The post-depositional changes of the onshore 2004 tsunami deposits on the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand
The Indian Ocean tsunami flooded the coastal zone of the Andaman Sea and left tsunami deposits with a thickness of a few millimetres to tens of centimetres over a roughly one-kilometre-wide tsunami inundation zone. The preservation potential and the post-depositional changes of the onshore tsunami deposits in the coastal plain setting, under conditions of a tropical climate with high seasonal rainfall, were assessed by reinvestigating trenches located along 13 shore-perpendicular transects; the trenches were documented shortly after the tsunami and after 1, 2, 3 and 4 years. The tsunami deposits were found preserved after 4 years at only half of the studied sites. In about 30% of the sites, the tsunami deposits were not preserved due to human activity; in a further 20% of the sites, the thin tsunami deposits were eroded or not recognised due to new soil formation. The most significant changes took place during the first rainy season when the relief of the tsunami deposits was levelled; moderate sediment redeposition took place, and fine surface sediments were washed away, which frequently left a residual layer of coarse sand and gravel. The fast recovery of new plant cover stabilised the tsunami deposits and protected them against further remobilisation during the subsequent years. After five rainy seasons, tsunami deposits with a thickness of at least a few centimetres were relatively well preserved; however, their internal structures were often significantly blurred by roots and animal bioturbation. Moreover, soil formation within the deposits caused alterations, and in the case of thin layers, it was not possible to recognise them anymore. Tsunami boulders were only slightly weathered but not moved. Among the various factors influencing the preservation potential, the thickness of the original tsunami deposits is the most important. A comparison between the first post-tsunami survey and the preserved record suggests that tsunamis with a run-up smaller than three metres are not likely to be preserved; for larger tsunamis, only about 50% of their inundation area is likely to be presented by the preserved extent of the tsunami deposits. Any modelling of paleotsunamis from their deposits must take into account post-depositional changes.
KeywordsTsunami deposits Preservation potential Post-depositional changes Indian Ocean tsunami Coastal zone Thailand
Tsunamis are long sea waves that are usually generated by earthquakes, explosive volcanic activity, submarine slides or asteroid impact. They present a serious hazard to coastal communities as proved by the tsunami on 26 December 2004, which was the most destructive in recorded history. The occurrence and extent of the Indian Ocean tsunami were unprecedented in most of the impacted regions, which contributed to the large number of tsunami victims. Thus, the first step to improve the preparedness of coastal communities is to provide a tsunami hazard assessment that is essentially based on the studies of past events and helps to determine both potential inundation areas and recurrence periods. However, historical records are normally too short to register more than one tsunami. This is why studies on the sedimentary record of past tsunamis (paleotsunami) are so important (e.g. Minoura and Nakaya 1991; Clague et al. 2000; Nanayama et al. 2003; Pinegina et al. 2003; Goff et al. 2010).
Explicit identification of paleotsunami deposits is often difficult because of several reasons. Tsunami deposits are represented by various sediment types, which range from mud to boulders. Furthermore, they are similar to other deposits, for instance storm deposits (e.g. Morton et al. 2007; Switzer and Jones 2008). There is no simple diagnostic set of criteria to identify tsunami deposits easily (Dawson and Shi 2000; Goff et al. 2001; Scheffers and Kelletat 2003; Morton et al. 2007; Bourgeois 2009). However, when the deposits are identified, their detailed studies are useful to assess the water velocity, the depth of past tsunami inundations and source locations and to understand how the tsunami affected the coastal geomorphology (e.g. Jaffe and Gelfenbuam 2007; Smith et al. 2007).
Modern tsunami deposits often display more complex internal stratigraphy than their ancient counterparts. For instance, the first discovered paleotsunami deposits in Thailand (Jankaew et al. 2008; Fujino et al. 2009) are massive and depleted in microfossils compared to the 2004 tsunami deposits from the same area, which reveal many sedimentary structures and are rich in both diatoms and foraminifera (Choowong et al. 2008a; Sawai et al. 2009). Therefore, understanding how post-depositional processes modify tsunami deposits and attempting to quantify the nature and the rate of these changes are essential not only to interpret the flow conditions of paleotsunamis but also to identify paleotsunami deposits at all.
The last decade was a period of significant progress in tsunami sedimentology; the importance of the preservation potential problem, in particular for the case of onshore (subaerial) deposits, was recognised (e.g. Minoura et al. 1997; Dawson and Shi 2000; Rhodes et al. 2006; Weiss and Bahlburg 2006; Keating et al. 2008). However, only few studies were dedicated to post-depositional changes and the preservation potential of tsunami deposits. A major difficulty is due to the need for documentation of tsunami deposits shortly after a tsunami and then to make time-series documentation in the following months and years. The depositional effects of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami were well documented and intensively studied shortly after the tsunami in many regions with different geological and climatic conditions (e.g. Kench et al. 2006; Bahlburg and Weiss 2007; Choowong et al. 2007, 2008a, b; Kelletat et al. 2007; Paris et al. 2007, 2009; Srinivasalu et al. 2007; Fujino et al. 2008). The post-tsunami recovery of coastal zones was generally found to be relatively fast—on the order of a few months to a few years (Choowong et al. 2009; Grzelak et al. 2009; Kendall et al. 2009; Liew et al. 2009; Wong 2009). Several studies focused on the recovery of tsunami-affected soils (e.g. Hulugalle et al. 2009; McLeod et al. 2010). However, relatively little attention was paid to post-depositional alteration and the preservation of the onshore tsunami deposits, while only a few systematic studies were conducted.
The study was conducted in the coastal zone of western Thailand (Phang Nga province and on Phuket Island), which faces the Andaman Sea (Fig. 1). The investigated sites represent either rocky shorelines with small pocket beaches and narrow coastal plains (Tri Trang, Patong and Thap Lamu) or long sandy beaches in front of an up to 3 km-wide coastal plains (Bang Sak, Bang Mor, Nham Kem and Kho Khao Island). The coastal plain has an undulating relief due to old beach ridges and intervening swales as well as placer deposits mining. The region is characterised by a warm climate with precipitation of about 3,000 mm per year that is focused during the rainy season (May to September; Fig. 2), when strong SW winds prevail. The maximum daily rainfall can reach above 200 mm (Fig. 2). During the rainy season, the depressions (swales) are usually submerged due to high groundwater levels.
The 26 December 2004 tsunami inundated the coastal plain up to a few hundred metres to more than one kilometre inland. The tsunami run-up height at the maximum inundation limit varied from <3 m in parts of Kho Khao Island’s coast, which is protected by an offshore reef, to almost 10 m at Nham Kem and on the Pakarang Cape (Fig. 1). The tsunami wave’s height was even higher, reaching over 15 m in Nham Kem (Tsuji et al. 2006) and at Pakarang Cape (Siripong 2006).
The wave caused the death of several thousand people, heavy damages, coastal erosion and environmental changes (e.g. Bell et al. 2005; Szczuciński et al. 2005, 2006; Ghobarah et al. 2006; Siripong 2006; Rossetto et al. 2007). Most of the inundated area was blanketed with a layer of tsunami deposits having a thickness of a few to several tens of centimetres and being mainly composed of silty sand and sand (e.g. Szczuciński et al. 2006; Hori et al. 2007; Choowong et al. 2008a; Goto et al. 2008) with occasional boulders (e.g. Goto et al. 2007; Kelletat et al. 2007).
The studied sites were investigated shortly after the tsunami event, and the sedimentological properties of the tsunami deposits were reported (Szczuciński et al. 2006, in review). Moreover, sediments from 15 sites from Patong, Bang Mor and Nham Kem were studied with regard to their geochemistry including contents of salt, acid-leachable metals and exchangeable metalloids (Szczuciński et al. 2005, 2007), mercury fractionation (Boszke et al. 2006), arsenic speciation (Kozak et al. 2008), acid-leachable trace elements (Kozak et al. 2009) and labile aluminium content (Zioła-Frankowska et al. 2009). The sedimentological properties of the tsunami deposits at Bang Sak were also documented by Goto et al. (2008) and Matsumoto et al. (2008); at Bang Mor and Nham Kem by Hori et al. (2007), Umitsu et al. (2007), Kokociński et al. (2009) and Naruse et al. (2010); and at Kho Khao Island by Jagodziński et al. (2009). The boulder deposits near Thap Lamu and at Pakarang Cape were described by Yawsangratt et al. (2009) and Goto et al. (2007), respectively.
3 Materials and methods
This study is based on observations obtained during five field surveys. The first one took place in January–February 2005, which was <2 months after the tsunami. Since no rainfall or strong winds were reported between the tsunami and the fieldwork, it is highly likely that the tsunami deposits were preserved in an unaltered form. The subsequent surveys took place after the rainy seasons in February 2006, 2007 and 2008, and during the rainy season in July 2009 (Fig. 2). In February 2005, over 100 trenches were documented in 13 transects (Szczuciński et al. in review). In the following years, 59 sites were reinvestigated every year, and a further 40 sites were revisited at least once.
Although it was attempted to reinvestigate places as close to the original position as possible by using maps, orientation landmarks and GPS coordinates, it must be noted that the distance was usually at least several metres. There are several reasons for this. First, it was avoided to dig a trench in the same place as before because the tsunami deposits layer was already disturbed during the previous digging and covering with ground. Furthermore, several places that were relatively easy to access shortly after the tsunami were not reachable in the following years because of reconstruction works, private property and very dense vegetation.
At each site, the following features were observed: surface relief, vegetation cover, stage of new soil development, human activity, thickness of tsunami deposits, effects of bioturbation, sedimentary structures, contact of the tsunami deposits with the underlying and covering sediments, visual estimate of grain size and sorting of the tsunami deposits, preservation of shells, buried plants, and so on. Moreover, the type and thickness of the pre-tsunami soil was documented—as a possible scenario for further development of post-tsunami soils. For the boulder deposits, particular attention was paid to rock surface changes that occur due to subaerial weathering.
4.1 Vegetation cover
Shortly after the tsunami, bent plants (grass, etc.) were commonly found within the deposits and served as a good indicator of the flow direction. In the following years, the withered plants were rarely found in the tsunami deposits, apart from the silty, stiff tsunami deposits where they were still preserved. Most likely, in the easily mixed and bioturbated sandy sediments, the plant remnants had decomposed and were consumed.
4.2 Tsunami deposits relief
In February 2005, the tsunami deposits layer still revealed relief features that were related to water flow: sedimentary bedforms (ripples), ridges adjacent to obstacles, as well as generated by vortexes rows of circular hollows (Szczuciński et al. in review). Already 1 year after the tsunami, they were mostly unrecognisable. The areas with ripples were covered with plants, and often the surface of the tsunami deposits were deformed by grazing cattle, etc. The circular hollows (up to 20 cm deep) were covered with redeposited sediments from the surrounding area. Only the biggest (almost 10 m long) ridge, which was deposited on the lee side of a tree in southern Kho Khao, was partially preserved. However, it is doubtful to determine its origin without the first post-tsunami survey observations.
4.3 Extent of the tsunami deposits
During the first survey, the tsunami deposits were found almost within the entire inundation area apart from a belt nearby the flooding limit and a zone next to the shoreline within about 50 m, where erosion or sediment bypassing dominated. The spatial extent of recognisable tsunami deposits was largely diminished throughout the study period, which was primarily due to human activity such as earth works and agriculture. For instance, around Patong Bay in July 2009, tsunami deposits were still preserved in only one site from the 33 investigated in 2005. The main reason was land reclamation for new investments. Moreover, in general, tsunami deposits with a thickness of 1–2 cm were already unrecognisable after 1 year; thus, the landward limit of recognisable tsunami deposits was largely diminished in general to less than 550 m from the shoreline. Altogether, at about half of the investigated sites including those affected by human activity, the tsunami deposits were not recognised during reinvestigation.
4.4 Thickness of the tsunami deposits
4.5 Lower contact of the tsunami deposits
4.6 Tsunami deposit’s grain size
The major macroscopic change was the fast removal of the thin layer of very fine sediments initially representing the top of the tsunami deposits (Figs 6 and 8). In case that the deposits originally consisted of poorly sorted medium to coarse sand and in particular in places with sparse vegetation, a type of residual layer of coarse material is left over. Consequently, the typical fining upward of tsunami deposits has changed after few years to a coarsening upward.
4.7 Structures of the tsunami deposits
4.8 Development of new soils
As soon as the seawater had withdrawn, the tsunami deposits started to serve as substrate for vegetation initiating soil formation. At the beginning, probably the high salt content restricted recolonisation by plants; after 2 months, new soil was hardly recognised. However, after 1 year at most of the investigated sites, soil development was observed. The most evident features are dense root systems, an increase in organic matter content leading to darker sediment colour, mixing of the sediments disturbing primary sedimentary structures, and in some cases, formation of a new humus layer (Figs. 4, 7 and 8). The new soil developed largely by sediment reworking and mixing with organic matter from new plant cover deposited on the top of the tsunami deposits.
After 4 years, the new soil was of variable thickness, depending on the type of substrate and vegetation cover. It was still poorly developed on thick sandy tsunami deposits that were left on sandy pre-tsunami soil (Fig. 7), which caused significant changes in the tsunami deposit’s properties only in a surface layer with a 1–2 cm thickness. Evident new soil reaching up to 5 cm thickness was developed on the tsunami deposits if composed of silty sand and silt (Fig. 8a). However, the deposits below the soil were usually well preserved. In the case of sandy tsunami deposits of intermediate to small thicknesses, the soil usually is up to 10 cm thick. Then, the tsunami deposits are often blurred and mixed with pre-tsunami soil, sediments and new soil components (Figs. 4, 8). Consequently, tsunami deposits thinner than the newly developed soil became unrecognisable. In places where human activity altered the soil through cultivation, earth works comprising over 30% of the studied sites, the tsunami deposits were usually unrecognisable and the upper organic-rich soil unit was less clearly visible.
During the field survey, the characteristics and thickness of the upper, organic-rich, pre-tsunami soil were also observed. Since the dominant coastal plain sediments are very similar to the tsunami deposits in terms of grain size, one may expect the new soil to reach the thickness of the pre-tsunami soil. On average, the thickness of the well-developed organic-rich part of the pre-tsunami soil, which entirely masked the characteristics of the former sediments, was about 10 cm.
4.9 Tsunami boulders
The boulders that were transported by the tsunami were monitored at two sites: Pakarang Cape and near Thap Lamu (Fig. 1). At the first site, significant coastal erosion was observed and numerous boulders composed of detached coral reef blocks were left in the intertidal zone (Goto et al. 2007). During the following years, the sandy-gravelly ridge was naturally rebuilt but the boulders were not moved away. Some of the boulders were partly buried in sandy gravel sediments. Many of the boulders became darker on the surface due to subaerial weathering and incrustation. At the second site, 18 granite boulders partly covered with oyster shells were transported from the coastline up to 140 m inland (Yawsangratt et al. 2009). The only observed changes were partial dissolution of the carbonate shells that covered the boulders and darkening of the fresh broken rock surfaces due to ongoing weathering.
5.1 Evolution of the onshore tsunami deposits
Due to flooding by the tsunami waves, the inundated part of the coastal plain was covered with a nearly continuous layer of tsunami deposits. The deposits varied in thickness from a few millimetres to more than 0.5 metres, had a complex internal structure and were often capped with the fine sediments. The relief of sedimentary bedforms was preserved well in the first stage (Szczuciński et al. 2006, in review; Choowong et al. 2007, 2008a, b; Hori et al. 2007; Goto et al. 2008). The deposits were wet and contained high amounts of salt (Szczuciński et al. 2005). In the following months until April 2005, no rain occurred (Fig. 2). Thus, the vegetation development was hindered by drought and high salt content in the tsunami deposits. In that period, the redeposition of surface sediment by wind was limited due to the presence of a surface crust that was composed of the fine, cohesive sediment and salt, and very weak winds during that season.
The major changes in the tsunami deposits took place during the first rainy season, when almost 3,000 mm of rainfall occurred with a daily maximum rainfall of 141.4 mm (Figs 2, 10). The rains caused washing of the tsunami deposits and removal of easily soluble salts (Szczuciński et al. 2007). Precipitation also caused moderate sediment mobilisation and redeposition; tsunami deposits thinner than 1 cm were occasionally washed away, the depositional relief was flattened and deposits at the slopes were partially eroded. The finest particles that form the cap of the tsunami deposits were partly removed, and the surface of the tsunami deposits became composed of coarser grains forming a kind of residual deposit. The removal of salts and availability of freshwater allowed the plants to colonise the coastal plain. The vegetation cover provided a shelter for the tsunami deposits against heavy rains and erosion. However, vegetation accelerated the formation of new soil and the destruction of tsunami deposits structure by plant roots and animals.
During the following years, although the rainfall was even higher than in 2005, the tsunami deposits were not subjected to major changes. A dense plant cover established and stabilised the ground surface, thereby limiting sediment remobilisation. Once again, growing roots and animals induced intensive disturbance of the tsunami deposits, which caused a partial destruction of the internal sedimentary structure. The rapidly developing new surface layer was mostly composed of the tsunami deposits and plant debris. The soil forming processes alter the tsunami deposits significantly since then. Thus, thin deposits became unrecognisable. In subsequent years, it is expected that the soil formation will continue to reach the pre-tsunami state having an upper organic matter-rich soil horizon being on average up to 10 cm thick.
Exceptions from this scenario were also observed. Moreover, post-depositional changes to the onshore tsunami deposits may be quite different for other climatic conditions. For instance, they may be subjected primarily to wind action and redeposition (e.g. Goff et al. 2008) or protected from external factors for most of the year by snow cover and frost (e.g. MacInnes et al. 2009).
5.2 Preservation potential of the tsunami deposits
There are no universal criteria to grade the preservation potential. Here is used a simply grading into: low preservation (generally no deposits left or very difficult to recognize), moderate preservation (deposits exists but are altered in several ways), and good preservation (preserved in terms of thickness but also structures etc.). Preservation of the sedimentary record from the 2004 tsunami event after five rainy seasons is generally moderate-to-good for layers >2 cm in thickness, except in areas with human activity such as cleaning works and new investments. Nonetheless, it is expected that the tsunami deposits that are thinner than 10 cm may be completely altered by soil formation and mixing processes. Therefore, the tsunami deposits will be unrecognisable as event deposit because of its similarity in grain size with the underlying coastal plain sediments and the blurring of the lower, originally sharp surface. In the case of deposits that are thicker than 10 cm, even when some diagnostic features such as sedimentary structures are altered, the presence of buried soil below and the occurrence of microfossils and mineralogical and geochemical composition may help to identify them (e.g. Jankaew et al. 2008; Jagodziński et al. 2009; Sawai et al. 2009; Chagué-Goff 2010; Chagué-Goff et al. 2011). However, Yawsangratt et al. (2011) observed that carbonate foraminifera tests were subjected to significant dissolution already 4.5 years after tsunami.
The most important control of the preservation potential appears to be the initial thickness of the tsunami deposited layer, which is a function of the tsunami wave’s run-up and velocity as well as the volume of sediment available for transport. In the studied case, there is a relationship between the tsunami run-up’s height and the thickness of the tsunami deposits (Fig. 5). Where the tsunami run-up was smaller than 3 m, the deposits thickness was smaller than 3 m, the deposits thickness was less than 10 cm. If the above presented deduction that the future development of soils extinguishes tsunami deposits thinner than 10 cm from the sedimentary record is correct, then the deposits of tsunamis with a run-up smaller than 3 m have little chance of being preserved. Tsunami deposits formed by bigger waves exhibit a thickness of less than 10 cm at a distance from the shoreline larger than about 550 m approximately half of the inundation distance (Fig. 5). Thus, although the deposits potentially should record the tsunami event, the information concerning the tsunami inundation distance may be missing.
The studied boulder deposits had been almost untouched since the 2004 tsunami; however, it is not straightforward to use boulders to detect paleotsunami events because of difficulties in interpreting their storm or tsunami origin (e.g. Mastronuzzi et al. 2006; Goto et al. 2010) and problems with dating of an event (e.g. Yawsangratt et al. 2009). The observations of fresh granite boulders showed that attached oyster shells, which would potentially be a very good dating material, were subjected to fast dissolution.
The tsunami recurrence time for the Andaman coast of Thailand was evaluated by Løvholt et al. (2006), based on an analysis of the plate tectonic situation, earthquake history and numerical modelling. They concluded that it would take at least 300–400 years to accumulate the energy that was released during the December 2004 earthquake. They also estimated that tsunamis with a run-up height of 1.5–2 m and a recurrence of 50–100 years are possible. If the preservation potential of the sedimentary record from tsunamis with a run-up smaller than 3 m is correctly estimated, then a record of smaller tsunamis has a very low preservation potential. The first discovered records of paleotsunamis from the Andaman coast of Thailand showed that the last paleotsunami was 550–700 years ago (Jankaew et al. 2008); it was probably of a similar magnitude as the 2004 tsunami. The lack of a sedimentary record for a tsunami in between may be due to the low preservation potential of smaller event records.
Lowe and de Lange (2000) suggested, based on a study from New Zealand, that a tsunami needs to have a wave height of at least 5 m in order to leave any long-term, recognisable sedimentary signature. Their conclusion was later supported by an analysis of former tsunami records by Goff et al. (2010). Since the wave height is usually higher than the run-up height, this statement can be treated as being generally in agreement with the present results—a run-up of 3 m is a minimum value for a sedimentary record of a tsunami to be preserved.
Ancient tsunami deposits may be used not only for the identification of previous events but also for interpreting their flow conditions. However, the observed post-depositional changes of the primary sedimentary features reduce the possibility of using fossil tsunami deposits to estimate the number of waves or to model the paleotsunami’s onshore flow depth or speed (e.g. Huntington et al. 2007; Jaffe and Gelfenbuam 2007; Smith et al. 2007). The estimations and models are based on the sedimentary structures, tsunami deposit’s thickness and grain size; in other words, they are features that are susceptible to post-depositional changes.
5.3 Preservation of event deposits in a coastal plain environment
Tsunami deposits belong to a group of event deposits. The latter occurs in almost all types of sedimentary basins and may be left by various processes: floods, storms, earthquakes, slumps, turbidity currents, etc. (e.g. Einsele et al. 1996). Their preservation potential was already investigated in various environments and for a variety of event deposits: flood layers on continental shelves (e.g. Wheatcroft and Drake 2003; Bentley et al. 2006), volcanoclastic deposits in the deep sea (Wetzel 2009), onshore paleocyclone deposits (Collins et al. 1999; Mertz et al. 2003) and others. The most important factors that influence the preservation of event layers were found to be the sediment accumulation rate, mixing rate and event layer thickness (Wheatcroft 1990). Although models that were developed in the above-mentioned studies could be applied to assess the preservation of tsunami deposits in marine, intertidal, lagoon or lacustrine environments, they have limited application for the coastal plain environment that was discussed in the present paper. The major difference in the case of tsunami deposits on land is due to the general domination of sediment erosion over sediment accumulation. The preservation of event deposits (tsunami deposits, storm deposits, etc.) in the coastal plain setting could be defined by three factors: the deposit’s thickness, the mixing depth and erosion. The deposits would be preserved if the thickness were bigger than the sum of the erosion and mixing depth. In practice, however, this model appears to be too simple. The basic problem is the spatial variability in the thickness, erosion and mixing. Moreover, in some places (e.g. swales), accumulation may take place. Additionally, the mixing depth and rate in soils cannot be easily defined (Wilkinson et al. 2009). The root systems may reach several metres below the ground, and due to processes of soil formation, the mixing of the event deposits with adjacent sediments is variable. It is likely that the post-depositional processes that act on the event layers in the coastal plain setting are geographically so diverse (various climate, topography, vegetation, etc.) that it is not possible to formulate a universal rule to quantify their preservation potential. It is also important to take into account not only the preservation of a layer but also the post-depositional changes within the layer, which may cause the layer to remain visible but not allow its origin to be explained.
The 5 years of observations of post-depositional changes to the 2004 tsunami deposits that were left on a coastal plain in a tropical climate with high seasonal rainfall proved that the deposits are generally preserved, although the coastal plain is not a favourite setting for the preservation of event deposits. The most significant changes were due to human activity, which may alter not only the modern deposits but also the paleotsunami deposits that were left in the coastal zone. The natural changes to the 2004 tsunami deposits took place in two stages. The first stage was within 1 year after the tsunami, when moderate redeposition, erosion, levelling of the sediment surface, removal of salts, removal of fine particles from the sediment surface and moderate sediment mixing took place. It was mostly related to high rainfalls falling on the uncovered sediment’s surface. The second stage was related primarily to fast stabilisation of the ground by dense plant cover and the ongoing development of new soil. The post-depositional changes seem to be strongly related to the environment, setting and climate.
Analysis of the post-depositional changes, new soil formation and pre-tsunami soil characteristics implies that tsunami deposits that are thinner than 10 cm have little preservation potential. Consequently, the sedimentary record of tsunamis with a run-up smaller than 3 m is not likely to be preserved at all, while for larger tsunamis, only about 50% of their inundation area is likely to be preserved by the extent of tsunami deposits. Modelling of paleotsunami parameters that are based on paleorecords must take into account the post-depositional changes (particularly related to the soil’s formation) since the model’s input parameters (thickness, grain size) are subjected to modifications.
The study was financially supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education through research grant No. N N523 376833 and by Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland. The logistical support was kindly provided by the Department of Mineral Resources in Bangkok, Thailand. The author thanks N. Chaimanee, S. Chatpresert, R. Jagodziński, M. Kokociński, L. Kozak, S. Lorenc, P. Niedzielski, G. Rachlewicz, D. Saisuttichai, A. Szczucińska, T. Tepsuwan, S. Yawsangratt and other colleagues from the Department of Mineral Resources in Bangkok for invaluable help during field work and fruitful discussions. The paper benefited from constructive comments and corrections on the earlier version of the manuscript by A. Wetzel.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
- Bell R, Cowan H, Dalziell E, Evans N, O’Leary M, Rush B, Yule L (2005) Survey of impacts on the Andaman Coast, Southern Thailand following the great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004. Bull N Z Soc Earthquake Eng 38:123–148Google Scholar
- Bourgeois J (2009) Geologic effects and records of tsunamis. In: Bernard EN, Robinson AR (eds) Tsunamis. The Sea, ideas and observations on progress in the study of the seas, vol.15. pp, Harvard University Press, pp 55–91Google Scholar
- Chagué-Goff C, Schneider J-L, Goff JR, Dominey-Howes D, Strotz L (2011) Expanding the proxy toolkit to help identify past events: lessons from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 2009 South Pacific tsunami. Earth Sci Rev 107:107–122Google Scholar
- Choowong M, Murakoshi N, Hisada K, Charoentitirat T, Charusiri P, Phantuwongraj S, Wongkok P, Choowong A, Subsayjun R, Chutakositkanon V, Jankaew K, Kanjanapayont P (2008a) Flow conditions of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Thailand, inferred from capping bedforms and sedimentary structures. Terra Nova 20:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fujino S, Naruse H, Suphawajruksakul A, Jarupongsakul T, Murayama M, Ichihara T (2008) Thickness and grain-size distribution of Indian Ocean tsunami deposits at Khao Lak and Phra Thong Island, South-western Thailand. In: Shiki T, Tsuji Y, Yamazaki T, Minoura K (eds) Tsunamiites–features and implications. pp, Elsevier B.V., pp 123–132Google Scholar
- Goto K, Imamura F, Keerthi N, Kunthasap P, Matsui T, Minoura K, Ruangrassamee A, Sugawara D, Supharatid S (2008) Distribution and significance of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami deposits: initial results from Thailand and Sri Lanka. In: Shiki T, Tsuji Y, Yamazaki T, Minoura K (eds) Tsunamiites–features and implications. pp, Elsevier B.V., pp 105–122Google Scholar
- Goto K, Takahashi J, Fujino S (in review) Variations in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami deposits thickness and their preservation potential, southwestern Thailand. Earth Planets SpaceGoogle Scholar
- Grzelak K, Kotwicki L, Szczuciński W (2009) Monitoring of sandy beach meiofaunal assemblages and sediments after the 2004 tsunami in Thailand. Pol J Environ Stud 18:43–51Google Scholar
- Jagodziński R, Sternal B, Szczuciński W, Lorenc S (2009) Heavy minerals in 2004 tsunami deposits on Kho Khao Island, Thailand. Pol J Environ Stud 18:103–110Google Scholar
- Keating BH, Wanink M, Helsey CE (2008) Introduction to a tsunami-deposits database. In: Shiki T, Tsuji Y, Yamazaki T, Minoura K (eds) Tsunamiites–features and implications. pp, Elsevier B.V., pp 359–381Google Scholar
- Kendall MA, Aryuthaka C, Chimonides J, Daungnamon D, Hills J, Jittanoon C, Komwachirapitak P, Kongkaew V, Mittermeyr A, Monthun Y, Nimsantijaroen S, Paterson GLJ, Foster-Smith R, Foster-Smith J, Thongsin N (2009) Post-tsunami recovery of shallow water biota and habitats on Thailand’s Andaman coast. Pol J Environ Stud 18:69–75Google Scholar
- Kokociński M, Szczuciński W, Zgrundo A, Ibragimow A (2009) Diatom assemblages in 26 December 2004 tsunami deposits from coastal zone of Thailand as provenance indicators. Pol J Environ Stud 18:93–101Google Scholar
- Kozak L, Machát J, Niedzielski P (2009) Content of 27 selected elements in the potentially mobile fraction of tsunami sediments. Pol J Environ Stud 18:131–136Google Scholar
- Mastronuzzi G, Pignatelli C, Sansò P (2006) Boulder fields: A valuable morphological indicator of palaeotsunami in the Mediterranean sea. Z Geomorph NF Suppl Bd 146:173–194Google Scholar
- Mertz LM, Hart M, Jaeger J (2003) Preservation potential of paleocyclone deposits in Gulf of Mexico coastal sediments. GCAGS/GCSSEPM Trans 53:537–547Google Scholar
- Paris R, Wassmer P, Sartohadi J, Lavigne F, Barthomeuf B, Desgages E, Grancher D, Baumert P, Vautier F, Brunstein D, Gomez C (2009) Tsunamis as geomorphic crises: Lessons from the December 26, 2004 tsunami in Lhok Nga, West Banda Aceh (Sumatra, Indonesia). Geomorphology 104:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rhodes B, Tuttle M, Horton B, Doner L, Kelsey H, Nelson A, Cisternas M (2006) Paleotsunami research. Eos 87:205, 209Google Scholar
- Szczuciński W, Chaimanee N, Niedzielski P, Rachlewicz G, Saisuttichai D, Tepsuwan T, Lorenc S, Siepak J (2006) Environmental and geological impacts of the 26 December 2004 tsunami in coastal zone of Thailand–overview of some short and long-term effects. Pol J Environ Stud 15:793–810Google Scholar
- Szczuciński W, Rachlewicz G, Chaimanee N,, Saisuttichai D, Tepsuwan T, Lorenc S (in review) 26 December 2004 tsunami deposits left in areas of various tsunami runup in coastal zone of Thailand. Earth Planets SpaceGoogle Scholar
- Tsuji Y, Namegaya Y, Matsumoto H, Iwasaki SI, Kanbua W, Sriwichai M, Meesuk V (2006) The 2004 Indian tsunami in Thailand: Surveyed runup heights and tide gauge records. Earth Planets Space 58:223–232Google Scholar
- Wong PP (2009) Impacts and recovery from a large tsunami: coasts of Aceh. Pol J Environ Stud 18:5–16Google Scholar
- Yawsangratt S, Szczuciński W, Chaimanee N, Jagodziński R, Lorenc S, Chatprasert S, Saisuttichai D, Tepsuwan T (2009) Depositional effects of 2004 tsunami and hypothetical paleotsunami near Thap Lamu Navy Base in Phang Nga Province, Thailand. Pol J Environ Stud 18:17–23Google Scholar
- Yawsangratt S, Szczuciński W, Chaimanee N, Chatprasert S, Majewski W, Lorenc S (2011) Evidence of probable paleotsunami deposits on Kho Khao Island, Phang Nga Province, Thailand. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9729-4
- Zioła-Frankowska A, Frankowski M, Szczuciński W, Siepak J (2009) Analysis of labile aluminium form in grain size fractions of tsunami deposits in Thailand. Pol J Environ Stud 18:77–85Google Scholar