4.6 Article

The largest prehistoric landslide in northwestern Slovakia: Chronological constraints of the Kykula long-runout landslide and related dammed lakes

期刊

GEOMORPHOLOGY
卷 120, 期 3-4, 页码 233-247

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.03.033

关键词

Long-runout landslide; Landslide impoundments; Dating; Pollen analysis; Late Glacial-Holocene transition; Flysch Carpathians

资金

  1. Grant Agency of the Czech Republic [205/06/P185, P209/10/0309]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study deals with the chronology of the largest long-runout landslide in the northwesterrn part of the Western Flysch Carpathians (Kysucke Beskydy Mts, Slovakia). Despite the impossibility of using direct radiocarbon dating method, time constraints for the evolution of the landslide were determined on the basis of the dating of various sedimentological/geomorphological elements situated on and adjacent to the landslide body. The results show that the landslide evolved between similar to 10.3 and 9.0 ka C-14 BP, i.e. in the wider transitional phase between the Late Glacial (LG) and the Holocene. The main mass movement activity took place at the turn of the Younger Dryas/Preboreal chronozones, whereas retrogressive activity continued up to the Preboreal/Boreal transition. Radiocarbon dating together with pollen analysis and sedimentology of landslide-dammed palaeolakes and colluvial peat bogs revealed almost continuous Holocene palaeogeographical records between similar to 10.3 and 3.3 ka C-14 BP. Periods of enhanced sediment supply to the reservoirs in similar to 9.9-9.0, similar to 8.4-8.2, similar to 6.9-6.5 and similar to 4.5 ka C-14 BP correlate well with palaeogeomorphic and palaeohydrological records from nearby Polish Carpathians. The study confirms that the LG/Holocene transition represented a favourable period for the evolution of large landslides not only in glaciated high mountain areas, but also in medium-high mountains of Central Europe. (C) 2010 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