4.6 Article

The effects of logging on frequency and distribution of landslides in three watersheds on Vancouver Island, British Columbia

Journal

GEOMORPHOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 3-4, Pages 273-292

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00138-6

Keywords

landslides; frequency; logging impact; logging roads; debris slides; debris flows

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three hundred and sixty three landslides in three watersheds that totaled 382 km(2) were identified from air photographs, beginning at a date that preceded logging to the present. The three watersheds all lie on Vancouver Island; however, they have different precipitation regimes, topography, and amounts logged. Landslide areas in the watersheds varied in size from 200 in 2 to more than I ha. Nearly 80% of the landslides were debris slides; 15% were debris flows, and the remainder primarily rock falls. Following logging, the number of landslides increased substantially in all watersheds although the amount of increase was variable: approximately 11, 3, and 16 times in Macktush Creek, Artlish River, and Nahwitti River, respectively. Other analyses of changes in landslide density also produced highly variable results, with the number of landslides increasing between 2.4 and 24 times. Further, 2-12 times more landslides reached streams following logging activities. Densities for landslides impacting streams increased for the period of record from 1 5 to 10 times following logging activities. The densities were substantially greater where only landslides that reached streams since development began in a watershed were considered. Roads had the greatest spatial impact in the watersheds (compared to their total area), with frequencies deter-mined to have increased by 27, 12, and 94 times for Macktush, Artlish, and Nahwitti, respectively. The results highlight the relative impact of roads and their role in slope stability, (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available