4.5 Article

Effects of vegetation on hydrological response of silty volcanic covers

期刊

CANADIAN GEOTECHNICAL JOURNAL
卷 56, 期 9, 页码 1261-1277

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2017-0625

关键词

pyroclastic soil; soil-vegetation-atmosphere interaction; slope hydrology; physical model; early warning predictions

资金

  1. Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Universita e della Ricerca Scientifica (MIUR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work examines the hydrological behaviour of a silty volcanic layer exposed to the atmosphere for 3 years under vegetated conditions. The layer was extensively monitored to measure energy fluxes, water fluxes, and internal variables (suction, water content, water storage, and temperature). Measurements were used to build representations of the layer's behaviour patterns depending on its surface covering, comparing the behaviour in vegetated conditions with behaviour observed under bare conditions over the previous 4 years. Results show that during cold-dry periods, differences in terms of fluxes and hydrological variables between the bare and vegetated conditions reduce to negligible levels, but increase significantly during hot-dry and transition periods. As the soil forming the layer was selected to have the same intrinsic and state properties as the layer in a specific rainfall-induced landslide case history that occurred in Nocera Inferiore (South Italy) in 2005, the experimental results are used to re-interpret such a landslide, considering the effects of vegetation and referring to a coupled thermohydraulic model. The experimental results are used to calibrate the model, and this is then used to interpret around 10 years of meteorological variables recorded at the landslide site, including the landslide time. Comparison with interpretations made previously as a bare soil hypothesis shows how neglecting the effects of vegetation might imply a loss in prediction accuracy of soil state variables (suction and water storage) related to the slope stability.

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

4.5
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