Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 137–146 | Cite as

Assessment and analysis of rockfall-caused tree injuries in a Turkish fir stand: A case study from Kastamonu-Turkey

  • Abdurrahim AydinEmail author
  • Nesibe Köse
  • Ünal Akkemik
  • Hüseyin Yurtseven
Article
  • 151 Downloads

Abstract

Rockfalls can cause serious damage to people, property, facilities and transportation corridors. Furthermore, rockfalls are major hazards in mountain areas with negative impacts on individual trees and forested ecosystems. We conducted a study of rockfall events on 117 mapped (91% of total trees in the stand with > 1.3 m in height and > 5 cm diameter at breast height) Turkish fir trees (Abies bornmuelleriana Mattf.) in a stand within the Kayaarkası-Topçular Village, Inebolu district, Kastamonu province of Turkey. The study site of 0.35 Ha is located on the transition zone of frequently passing rockfall fragments (∼ 40 cm in diameter) generally causing healable injuries. Parameters of trees and injuries were recorded and analysed as to injury number, height and size. Bivariate correlation analysis were used to investigate the relationships between: a) diameter at breast height and number of injuries per tree, b) diameter at breast height and total injury size, c) the number of injuries and total injury size and d) the number of injuries per tree and distance from the source of the rockfall area. Results indicate that the average height of injury, average number of injuries and average injury area to be 81.3 cm (STDEV: 49.8), 7.46 (STDEV: 4.4) and 628.6 cm2 (STDEV: 678.2), respectively. In total 84% of all injuries were recorded within 160° sector at the upslope side of trees and callus tissue that had closed wounds was observed in 79.1% of all injuries. Furthermore 14.5% of injured trees had callus tissue in the process of closing wounds while 6.4% of injuries had not formed any callus tissue. The most common injury types were bark and wood injuries. Bivariate correlation analysis indicated strong relationships between diameter at breast height and the number of injuries (rs = 0.524), injury number and total injury area (rs = 0.653) and distance from rockfall area and injury numbers relations (rs = −0.518). A weaker relationship was found between diameter at breast height and total injury area (rs = 0.363). These results indicate that bigger trees are more prone to rockfall injuries. As expected, trees further from the rockfall area seem to be less prone to rockfall injuries. From our results, it can be inferred that the protection of people and property can be increased through the maintanance of forest in areas immediately below areas prone to rockfall. This stand is still managed in selective forest management system. In order to protect the settlement at the deposition zone it has to manage for protective goals with uneven-aged and multilayered stand structure.

Keywords

Tree injuries Rockfall Past event assessment Turkish fir Turkey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agliardi F, Crosta GB (2003) High resolution three-dimensional numerical modelling of rockfalls. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40:455–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannan MV (1936) Vertical resin ducts in the secondary wood of the Abietineae. New Phytologist 35:11–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bebi P, Kienast F, Schonenberger W (2001) Assessing structures in mountain forests as a basis for investigating the forests’ dynamics and protective function. Forest Ecology and Management 145:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger F, Quetel C, Dorren LKA (2002) Forest: A natural protection mean against rockfalls, but with wich efficiency?. International Congress Interpraevent 2002 in the Pasific Rim, Conference proceedings, Vol.2, Matsumuto, Japan, pp 815–826.Google Scholar
  5. Berger F (2004) Rockfor Project. Rockfall-forest interrelation. Efficiency of the protective function of mountain forest against rockfall, Ref No: RF-WP1-FR-004/PAR1/FBGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger F, Rey F (2004) Mountain protection forests against natural hazards and risks: new French developments by integrating forests in risk zoning. Natural Hazards 33:395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binal A, Ercanoğlu M (2010) Assessment of rockfall potential in the Kula (Manisa, Turkey) Geopark Region. Environmental Eatrh Science 61:1361–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollschweiler M, Stoffel M, Schneuwly DM, Bourqui K (2008) Traumatic resin ducts in Larix decidua stems impacted by debris flows. Tree Physiology 28:255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brang P, Schonenberger W, Ott E, Gardner RH (2001) Forests as Protection from Natural Hazards. The Forests Handbook. (Eds. J Evans). Blackwell Science Ltd. pp 53–81.Google Scholar
  10. Ciabocco G, Boccia L, Ripa MN (2009) Energy dissipation of rockfalls by coppice structures. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9:933–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorren LKA, Seijmonsbergen AC (2003) Comparison of three GIS-based models for predicting rockfall runout zones at a regional scale. Geomorphology 56:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorren LKA, Maier B, Putters US, Seijmonsbergen AC (2004) Combining field and modelling techniques to assess rockfall dynamics on a protection forest hillslope in the European Alps. Geomorphology 57:151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorren LKA, Berger F (2005) Stem breakage of trees and energy dissipation during rockfall effects. Tree Physiology 26:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorren LKA, Berger F, Le Hir C, Mermin E, Tardif P (2005) Mechanisms effects and management implications of rockfall in forests. Forest Ecology and Management 215:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frehner M, Wasser B, Schwitter R (2005) Sustainability and success monitoring in protection forests. Guidelines for maintenance measures in protection forests and environmental enforcement. Federal Office for Environment, Forests and Landscape, Bern. (In German)Google Scholar
  16. Gökçe O, Özden Ş, Demir A (2008) Spatial and statistical distribution of disasters in Turkey. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, General Directorate o Disaster Affairs, Department of Disaster Survey and Damage Assessment, Ankara. pp. 122. (In Turkish)Google Scholar
  17. Gsteiger P (1993) Rockfall protection forest: A Contribution to the definition, assessment and management. Swiss Journal of Forestry 144:115–132. (In German)Google Scholar
  18. Jahn J (1988) Deforestation and rockfall. In: Proceedings of the International Congress Interpraevent, Vol. I, Graz, pp. 185–198. (In German)Google Scholar
  19. Jancke O, Dorren LKA, Berger F, Fuhr M, Köhl M (2009) Implications of coppice stand characteristics on the rockfall protection functions. Forest Ecology and Management 259:124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Köse N, Aydın A, Akkemik Ü, Yurtseven H, Güner T (2010) Using tree-ring signals and numerical model to identify the snow avalanche tracks in Kastamonu, Turkey. Natural Hazards 54:435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Küster E (1925) Pathological plant anatomy. 3 ed. Fischer, Jena, pp.558. (In German)Google Scholar
  22. Le Hir, C, Berger F, Dorren LKA, Quetel C (2004) Forest: A natural means of protection against rockfall, but how to reach sustainable mitigation? In: Proceedings of the Internationales Symposion Interpraevent. Riva/Trient, pp 59–69.Google Scholar
  23. Lev-Yadun S (2002) The distance to which wound effects influence the structure of secondary xylem of decapitated Pinus pinae. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 21:191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lundström T, Jonnson MJ, Volkwein A, Stoffel M (2009) Reactions and energy absorption of tress subject to rockfall: a detailed assessment using a new experimental method. Tree Physiology 29: 345–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mattheck C, Breloer H (1994) Handbook of failure analysis of trees, Rombach Verlag GmbH, Freiburg. (In German)Google Scholar
  26. Nagy NE, Franceschi VR, Solheim H, Krekling T, Christiansen E (2000) Wound-induced traumatic resin duct formation in stems of Norway spruce (Pinaceae): anatomy and cytochemical traits. American Journal of Botany 87:320–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perret S, Dolf F, Kienholz H (2004) Rockfalls into forests: analysis and simulation of rockfall trajectories — considerations with respect to mountainous forests in Switzerland. Landslides 1:123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perret S, Baumgartner M, Kienholz H (2006a) Inventory and analysis of tree injuries in a rockfall-damaged forest stand. European Journal of Forest Research 125: 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perret S, Stoffel M, Kienholz H (2006b) Spatial and temporal rockfall activity in a forest stand in the Swiss Prealps-A dendrogeomorphological case study. Geomorphology 74:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneuwly DM, Stoffel M (2008) Spatial analysis of rockfall activity, bounce heights and geomorphic changes over the last 50 years — A case study using dendrogeomorphology. Geomorphology 102:522–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schneuwly DM (2009) Tree rings and rockfall — Anatomic tree reactions and spatiotemporal rockfall analysis. PhD Thesis, Department of Geoscience, Geography, University of Freibourg, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  32. Schonenberger W, Noack A, Thee P (2005) Effect of timber removal from windthrow slopes on the risk of snow avalanches and rockfall. Forest Ecology and Management 213:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schweingruber FH (2007) Wood structure and environment. Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  34. Stoffel M (2005) Assessing the vertical distribution and visibility of rockfall scars in trees. Swiss Journal of Forestry 156:195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stoffel M Schneuwly D, Bollschweiler M, Liévre I, Delaloye R, Myint M, Monbaron M (2005) Analyzing rockfall activity (1600–2002) in a protection forest, a case study using dendrogeomorphology. Geomorphology 68:224–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stoffel M (2006) A review of studies dealing with tree rings and rockfall activity: The role of dendrogeomorphology in natural hazard research. Natural Hazards 39:51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stoffel M, Perret S (2006) Reconstructing past rockfall activity with tree-rings: some metodological considerations. Dendrochronologica 24:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoffel M (2008) Dating past geomorphic processes with tangential rows of traumatic resin ducts. Dendrochronologica 26:53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stokes A, Salin F, Kokutse AD, Berthier S, Jeannin H, Mochan S, Dorren L, Abd. Ghani M, Fourcaud T (2005) Mechanical resistance of different tree species to rockfall in the French Alps. Plant and Soil 278:107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SPSS Inc (2010). Statistical software SPSS 17.0. http://spss.com
  41. Vospernik S (2002) Predicting forest growth against rockfall. Final Report, Institute of Forest Growth and Yield, BOKU, Vienna.Google Scholar
  42. Wasser B, Frehner M (1996) Minimal maintenance measures for forests with protective function, Guidelines, Federal Office for Environment, Forests and Landscape, Bern. (In German)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdurrahim Aydin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nesibe Köse
    • 2
  • Ünal Akkemik
    • 2
  • Hüseyin Yurtseven
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryDüzce ÜniversityDüzceTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest BotanyIstanbul UniversityBahcekoy-IstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Forestry, Department of Surveying and PhotogrammetryIstanbul UniversityBahcekoy-IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations