MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254147060 · doi:10.5194/esurfd-3-631-2015

Storm-triggered landslides in the Peruvian Andes and implications for topography, carbon cycles, and biodiversity

2015· preprint· en· W4254147060 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kathryn E. Clark, A. Joshua West, Robert Hilton, Gregory P. Asner, Carlos Alberto Quesada, Miles R. Silman, Sassan Saatchi, William Farfán-Ríos, Roberta E. Martin, Aline B. Horwath, Kate Halladay, Mark New, Yadvinder Malhi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Research CouncilDirectorate for GeosciencesNatural Environment Research CouncilCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSight Research UK
KeywordsLandslideStormErosionDrainage basinGeologyPrecipitationContext (archaeology)Vegetation (pathology)Hydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyLandslide classificationDebrisGeomorphologyGeographyOceanographyCartographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this study, we assess the geomorphic role of a rare, large-magnitude landslide event and consider the effect of this event on mountain forest ecosystems and the erosion of organic carbon in an Andean river catchment. Proximal triggers such as large rain storms are known to cause large numbers of landslides, but the relative effects of such low-frequency, high-magnitude events are not well known in the context of more regular, smaller events. We develop a 25 year duration, annual-resolution landslide inventory by mapping landslide occurrence in the Kosñipata Valley, Peru, from 1988 to 2012 using Landsat, Quickbird and Worldview satellite images. Catchment-wide landslide rates were high, at 0.076 % yr−1 by area, indicating landslides may completely turn over hillslopes every ~ 1320 years and strip 28 tC km−2 yr−1 of soil (73 %) and vegetation (27 %). A single rain storm in March 2010 accounted for 27 % of all landslide area observed during the 25 year study and removed 26 % of the organic carbon that was stripped from hillslopes by all landslides during the study. An approximately linear magnitude–frequency relationship for annual landslide areas suggests that large storms contribute an equivalent landslide failure area to the sum of smaller frequency landslides events occurring over the same period. However, the spatial distribution of landslides associated with the 2010 storm is distinct. On the basis of precipitation statistics and landscape morphology, we hypothesize that spatial focusing of storm-triggered landslide erosion at lower elevations in the Kosñipata catchment may be characteristic of longer-term patterns. These patterns may have implications for the source and composition of sediments and organic material supplied to river systems of the Amazon basin, and, through focusing of regular ecological disturbance, for the species composition of forested ecosystems in the region.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→