Characteristic landslide distributions: An investigation of landscape controls on landslide size

Medwedeff, William; Clark, Marin K.; Zekkos, Dimitrios; West, A. Joshua

doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116203

Cited by 48 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The proposed method deals with a hillslope architecture of regolith placed on top of “impenetrable” bedrock. While the proposed model may be applied with a cohesion value to represent bedrock strength, as done in other slope stability studies (e.g., Gallen et al., 2015; Jeandet et al., 2019; Medwedeff et al., 2020; Schmidt & Montgomery, 1995; Montgomery and), it is currently only used to reflect a translational, slab failure mechanism and does not necessarily capture (1) the full mechanical behavior of progressive fracture in rock, or more importantly (2) the inherently complex hydrological response of bedrock to precipitation. While the authors acknowledge that omission of these factors limits some of the findings described in this study to shallow landslides, this post‐seismic behavior proposed herein—that is, initiation and progression of a failure surface and associated internal stress changes—is still relevant to understanding both the hazard and the landscape response following an earthquake.…”

Section: Discussion On Damage Evolution After Shakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Medwedeff et al. (2020) describe the importance of cohesion and relief in the observed landslide size distributions from a variety of earthquakes, suggesting that the observed distributions of landslide sizes are heavily dependent on the distribution of hillslope geometries on a given landscape, while the size and subset of hillslopes that fail, primarily owe to the magnitude and type of disturbance. Bunn et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Jeandet et al (2019) demonstrated that one plausible reason for the observed "rollover" behavior in landslide volume distributions may potentially be due to the mechanical strength properties of hillslope materials, particularly the observed effective cohesion for the earthquake-induced inventories described (defining a minimum landslide volume). Similarly, Medwedeff et al (2020) describe the importance of cohesion and relief in the observed landslide size distributions from a variety of earthquakes, suggesting that the observed distributions of landslide sizes are heavily dependent on the distribution of hillslope geometries on a given landscape, while the size and subset of hillslopes that fail, primarily owe to the magnitude and type of disturbance. Bunn et al (2020) used three-dimensional slope stability models to back-analyze landslide inventories, observing that for the landslides considered, there was an inverse correlation between landslide size and shear strength, in agreement with the aforementioned studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Enhanced Rainfall‐Induced Shallow Landslide Activity Following Seismic Disturbance—From Triggering to Healing

Leshchinsky

Lehmann

2021

JGR Earth Surface

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussion On Damage Evolution After Shakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhanced Rainfall‐Induced Shallow Landslide Activity Following Seismic Disturbance—From Triggering to Healing

Leshchinsky

Lehmann

2021

JGR Earth Surface

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This implies that larger landslides are expected to be closer to the fault zone where the influence of ground motion is more intense. In fact, Medwedeff et al (2020) indicated that the contribution of ground motion has a limited control on size of the landslides, compared to hillslope relief.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landslide size matters: a new spatial predictive paradigm

Lombardo¹,

Tanyaş²,

Huser³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard definition of landslide hazard requires the estimation of where, when (or how frequently) and how large a given landslide event may be. The geomorphological community involved in statistical models has addressed the component pertaining to how large a landslide event may be by introducing the concept of landslide-event magnitude scale. This scale, which depends on the planimetric area of the given population of landslides, in analogy to the earthquake magnitude, has been expressed with a single value per landslide event. As a result, the geographic or spatially-distributed estimation of how large a population of landslide may be when considered at the slope scale, has been disregarded in statistically-based landslide hazard studies. Conversely, the estimation of the landslide extent has been commonly part of physically-based applications, though their implementation is often limited to very small regions.In this work, we initially present a review of methods developed for landslide hazard assessment since its first conception decades ago. Subsequently, we introduce for the first time a statistically-based model able to estimate the planimetric area of landslides aggregated per slope units. More specifically, we implemented a Bayesian version of a Generalized Additive Model where the maximum landslide sizes per slope unit and the sum of all landslide sizes per slope unit are predicted via a Log-Gaussian model. These "max" and "sum" models capture the spatial distribution of landslide sizes. We tested these models on a global dataset expressing the distribution of co-seismic landslides due to 24 earthquakes across the globe. The two models we present are both evaluated on a suite of performance diagnostics that suggest our models suitably predict the aggregated landslide extent per slope unit.In addition to a complex procedure involving variable selection and a spatial uncertainty estimation, we built our model over slopes where landslides triggered in response to seismic

show abstract

“…The point and area density 7,8 and the size (i.e. area and volume) of slope failures were found to be potentially proportional to specific seismic parameters, such as the peak ground acceleration and the earthquake magnitude [9][10][11][12] . Therefore, larger earthquakes are commonly associated to a larger erosional impact 2 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of landslides on the volume balance of the Nepal 2015 earthquake sequence

Valagussa

Frattini

Valbuzzi

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 7.8 Mw earthquake that struck Nepal on April 25th, 2015 triggered over 21,000 landslides over an area of more than 25,000 km2. These landslides contributed to mass wasting, partially compensating the tectonic uplift by the earthquake. In this paper we quantify the volume balance resulting from the 2015 earthquake uplift (or subsidence) and landslide erosion. Starting from a new complete earthquake-induced landslide inventory, we calculated landslide volume by adopting different strategies for low-mobility and high-mobility landslides, considering also the potential supply of sediments to the drainage network. The results show that the contribution of earthquake-induced landslides to erosion is about one order of magnitude smaller than the vertical coseismic displacement. We found landslide volume values, due to the 2015 Nepal earthquake, ranging between 251 (− 15/ + 16) Mm3 up to 1503 (− 183/ + 210) Mm3 based on the adopted method, and a volume due to coseismic vertical displacement of 2134 (± 1269) Mm3 for the whole area. The volume balance of the 2015 Nepal earthquake is strongly dominated by tectonic displacement. We show that these estimates depend on several uncertainties. We identified and quantified uncertainties related to: (1) the choice of empirical volume-area scaling relationships and their parameters; (2) the completeness and quality of landslide inventory through comparison with available inventories; (3) the approach adopted for the assessment of elongated landslide volume; (4) the InSAR displacement data.

show abstract

Characteristic landslide distributions: An investigation of landscape controls on landslide size

Cited by 48 publications

References 41 publications

Enhanced Rainfall‐Induced Shallow Landslide Activity Following Seismic Disturbance—From Triggering to Healing

Enhanced Rainfall‐Induced Shallow Landslide Activity Following Seismic Disturbance—From Triggering to Healing

Landslide size matters: a new spatial predictive paradigm

Role of landslides on the volume balance of the Nepal 2015 earthquake sequence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About