4.6 Article

Exploring the effects of seismicity on landslides and catchment sediment yield: An Italian case study

期刊

GEOMORPHOLOGY
卷 278, 期 -, 页码 171-183

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.11.010

关键词

Earthquake; Uplift; Peak ground acceleration; Landslide; Sediment yield; Italy

资金

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies showed that contemporary average catchment sediment yields (SY, [t km(-2) y(-1)]) at regional and continental scales are often strongly correlated to spatial patterns of seismic activity. Nonetheless, we currently have little insights into the mechanisms that explain these correlations. We investigated how spatial patterns of SY in Italy are linked to patterns of seismic activity. For a dataset of 103 Italian catchments with average SY measured over a period of years to decades, we extracted tectonic and none-tectonic variables that potentially explain observed differences in SY. These include proxies for vertical uplift rates and cumulative seismic moments (CSM) associated with historic earthquakes of different ranges of magnitude. Results showed that also across Italy, SY is significantly correlated to seismicity. However, SY showed much stronger correlations with proxies of seismicity relating to small but frequent earthquakes (2 <= M-w < 4) than with proxies relating to tectonic uplift or large, potentially landslide-triggering earthquakes (M-w >= 4). Analyses of a dataset of about 500,000 landslides across Italy showed very comparable trends: spatial patterns of landslides within similar lithological units generally show a significant positive correlation with CSM of weak but frequent seismicity and generally not with CSM of large earthquakes. These results suggest that, on a decadal time scale and at a regional/continental spatial scale, frequent but relatively weak seismicity may exert a more important geomorphic impact than large earthquake events or tectonic uplift. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据