Variability in precipitation frequency, intensity and duration deeply affect vegetation and erosion yields. Under climate change scenarios, alterations in precipitation are expected but it is not well understood how it could affect erosion rates and what is the role of vegetation on landscape geomorphic response. Traditional erosion models normally include basic representations of vegetation that do not account for the dynamic character of biomass variability and feedbacks with hydrological and erosion/deposition processes. Hence, using a new modelling frameworks that account for the effect of varying vegetation cover on erosion, and that includes climate change scenarios is needed. Here we use a new model: COPLAS, a tool that couples a Landform Evolution Model with dynamic vegetation and carbon pools modules to investigate the response of landscapes to climate change. The vegetation module includes a coupled photosynthesis-stomatal conductance representation that responds to climatic data inputs as temperature, CO2 concentration and water availability. We use the model to simulate the erosional and geomorphic responses of dynamic vegetation in Howard Springs (Australia) to predicted changes in daily precipitation under future CO2 concentrations of about 940 ppm. The model was calibrated using Ozflux site historical data. Catchment scale simulations were run for a period of 100 years for three scenarios (bare soil, constant and dynamic vegetation) using a daily time step. We found that, for our study case, bare soil produces on average 139% more erosion than the constant vegetation case and 124% more than the dynamic vegetation case. Moreover, an increase in precipitation of around 23% induces an increase of 25%, 35% and 43% in the erosion rates for dynamic vegetation, constant vegetation and bare soil respectively, while a decrease in 26% reduces it in 36%, 60% and 59%. This could be explained by the nonlinear relation between erosion and vegetation (higher rainfall induces higher erosion potential which can be counteracted by an increase in vegetation cover leading to a decrease in soil erodibilty). This finding highlights the importance of considering the dynamic character of vegetation in order to understand the nonlinear relations between fluvial erosion and vegetation cover.