Large roots dominate the contribution of trees to slope stability
Tree roots provide surface erosion protection and improve slope stability through highly complex interactions with the soil due to the nature of root systems. Root reinforcement estimation is usually performed by in situ pullout tests, in which roots are pulled out of the soil to reliably estimate t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Earth surface processes and landforms 2019-06, Vol.44 (8), p.1602-1609 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1609 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 1602 |
container_title | Earth surface processes and landforms |
container_volume | 44 |
creator | Giadrossich, Filippo Cohen, Denis Schwarz, Massimiliano Ganga, Antonio Marrosu, Roberto Pirastru, Mario Capra, Gian Franco |
description | Tree roots provide surface erosion protection and improve slope stability through highly complex interactions with the soil due to the nature of root systems. Root reinforcement estimation is usually performed by in situ pullout tests, in which roots are pulled out of the soil to reliably estimate the root strength of compact soils. However, this test is not suitable for the scenario where a soil progressively fails in a series of slump blocks – for example, in unsupported soils near streambanks and road cuts where the soil has no compressive resistance at the base of the hillslope. The scenario where a soil is unsupported on its downslope extent and progressively deforms at a slow strain rate has received little attention, and we are unaware of any study on root reinforcement that estimates the additional strength provided by roots in this situation. We therefore designed two complementary laboratory experiments to compare the force required to pull the root out. The results indicate that the force required to pull out roots is reduced by up to 50% when the soil fails as slump blocks compared to pullout tests. We also found that, for slump block failure, roots had a higher tendency to slip than to break, showing the importance of active earth pressure on root reinforcement behaviour, which contributes to reduced friction between soil and roots. These results were then scaled up to a full tree and tree stand using the root bundle and field‐measured spatial distributions of root density. Although effects on the force mobilized in small roots can be relevant, small roots have virtually no effect on root reinforcement at the tree or stand scale on hillslopes. When root distribution has a wide range of diameters, the root reinforcement results are controlled by large roots, which hold much more force than small roots. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Active earth pressure and pullout from stable soil activate different forces along roots with an average difference of 50%. Root distribution is limited to small‐diameter classes, but can be neglected when large roots are present because they mobilize most of forces. For bioengineering work, reinforcement on short and steep slopes such as riverbanks and roadcuts, can be lower than expected. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/esp.4597 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2237355879</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2237355879</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3827-3d007514a526fbe09f85084bc64bdbfbceb97ef1483c35eb300e8f4c057e3f973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1LAzEQgOEgCtYq-BMCXrxsnWw2zeZYSv2AgoJ6Dsl2oinbzZpkkf57t9arp7k8zAwvIdcMZgygvMPUzyqh5AmZMFDzQtVcnpIJMCULxbk8JxcpbQEYq2o1IYu1iR9IYwg50U3Y-c5kpPkTaRO6HL0dsg8dDY7miJhoDjS1oUeasrG-9Xl_Sc6caRNe_c0peb9fvS0fi_Xzw9NysS4Mr0tZ8A2AFKwyopw7i6BcLaCubDOv7MY626BVEt34FW-4QMsBsHZVA0Iid0ryKbk57u1j-BowZb0NQ-zGk7osueRC1FKN6vaomhhSiuh0H_3OxL1moA-B9BhIHwKNtDjSb9_i_l-nV68vv_4HKgVnBg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2237355879</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Large roots dominate the contribution of trees to slope stability</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Giadrossich, Filippo ; Cohen, Denis ; Schwarz, Massimiliano ; Ganga, Antonio ; Marrosu, Roberto ; Pirastru, Mario ; Capra, Gian Franco</creator><creatorcontrib>Giadrossich, Filippo ; Cohen, Denis ; Schwarz, Massimiliano ; Ganga, Antonio ; Marrosu, Roberto ; Pirastru, Mario ; Capra, Gian Franco</creatorcontrib><description>Tree roots provide surface erosion protection and improve slope stability through highly complex interactions with the soil due to the nature of root systems. Root reinforcement estimation is usually performed by in situ pullout tests, in which roots are pulled out of the soil to reliably estimate the root strength of compact soils. However, this test is not suitable for the scenario where a soil progressively fails in a series of slump blocks – for example, in unsupported soils near streambanks and road cuts where the soil has no compressive resistance at the base of the hillslope. The scenario where a soil is unsupported on its downslope extent and progressively deforms at a slow strain rate has received little attention, and we are unaware of any study on root reinforcement that estimates the additional strength provided by roots in this situation. We therefore designed two complementary laboratory experiments to compare the force required to pull the root out. The results indicate that the force required to pull out roots is reduced by up to 50% when the soil fails as slump blocks compared to pullout tests. We also found that, for slump block failure, roots had a higher tendency to slip than to break, showing the importance of active earth pressure on root reinforcement behaviour, which contributes to reduced friction between soil and roots. These results were then scaled up to a full tree and tree stand using the root bundle and field‐measured spatial distributions of root density. Although effects on the force mobilized in small roots can be relevant, small roots have virtually no effect on root reinforcement at the tree or stand scale on hillslopes. When root distribution has a wide range of diameters, the root reinforcement results are controlled by large roots, which hold much more force than small roots. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Active earth pressure and pullout from stable soil activate different forces along roots with an average difference of 50%. Root distribution is limited to small‐diameter classes, but can be neglected when large roots are present because they mobilize most of forces. For bioengineering work, reinforcement on short and steep slopes such as riverbanks and roadcuts, can be lower than expected.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0197-9337</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9837</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/esp.4597</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bognor Regis: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>active earth pressure ; Deformation ; Earth ; Earth pressure ; Erosion ; Friction reduction ; Interactions ; Laboratory experiments ; Pull out tests ; Reinforcement ; Riverbanks ; root bundle model ; Root distribution ; root pullout ; root reinforcement ; Roots ; Slope stability ; Slopes ; Slow strain rate ; slump blocks ; Soil compaction ; Soil resistance ; Soil stability ; Soil strength ; Soils ; Spatial distribution ; Stream banks ; Surface stability</subject><ispartof>Earth surface processes and landforms, 2019-06, Vol.44 (8), p.1602-1609</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3827-3d007514a526fbe09f85084bc64bdbfbceb97ef1483c35eb300e8f4c057e3f973</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3827-3d007514a526fbe09f85084bc64bdbfbceb97ef1483c35eb300e8f4c057e3f973</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7546-1632</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fesp.4597$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fesp.4597$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Giadrossich, Filippo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwarz, Massimiliano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganga, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marrosu, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pirastru, Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capra, Gian Franco</creatorcontrib><title>Large roots dominate the contribution of trees to slope stability</title><title>Earth surface processes and landforms</title><description>Tree roots provide surface erosion protection and improve slope stability through highly complex interactions with the soil due to the nature of root systems. Root reinforcement estimation is usually performed by in situ pullout tests, in which roots are pulled out of the soil to reliably estimate the root strength of compact soils. However, this test is not suitable for the scenario where a soil progressively fails in a series of slump blocks – for example, in unsupported soils near streambanks and road cuts where the soil has no compressive resistance at the base of the hillslope. The scenario where a soil is unsupported on its downslope extent and progressively deforms at a slow strain rate has received little attention, and we are unaware of any study on root reinforcement that estimates the additional strength provided by roots in this situation. We therefore designed two complementary laboratory experiments to compare the force required to pull the root out. The results indicate that the force required to pull out roots is reduced by up to 50% when the soil fails as slump blocks compared to pullout tests. We also found that, for slump block failure, roots had a higher tendency to slip than to break, showing the importance of active earth pressure on root reinforcement behaviour, which contributes to reduced friction between soil and roots. These results were then scaled up to a full tree and tree stand using the root bundle and field‐measured spatial distributions of root density. Although effects on the force mobilized in small roots can be relevant, small roots have virtually no effect on root reinforcement at the tree or stand scale on hillslopes. When root distribution has a wide range of diameters, the root reinforcement results are controlled by large roots, which hold much more force than small roots. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Active earth pressure and pullout from stable soil activate different forces along roots with an average difference of 50%. Root distribution is limited to small‐diameter classes, but can be neglected when large roots are present because they mobilize most of forces. For bioengineering work, reinforcement on short and steep slopes such as riverbanks and roadcuts, can be lower than expected.</description><subject>active earth pressure</subject><subject>Deformation</subject><subject>Earth</subject><subject>Earth pressure</subject><subject>Erosion</subject><subject>Friction reduction</subject><subject>Interactions</subject><subject>Laboratory experiments</subject><subject>Pull out tests</subject><subject>Reinforcement</subject><subject>Riverbanks</subject><subject>root bundle model</subject><subject>Root distribution</subject><subject>root pullout</subject><subject>root reinforcement</subject><subject>Roots</subject><subject>Slope stability</subject><subject>Slopes</subject><subject>Slow strain rate</subject><subject>slump blocks</subject><subject>Soil compaction</subject><subject>Soil resistance</subject><subject>Soil stability</subject><subject>Soil strength</subject><subject>Soils</subject><subject>Spatial distribution</subject><subject>Stream banks</subject><subject>Surface stability</subject><issn>0197-9337</issn><issn>1096-9837</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10E1LAzEQgOEgCtYq-BMCXrxsnWw2zeZYSv2AgoJ6Dsl2oinbzZpkkf57t9arp7k8zAwvIdcMZgygvMPUzyqh5AmZMFDzQtVcnpIJMCULxbk8JxcpbQEYq2o1IYu1iR9IYwg50U3Y-c5kpPkTaRO6HL0dsg8dDY7miJhoDjS1oUeasrG-9Xl_Sc6caRNe_c0peb9fvS0fi_Xzw9NysS4Mr0tZ8A2AFKwyopw7i6BcLaCubDOv7MY626BVEt34FW-4QMsBsHZVA0Iid0ryKbk57u1j-BowZb0NQ-zGk7osueRC1FKN6vaomhhSiuh0H_3OxL1moA-B9BhIHwKNtDjSb9_i_l-nV68vv_4HKgVnBg</recordid><startdate>20190630</startdate><enddate>20190630</enddate><creator>Giadrossich, Filippo</creator><creator>Cohen, Denis</creator><creator>Schwarz, Massimiliano</creator><creator>Ganga, Antonio</creator><creator>Marrosu, Roberto</creator><creator>Pirastru, Mario</creator><creator>Capra, Gian Franco</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-1632</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190630</creationdate><title>Large roots dominate the contribution of trees to slope stability</title><author>Giadrossich, Filippo ; Cohen, Denis ; Schwarz, Massimiliano ; Ganga, Antonio ; Marrosu, Roberto ; Pirastru, Mario ; Capra, Gian Franco</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3827-3d007514a526fbe09f85084bc64bdbfbceb97ef1483c35eb300e8f4c057e3f973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>active earth pressure</topic><topic>Deformation</topic><topic>Earth</topic><topic>Earth pressure</topic><topic>Erosion</topic><topic>Friction reduction</topic><topic>Interactions</topic><topic>Laboratory experiments</topic><topic>Pull out tests</topic><topic>Reinforcement</topic><topic>Riverbanks</topic><topic>root bundle model</topic><topic>Root distribution</topic><topic>root pullout</topic><topic>root reinforcement</topic><topic>Roots</topic><topic>Slope stability</topic><topic>Slopes</topic><topic>Slow strain rate</topic><topic>slump blocks</topic><topic>Soil compaction</topic><topic>Soil resistance</topic><topic>Soil stability</topic><topic>Soil strength</topic><topic>Soils</topic><topic>Spatial distribution</topic><topic>Stream banks</topic><topic>Surface stability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Giadrossich, Filippo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwarz, Massimiliano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganga, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marrosu, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pirastru, Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capra, Gian Franco</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Earth surface processes and landforms</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Giadrossich, Filippo</au><au>Cohen, Denis</au><au>Schwarz, Massimiliano</au><au>Ganga, Antonio</au><au>Marrosu, Roberto</au><au>Pirastru, Mario</au><au>Capra, Gian Franco</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Large roots dominate the contribution of trees to slope stability</atitle><jtitle>Earth surface processes and landforms</jtitle><date>2019-06-30</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1602</spage><epage>1609</epage><pages>1602-1609</pages><issn>0197-9337</issn><eissn>1096-9837</eissn><abstract>Tree roots provide surface erosion protection and improve slope stability through highly complex interactions with the soil due to the nature of root systems. Root reinforcement estimation is usually performed by in situ pullout tests, in which roots are pulled out of the soil to reliably estimate the root strength of compact soils. However, this test is not suitable for the scenario where a soil progressively fails in a series of slump blocks – for example, in unsupported soils near streambanks and road cuts where the soil has no compressive resistance at the base of the hillslope. The scenario where a soil is unsupported on its downslope extent and progressively deforms at a slow strain rate has received little attention, and we are unaware of any study on root reinforcement that estimates the additional strength provided by roots in this situation. We therefore designed two complementary laboratory experiments to compare the force required to pull the root out. The results indicate that the force required to pull out roots is reduced by up to 50% when the soil fails as slump blocks compared to pullout tests. We also found that, for slump block failure, roots had a higher tendency to slip than to break, showing the importance of active earth pressure on root reinforcement behaviour, which contributes to reduced friction between soil and roots. These results were then scaled up to a full tree and tree stand using the root bundle and field‐measured spatial distributions of root density. Although effects on the force mobilized in small roots can be relevant, small roots have virtually no effect on root reinforcement at the tree or stand scale on hillslopes. When root distribution has a wide range of diameters, the root reinforcement results are controlled by large roots, which hold much more force than small roots. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Active earth pressure and pullout from stable soil activate different forces along roots with an average difference of 50%. Root distribution is limited to small‐diameter classes, but can be neglected when large roots are present because they mobilize most of forces. For bioengineering work, reinforcement on short and steep slopes such as riverbanks and roadcuts, can be lower than expected.</abstract><cop>Bognor Regis</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/esp.4597</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-1632</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0197-9337 |
ispartof | Earth surface processes and landforms, 2019-06, Vol.44 (8), p.1602-1609 |
issn | 0197-9337 1096-9837 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2237355879 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | active earth pressure Deformation Earth Earth pressure Erosion Friction reduction Interactions Laboratory experiments Pull out tests Reinforcement Riverbanks root bundle model Root distribution root pullout root reinforcement Roots Slope stability Slopes Slow strain rate slump blocks Soil compaction Soil resistance Soil stability Soil strength Soils Spatial distribution Stream banks Surface stability |
title | Large roots dominate the contribution of trees to slope stability |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T11%3A52%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Large%20roots%20dominate%20the%20contribution%20of%20trees%20to%20slope%20stability&rft.jtitle=Earth%20surface%20processes%20and%20landforms&rft.au=Giadrossich,%20Filippo&rft.date=2019-06-30&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1602&rft.epage=1609&rft.pages=1602-1609&rft.issn=0197-9337&rft.eissn=1096-9837&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/esp.4597&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2237355879%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2237355879&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |