focus is
currently on the integrations that we have accomplished (i.e. with
Landlab), and the question of how to integrate TopoToolbox with these
other tools is largely left up to the reader's imagination. We will
address this in a revised version of the manuscript by including more
discussion of the state of landscape analysis software in 2026.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2478-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', William Kearney, 08 Jun 2026
reply
Model code and software
topotoolbox3 William Kearney, Wolfgang Schwanghart, Dirk Scherler, Richard Ott, Gina Arnau https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20322894
libtopotoolbox William Kearney, Boris Gailleton, Gina Arnau, Theophil Bringezu, Florian Katerndahl, Kilian Lenz, Wolfgang Schwanghart https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20269315
pytopotoolbox William Kearney, Boris Gailleton, Theophil Bringezu, Gina Arnau, Luca Malatesta, François Faure, Xiaochuan Ye https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20209621
Interactive computing environment
TopoToolbox Gallery William Kearney, Wolfgang Schwanghart, Boris Gailleton https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20270725
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 193 | 72 | 11 | 276 | 8 | 6 |
- HTML: 193
- PDF: 72
- XML: 11
- Total: 276
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript presents TopoToolbox 3, a re-designed set of software components that provide tools for both topographic analysis and modelling.
The manuscript illustrates well how the development of TopoToolbox 3 follows the principles of Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (FAIR) for research software. For example, section 2.3.4 describes how it integrates with Landlab, another software widely used for landscape evolution modelling.
I'd like to emphasize that developing research software according to the FAIR principles is a significant undertaking (API and architecture design, documentation, testing and continuous-integration, packaging, reviews, etc.) that has the potential of greatly benefiting an entire community. I believe that TopoToolbox 3 will be no exception for the Geomorphology community. Such effort merits recognition and credit, and I sincerely hope that TopoToolbox 3 maintainers and contributors will get all the credit they deserve!
I'd also like to note that besides TopoToolbox 3 (and Landlab), there exists other stacks of software that share similar broad — more or less ambitious — objectives and features, that have been developed using the same FAIR principles and that together have been benefiting the same community. This includes, among others, Fastscape (https://github.com/fastscape-lem) and LSDTopoTools (https://github.com/LSDtopotools). The manuscript could certainly be more effective at mentioning such relevant projects, perhaps with some brief sentences on how they compare with TopoToolbox 3 and/or how they might be integrated with each other, conceding that an exhaustive review or thorough comparison is well outside of the scope here. Sadly, though, this appears to have been completely overlooked in the current version of the manuscript (e.g., no citation found for any of the aforementioned projects). Improving this aspect in the manuscript would be useful, much appreciated and — mostly — fair.
(Full disclosure: I’m maintainer of the Fastscape software stack and this comment represents my own view)