Advertisement

State of the Art in Debris-Flow Research: The Role of Dendrochronology

  • Matthias Jakob
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Global Change Research book series (AGLO, volume 41)

Abstract

Debris flows and their volcanic counterparts lahars are one of the most destructive mass movement process worldwide, being responsible for hundreds of death every year and leading to horrific multi-thousand death tolls every decade or so. Consequently, debris flows have been the focus on intensive research with hundreds of papers appearing annually on various aspects of debris flow research. For most researchers and practitioners it is difficult to keep abreast of all advances in debris flow research and to extract the most relevant publications. Several dedicated conferences have been held whose sole focus is debris flows. In 2005 a book on debris flows and related processes was published (Jakob and Hungr 2005) to offer a more systematic review of the state-of-the-art. The book was published in 2005 and thus reflects mostly knowledge up to 2003 or 2004. With that it is outdated in some fields. It is clearly impossible to replace the 2005 book and provide a comprehensive review of all significant advances in debris flow science in the space of this chapter. The author has therefore attempted to provide a short summary and highlight outstanding questions and how they can be addressed, at least in part, by application of dendrochronology.

Keywords

Debris Flow Debris Flow Hazard Root Cohesion Debris Flow Channel Fluid Volume Fraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Susan Cannon kindly provided materials for the debris flows and wildfire section and reviewed an early draft. Markus Stoffel and Michelle Bollschweiler provided helpful comments on a draft of this chapter.

References

  1. Allen CD, Savage M, Falk DA, Suckling KF, Swetnam TW, Schulke T, Stacey PB, Morgan P, Hoffman M, Klingel JT (2002) Ecological restoration of Southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: A broad perspective. Ecol Appl 12:1418–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigio EJ, Swetnam TW, Baisan CH (2005) The integration of tree-ring and alluvial fan records of hire history at the Missionary Ridge Fire near Durango, Colorado. Geol Soc Am Abst Prog 37(7):111Google Scholar
  3. Bollschweiler M, Stoffel M, Ehmisch M, Monbaron M (2007) Reconstructing spatio-temporal patterns of debris-flow activity using dendrogeomorphological methods. Geomorphology 87:337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollschweiler M, Stoffel M, Schneuwly, DM (2010) Using event and minimum age dating for the assessment of hazards on a debris-flow cone. In: Stoffel M, Bollschweiler M, Butler DR, Luckman BH (eds) Tree rings and natural hazards: A state-of-the-art. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, this volumeGoogle Scholar
  5. Caine N (1980) The rainfall intensity-duration control of shallow landslides and debris flows. Geogr Ann 62A:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannon SH, Gartner JE (2005) Wildfire-related debris flow from a hazards perspective. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Praxis, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 363–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cannon SH, Kirkham RM, Parise M (2001) Wildfire-related debris-flow initiation processes, Storm King Mountain, Colorado. Geomorphology 39:171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Wilson RC, Bowers JC, Laber JL (2008) Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows for recently burned areas in southwestern Colorado and southern California. Geomorphology 96:250–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Rupert MG, Michael JA, Rea AH, Parrett C (2010) Predicting the probability and volume of post-wildfire debris flows in the inter-mountain west, USA. Geol Soci Am Bull 122(1–2):127–144Google Scholar
  10. Chleborad AF, Baum RL, Godt JL, Powers PS (2008) A prototype system for forecasting landslides in the Seattle, Washington area. Geol Soci Am Rev Eng 20:103–120Google Scholar
  11. Chen H, Lee CF (2000) Numerical simulation of debris flows. Can Geotech J 37(1):147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Covington WW, Moore MM (1994) Southwestern ponderosa forest structure Changes since Euro-American settlement. J Forest 92:39–47Google Scholar
  13. DeBano LF (2000) The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wild-land environments: a review. J Hydrol 231–232:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frechette JD, Meyer GA (2007) Episodic geomorphic impact of severe fire in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests of the Sacramento Mountain, New Mexico. Geol Soc Am Abst Prog 38:109Google Scholar
  15. Gabet EJ, Sternberg P (2008) The effects of vegetative ash on infiltration capacity, sediment transport and the generation of progressively bulked debris flows. Geomorphology 101:666–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guzzetti F, Peruccacci S, Rossi M, Stark CP (2008) The rainfall intensity-duration control of shallow landslides and debris flows: an update. Landslides 5(1):3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hungr O (1995) A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris flows, and avalanches. Can Geotech J 32:610–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hungr O, McDougall S, Bovis MJ (2005) Entrainment of material by debris flows. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutchinson JN, Bhandari RK (1971) Undrained loading a fundamental mechanism of mudflows and other mass movements. Geotechnique 21:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iverson RM, Denlinger RP (2001) Flow of variably fluidised granular masses across three-dimensional terrain. 2. Numerical predictions and experimental tests. J Geophys Res 106:552–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iverson R (2009) Elements of an improved model for debris flow motion. Invited contribution for Powders and Grains 2009. American Physical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson M, Roering JJ (2009) Post-fire geomorphic response in steep, forested landscapes: Oregon Coast range, USA. Quat Sci Rev 28(11–12):1131–1146Google Scholar
  23. Jakob M, Lambert S (2009) Climate change effects on landslides along the south-west coast of British Columbia. Geomorphology 107:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jakob M (2009) A real-time debris flow warning system for the North Shore Mountains of Vancouver, Canada. European Geosciences Conference, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) (2005) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakob M, Weatherly H (2005) Debris flow hazard and risk assessment. Jones Creek, Washington. In: Hungr O, Fell R, Couture R, Eberhardt E (eds) Landslide risk management. Proceedings, pp 533–542Google Scholar
  27. Jakob M (2005) A size classification for debris flows. Eng Geol 79:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jakob M, Weatherly H (2003) A hydroclimatic threshold for landslide initiation on the North Shore Mountains of Vancouver, British Columbia. Geomorphology 54:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jakob M, Hungr O, Thomson B (1997) Two debris flows with anomalously high magnitude. In: CL Chen (ed) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment: Proceedings of the first International Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 382–394. American Society of Civil Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Jakob M (1996) Morphometric and geotechnical controls of debris flow frequency and magnitude in southwestern British Columbia. Ph.D. thesis, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  31. May CL, Gresswell RE (2004) Spatial and temporal patterns of debris-flow deposition in the Oregon Coast Range, USA. Geomorphology 57:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacArthur RC, Schamber DR (1986) Numerical method for simulating mudflows. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on River Sedimentation, Jackson, Mississippi, pp 1615–1623Google Scholar
  33. McDougall S, Hungr O (2004) A model for the analysis of rapid landslide motion across three-dimensional terrain. Can Geotech J 41:1084–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer G, Wells SG (1997) Fire-related sedimentation events on alluvial fans, Yellowstone National Park, USA. J Sediment Res 67:776–791Google Scholar
  35. O’Brien JS, Julien PY, Fullerton WT (1993) Two-dimensional water flood and mud-flow simulation. J Hydraul Eng 119(2):244–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pierce JL, Meyer GA (2008) Long-term fire history from alluvial fan sediments – the role of drought and climate variability, and implications for management of Rocky Mountain Forests. Int J Wildland Fire 17:84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pierce JL, Meyer GA, Jull AJT (2004) Fire-induced erosion and millennial-scale climate change in northern ponderosa pine forests. Nature 432:87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pudasaini SP, WangY HK (2005) Modelling debris flows down general channels. Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 5:799–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rickenmann D, Laigle D, McArdell W, Huble J (2006) Comparison of 2D debris-flow simulation models with field events. Comput Geosci 10:241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santi PM, deWolfe VG, Higgins JD, Cannon SH, Gartner JE (2008) Sources of debris flow material in burned areas. Geomorphology 96:310–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shakesby RA, Doerr SH (2006) Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent. Earth-Sci Rev 74:269–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sassa K (1985) The mechanism of debris flows. Proceedings of the XI International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, vol 1, pp 1173–1176Google Scholar
  43. Stoffel M, Bollschweiler M (2009) Tree-ring reconstruction of past debris flows based on a small number of samples – possibilities and limitations. Landslides 6:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoffel M (2010) Frequency-magnitude relationships, seasonality and spread of debris flows on a forested cone. In: Stoffel M, Bollschweiler M, Butler DR, Luckman BH (eds) Tree rings and natural hazards: A state-of-the-art. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, this volumeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stoffel M, Beniston M (2006) On the incidence of debris flows from the early Little Ice Age to a future greenhouse climate: a case study from the Swiss Alps. Geophys Res Lett 33:L16404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strunk H (1995) Dendrogeomorphologische Methoden zur Emittelung der Murfrequenz und Beispiele ihrer Anwendung. Roderer, RegensburgGoogle Scholar
  47. Takahashi T, Nakagawa H (1989) Debris flow hazard zone mapping. Proceedings of the Japan–China (Taipei). Joint Seminar on Natural Hazard Mitigation, Kyoto, Japan, pp 363–372Google Scholar
  48. Tekka PR, Genevois R, Deganutti AM, Armento MC (2007) Numerical modelling of two debris flows in the Dolomites (Northeastern Italian Alps). Chen and Major (eds) Fourth International Conference on Debris Flow Hazard Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment. Millpress, Netherlands, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  49. Wilkerson F, G Schmid (2010) Dendrogeomorphic applications to debris flows in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. In: Stoffel M, Bollschweiler M, Butler DR, Luckman BH (eds) Tree rings and natural hazards: A state-of-the-art. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, this volumeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BGC Engineering IncBurghausenGermany

Personalised recommendations