Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Year of publication
- 2019 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Institute
The large, shallow earthquakes at Northridge, California (1994), Chi-Chi, Taiwan (1999), and Wenchuan, China (2008), each triggered thousands of landslides. We have determined the position of these landslides along hillslopes, normalizing for statistical bias. The landslide patterns have a co-seismic signature, with clustering at ridge crests and slope toes. A cross-check against rainfall-induced landslide inventories seems to confirm that crest clustering is specific to seismic triggering as observed in previous studies. In our three study areas, the seismic ground motion parameters and lithologic and topographic features used do not seem to exert a primary control on the observed patterns of landslide clustering. However, we show that at the scale of the epicentral area, crest and toe clustering occur in areas with specific geological features. Toe clustering of seismically induced landslides tends to occur along regional major faults. Crest clustering is concentrated at sites where the lithology along hillslopes is approximately uniform, or made of alternating soft and hard strata, and without strong overprint of geological structures. Although earthquake-induced landslides locate higher on hillslopes in a statistically significant way, geological features strongly modulate the landslide position along the hillslopes. As a result the observation of landslide clustering on topographic ridges cannot be used as a definite indicator of the topographic amplification of ground shaking.
In active mountain belts with steep terrain, bedrock landsliding is a major erosional agent. In the Himalayas, landsliding is driven by annual hydro-meteorological forcing due to the summer monsoon and by rarer, exceptional events, such as earthquakes. Independent methods yield erosion rate estimates that appear to increase with sampling time, suggesting that rare, high-magnitude erosion events dominate the erosional budget. Nevertheless, until now, neither the contribution of monsoon and earthquakes to landslide erosion nor the proportion of erosion due to rare, giant landslides have been quantified in the Himalayas. We address these challenges by combining and analysing earthquake- and monsoon-induced landslide inventories across different timescales. With time series of 5 m satellite images over four main valleys in central Nepal, we comprehensively mapped landslides caused by the monsoon from 2010 to 2018. We found no clear correlation between monsoon properties and landsliding and a similar mean landsliding rate for all valleys, except in 2015, where the valleys affected by the earthquake featured similar to 5-8 times more landsliding than the pre-earthquake mean rate. The longterm size-frequency distribution of monsoon-induced landsliding (MIL) was derived from these inventories and from an inventory of landslides larger than similar to 0.1 km(2) that occurred between 1972 and 2014. Using a published landslide inventory for the Gorkha 2015 earthquake, we derive the size-frequency distribution for earthquakeinduced landsliding (EQIL). These two distributions are dominated by infrequent, large and giant landslides but under-predict an estimated Holocene frequency of giant landslides (> 1 km(3)) which we derived from a literature compilation. This discrepancy can be resolved when modelling the effect of a full distribution of earthquakes of variable magnitude and when considering that a shallower earthquake may cause larger landslides. In this case, EQIL and MIL contribute about equally to a total long-term erosion of similar to 2 +/- 0.75 mm yr(-1) in agreement with most thermo-chronological data. Independently of the specific total and relative erosion rates, the heavy-tailed size-frequency distribution from MIL and EQIL and the very large maximal landslide size in the Himalayas indicate that mean landslide erosion rates increase with sampling time, as has been observed for independent erosion estimates. Further, we find that the sampling timescale required to adequately capture the frequency of the largest landslides, which is necessary for deriving long-term mean erosion rates, is often much longer than the averaging time of cosmogenic Be-10 methods. This observation presents a strong caveat when interpreting spatial or temporal variability in erosion rates from this method. Thus, in areas where a very large, rare landslide contributes heavily to long-term erosion (as the Himalayas), we recommend Be-10 sample in catchments with source areas > 10 000 km(2) to reduce the method mean bias to below similar to 20 % of the long-term erosion.