Yayın:
Why so few? Landslides triggered by the 2002 Denali earthquake, Alaska

dc.contributor.authorGorum, Tolga
dc.contributor.authorKorup, Oliver
dc.contributor.authorvan Westen, Cees J.
dc.contributor.authorvan der Meijde, Mark
dc.contributor.authorXu, Chong
dc.contributor.authorvan der Meer, Freek D.
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-27T13:31:50Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.description.abstractThe 2002 M-w 7.9 Denali Fault earthquake, Alaska, provides an unparalleled opportunity to investigate in quantitative detail the regional hillslope mass-wasting response to strong seismic shaking in glacierized terrain. We present the first detailed inventory of similar to 1580 coseismic slope failures, out of which some 20% occurred above large valley glaciers, based on mapping from multi-temporal remote sensing data. We find that the Denali earthquake produced at least one order of magnitude fewer landslides in a much narrower corridor along the fault ruptures than empirical predictions for an M 8 earthquake would suggest, despite the availability of sufficiently steep and dissected mountainous topography prone to frequent slope failure. In order to explore potential controls on the reduced extent of regional coseismic landsliding we compare our data with inventories that we compiled for two recent earthquakes in periglacial and formerly glaciated terrain, i.e. at Yushu, Tibet (M-w 6.9, 2010), and Aysen Fjord, Chile (2007 M-w 6.2). Fault movement during these events was, similarly to that of the Denali earthquake, dominated by strike-slip offsets along near-vertical faults. Our comparison returns very similar coseismic landslide patterns that are consistent with the idea that fault type, geometry, and dynamic rupture process rather than widespread glacier cover were among the first-order controls on regional hillslope erosional response in these earthquakes. We conclude that estimating the amount of coseismic hillslope sediment input to the sediment cascade from earthquake magnitude alone remains highly problematic, particularly if glacierized terrain is involved. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en
dc.description.sponsorshipUnited Nations University - ITC Center for Spatial Analysis for Disaster Risk Management
dc.description.sponsorshipPotsdam Research Cluster for Georisk Analysis, Environmental Change and Sustainability (PROGRESS)
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.04.032
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.04.032
dc.identifier.endpage94
dc.identifier.issn0277-3791
dc.identifier.startpage80
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14981/53603
dc.identifier.volume95
dc.identifier.wos000338604200005
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherPERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
dc.relation.ispartofQUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
dc.subjectEarthquake
dc.subjectLandslide
dc.subjectGlacial
dc.subjectSediment cascade
dc.subjectDenali
dc.subjectAlaska
dc.subjectROCK AVALANCHES
dc.subjectFAULT-SYSTEM
dc.subjectKARAKORAM HIMALAYA
dc.subjectMOUNTAINS
dc.subjectGLACIER
dc.subjectEASTERN
dc.subjectRANGE
dc.subjectGLACIATION
dc.subjectKINEMATICS
dc.subjectMOVEMENT
dc.subjectPhysical Geography
dc.subjectGeology
dc.titleWhy so few? Landslides triggered by the 2002 Denali earthquake, Alaska
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.import.sourceWOS

Dosyalar

Koleksiyonlar