Comparison of debris-flow volumes from burned and unburned areas

The goals of this work are to show the range of debris-flow volumes and watershed characteristics for several locations, and the differences in flow volumes for events triggered soon after wildfire. A dataset of 929 events was divided into groups based on location and burn status. The three unburned...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Landslides 2013-12, Vol.10 (6), p.757-769
Hauptverfasser: Santi, Paul M., Morandi, Luca
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 769
container_issue 6
container_start_page 757
container_title Landslides
container_volume 10
creator Santi, Paul M.
Morandi, Luca
description The goals of this work are to show the range of debris-flow volumes and watershed characteristics for several locations, and the differences in flow volumes for events triggered soon after wildfire. A dataset of 929 events was divided into groups based on location and burn status. The three unburned locations show significant differences: debris flows from the Italian Alps are larger and generate more debris per unit basin area or unit channel length than flows in the Western USA or in the Pacific Northwest. However, some of the observed differences may be attributed to the skew of the Italian Alps dataset towards larger events, and the small size and limited range of the Pacific Northwest data. For burned watersheds in the Western U.S. events, there is a clear progression in decreasing volume in debris flows as basins recover from the wildfire: it takes approximately 1 year, or at a few locations, as much as 3 years, for debris production to return to pre-fire rates. The difference is most apparent when the data are normalized for basin area (the area yield, which is 2× larger for burned basins) or for channel length (the length yield, which is 1.6× larger for burned basins). When normalized simultaneously for basin area, channel length, and channel gradient, burned areas produce significantly more debris (2.7–5.4 times as much). Burned areas in the Western USA are more sensitive to wildfire and produce larger debris flows than burned areas in more humid climates such as the Pacific Northwest.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10346-012-0354-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1642329057</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3141299801</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a405t-b4d4cb87bca25c7ac5f663d855ffe1487ba3480d778597c3d6d79313ee884f303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLxDAUhYMoOI7-AHcBN26qeSfdKcUXDLhRcBfSPGSGthmTqeK_N0NVRBBX91zudy6cA8AxRmcYIXmeMaJMVAiTClHOKrYDZliUjWOsdr81etoHBzmvECI1ovUMXDSxX5u0zHGAMUDn26Kr0MU3-Bq7sfcZhhR72I5p8A6awcFx-FqSN_kQ7AXTZX_0Oefg8frqobmtFvc3d83lojIM8U3VMsdsq2RrDeFWGsuDENQpzkPwmJWDoUwhJ6XitbTUCSdriqn3SrFAEZ2D0-nvOsWX0eeN7pfZ-q4zg49j1lgwQksoLv9HmeRcYE5IQU9-oatYwpUghRKEKU4UKxSeKJtizskHvU7L3qR3jZHe1q-n-nWpX2_r11sPmTy5sMOzTz8-_2n6AIbmhfo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1462485284</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of debris-flow volumes from burned and unburned areas</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Santi, Paul M. ; Morandi, Luca</creator><creatorcontrib>Santi, Paul M. ; Morandi, Luca</creatorcontrib><description>The goals of this work are to show the range of debris-flow volumes and watershed characteristics for several locations, and the differences in flow volumes for events triggered soon after wildfire. A dataset of 929 events was divided into groups based on location and burn status. The three unburned locations show significant differences: debris flows from the Italian Alps are larger and generate more debris per unit basin area or unit channel length than flows in the Western USA or in the Pacific Northwest. However, some of the observed differences may be attributed to the skew of the Italian Alps dataset towards larger events, and the small size and limited range of the Pacific Northwest data. For burned watersheds in the Western U.S. events, there is a clear progression in decreasing volume in debris flows as basins recover from the wildfire: it takes approximately 1 year, or at a few locations, as much as 3 years, for debris production to return to pre-fire rates. The difference is most apparent when the data are normalized for basin area (the area yield, which is 2× larger for burned basins) or for channel length (the length yield, which is 1.6× larger for burned basins). When normalized simultaneously for basin area, channel length, and channel gradient, burned areas produce significantly more debris (2.7–5.4 times as much). Burned areas in the Western USA are more sensitive to wildfire and produce larger debris flows than burned areas in more humid climates such as the Pacific Northwest.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1612-510X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1612-5118</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10346-012-0354-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Agriculture ; Alps ; Basins ; Channels ; Civil Engineering ; Combustion ; Debris ; Debris flow ; Detritus ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Forest &amp; brush fires ; Geography ; Humid areas ; Humid climates ; Landslides &amp; mudslides ; Marine ; Natural Hazards ; Northwest ; Original Paper ; Watersheds ; Wildfires</subject><ispartof>Landslides, 2013-12, Vol.10 (6), p.757-769</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2012</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a405t-b4d4cb87bca25c7ac5f663d855ffe1487ba3480d778597c3d6d79313ee884f303</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a405t-b4d4cb87bca25c7ac5f663d855ffe1487ba3480d778597c3d6d79313ee884f303</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10346-012-0354-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10346-012-0354-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Santi, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morandi, Luca</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of debris-flow volumes from burned and unburned areas</title><title>Landslides</title><addtitle>Landslides</addtitle><description>The goals of this work are to show the range of debris-flow volumes and watershed characteristics for several locations, and the differences in flow volumes for events triggered soon after wildfire. A dataset of 929 events was divided into groups based on location and burn status. The three unburned locations show significant differences: debris flows from the Italian Alps are larger and generate more debris per unit basin area or unit channel length than flows in the Western USA or in the Pacific Northwest. However, some of the observed differences may be attributed to the skew of the Italian Alps dataset towards larger events, and the small size and limited range of the Pacific Northwest data. For burned watersheds in the Western U.S. events, there is a clear progression in decreasing volume in debris flows as basins recover from the wildfire: it takes approximately 1 year, or at a few locations, as much as 3 years, for debris production to return to pre-fire rates. The difference is most apparent when the data are normalized for basin area (the area yield, which is 2× larger for burned basins) or for channel length (the length yield, which is 1.6× larger for burned basins). When normalized simultaneously for basin area, channel length, and channel gradient, burned areas produce significantly more debris (2.7–5.4 times as much). Burned areas in the Western USA are more sensitive to wildfire and produce larger debris flows than burned areas in more humid climates such as the Pacific Northwest.</description><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Alps</subject><subject>Basins</subject><subject>Channels</subject><subject>Civil Engineering</subject><subject>Combustion</subject><subject>Debris</subject><subject>Debris flow</subject><subject>Detritus</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Forest &amp; brush fires</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Humid areas</subject><subject>Humid climates</subject><subject>Landslides &amp; mudslides</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Natural Hazards</subject><subject>Northwest</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><subject>Wildfires</subject><issn>1612-510X</issn><issn>1612-5118</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLxDAUhYMoOI7-AHcBN26qeSfdKcUXDLhRcBfSPGSGthmTqeK_N0NVRBBX91zudy6cA8AxRmcYIXmeMaJMVAiTClHOKrYDZliUjWOsdr81etoHBzmvECI1ovUMXDSxX5u0zHGAMUDn26Kr0MU3-Bq7sfcZhhR72I5p8A6awcFx-FqSN_kQ7AXTZX_0Oefg8frqobmtFvc3d83lojIM8U3VMsdsq2RrDeFWGsuDENQpzkPwmJWDoUwhJ6XitbTUCSdriqn3SrFAEZ2D0-nvOsWX0eeN7pfZ-q4zg49j1lgwQksoLv9HmeRcYE5IQU9-oatYwpUghRKEKU4UKxSeKJtizskHvU7L3qR3jZHe1q-n-nWpX2_r11sPmTy5sMOzTz8-_2n6AIbmhfo</recordid><startdate>20131201</startdate><enddate>20131201</enddate><creator>Santi, Paul M.</creator><creator>Morandi, Luca</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131201</creationdate><title>Comparison of debris-flow volumes from burned and unburned areas</title><author>Santi, Paul M. ; Morandi, Luca</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a405t-b4d4cb87bca25c7ac5f663d855ffe1487ba3480d778597c3d6d79313ee884f303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Alps</topic><topic>Basins</topic><topic>Channels</topic><topic>Civil Engineering</topic><topic>Combustion</topic><topic>Debris</topic><topic>Debris flow</topic><topic>Detritus</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Forest &amp; brush fires</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Humid areas</topic><topic>Humid climates</topic><topic>Landslides &amp; mudslides</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Natural Hazards</topic><topic>Northwest</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><topic>Wildfires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Santi, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morandi, Luca</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Landslides</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Santi, Paul M.</au><au>Morandi, Luca</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of debris-flow volumes from burned and unburned areas</atitle><jtitle>Landslides</jtitle><stitle>Landslides</stitle><date>2013-12-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>757</spage><epage>769</epage><pages>757-769</pages><issn>1612-510X</issn><eissn>1612-5118</eissn><abstract>The goals of this work are to show the range of debris-flow volumes and watershed characteristics for several locations, and the differences in flow volumes for events triggered soon after wildfire. A dataset of 929 events was divided into groups based on location and burn status. The three unburned locations show significant differences: debris flows from the Italian Alps are larger and generate more debris per unit basin area or unit channel length than flows in the Western USA or in the Pacific Northwest. However, some of the observed differences may be attributed to the skew of the Italian Alps dataset towards larger events, and the small size and limited range of the Pacific Northwest data. For burned watersheds in the Western U.S. events, there is a clear progression in decreasing volume in debris flows as basins recover from the wildfire: it takes approximately 1 year, or at a few locations, as much as 3 years, for debris production to return to pre-fire rates. The difference is most apparent when the data are normalized for basin area (the area yield, which is 2× larger for burned basins) or for channel length (the length yield, which is 1.6× larger for burned basins). When normalized simultaneously for basin area, channel length, and channel gradient, burned areas produce significantly more debris (2.7–5.4 times as much). Burned areas in the Western USA are more sensitive to wildfire and produce larger debris flows than burned areas in more humid climates such as the Pacific Northwest.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s10346-012-0354-4</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1612-510X
ispartof Landslides, 2013-12, Vol.10 (6), p.757-769
issn 1612-510X
1612-5118
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1642329057
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Agriculture
Alps
Basins
Channels
Civil Engineering
Combustion
Debris
Debris flow
Detritus
Earth and Environmental Science
Earth Sciences
Forest & brush fires
Geography
Humid areas
Humid climates
Landslides & mudslides
Marine
Natural Hazards
Northwest
Original Paper
Watersheds
Wildfires
title Comparison of debris-flow volumes from burned and unburned areas
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T04%3A54%3A26IST&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=Comparison%20of%20debris-flow%20volumes%20from%20burned%20and%20unburned%20areas&rft.jtitle=Landslides&rft.au=Santi,%20Paul%20M.&rft.date=2013-12-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=757&rft.epage=769&rft.pages=757-769&rft.issn=1612-510X&rft.eissn=1612-5118&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10346-012-0354-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3141299801%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=1462485284&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true