Forest and Floods Mitigation: Evidence from China

Tembata, Kaori; Matsumoto, Kazuya; Yamamoto, Masao; Yamamoto, Yuki

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3515698

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lower permeability of pasture soils is known to increase runoff and contribute to downstream flooding (Alaoui et al, 2018). Conifer forests soils can have lower permeability compared with both broadleaf woodland and permanent pasture (Chappell et al, 1996;Gonzalez-Sosa et al, 2010), contributing to greater overland flow (Tembata et al, 2020). Many previous studies also found higher subsoil permeability in woodland soils, whereas we found no significant difference in soil permeability at 15 cm depth between woodland and pasture soils.…”

Section: Soil Propertiescontrasting

confidence: 67%

“…Our study focused on mature, semi-natural woodlands consisting of native broadleaf tree species without any Kirby et al, 1991;Stratford et al, 2017) which may partly explain the difference in response to larger storms. Tembata et al (2020) confirms that forest type is important, with broadleaf and mixed forests mitigating flooding whereas conifer forests did not.…”

Section: Impact Of Storm Sizementioning

confidence: 59%

“…Furthermore, the occurrence of periodic felling in a productive conifer plantation removes the canopy and causes soil disturbance which may contribute to an increase in localized flood risk (Nisbet & Thomas, 2006) and increased annual flows (Robinson & Dupeyrat, 2005). In a study focused on China, Tembata et al (2020) found that broadleaf and mixed forests mitigate flooding, but conifer forests do not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The impact of semi‐natural broadleaf woodland and pasture on soil properties and flood discharge

Monger

Spracklen

Kirkby

et al. 2022

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Woodlands can reduce the risk of rainfall-generated flooding through increased interception, soil infiltration and available storage. Despite growing evidence, there is still low confidence in using woodlands as a flood mitigation method due to limited empirical data, particularly for broadleaf woodlands. We measured soil properties and streamflow for nine small (<0.2 km 2 ) upland catchments and compared mature semi-natural broadleaf woodland where no stock grazing occurs to pasture with varied grazing intensity. We compared streamflow across 28 storm events including a 1 in 10-year event, two 1 in 4-year events and five 1 in 1.5-year events, identified over a 13-month period. We found that semi-natural broadleaf woodlands reduce specific peak discharge by 23%-60% and peak runoff coefficients by 30%-60% compared with pasture. Response to storm events took 14-50% longer in woodland compared to pasture. These differences in flood response are partly explained by more permeable woodland soils, 11-20 times greater than pasture soil. The more muted response of wooded catchments to storm events is consistent across the storms investigated, including Storm Ciara, a 1 in 10-year event. Our analysis strengthens the argument that semi-natural woodlands can reduce rainfall-generated flooding contributing to the evidence base for natural flood management.catchment-based flood management, natural flood management, pasture, soil permeability, woodland | INTRODUCTIONOver the past three decades the frequency of flood events has increased across the UK (Rogger et al., 2017) and worldwide (Hall et al., 2014;Kundzewicz et al., 2014;Wingfield et al., 2019). In England, floods cause damages of £1.1 billion annually with one in six properties at risk from flooding (Priestley, 2017). This risk is expected to further increase under future climate change (Iacob et al., 2017).Because of recent floods, there is a growing interest in the use of 'soft-engineered' flood mitigation schemes (Dadson et al., 2017;Stevens et al., 2016). Natural Flood Management (NFM), also referred to as working with natural processes or nature-based solutions (Seddon et al., 2020), is an approach to flood management that seeks to work with natural processes to enhance the flood regulatory capacity of a catchment. Often these approaches also provide ecosystem services such as pollution assimilation, habitat creation and carbon storage (Hankin et al., 2017). NFM approaches may include the

show abstract

Section: Soil Propertiescontrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Impact Of Storm Sizementioning

confidence: 59%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of semi‐natural broadleaf woodland and pasture on soil properties and flood discharge

Monger

Spracklen

Kirkby

et al. 2022

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beyond the illustrative example of mangroves, forests in general can be part of disaster risk reduction efforts in the face of hydrometeorological hazards, such as floods (van Noordwijk, Tanika and Lusiana, 2017;Tembata et al, 2020) as discussed in the previous section, storm surge (Kayum, Shimatani and Minagawa, 2022), landslides (Forbes and Broadhead, 2011), avalanches (Zurbriggen et al, 2014), and erosion of riverbanks and coastlines (Bessinger et al, 2022).…”

Section: Forests Protect Communities From Hazardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest-based adaptation: transformational adaptation through forests and trees

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

show abstract