Holocene landslides in the Fraser Canyon Corridor and implications for ‘ecohazard’ assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Landslides are important natural hazards to infrastructure and humans, but they also pose a hazard to the biosphere and constitute an ‘ecohazard’. Recent and prehistoric landslides in southwest British Columbia have significantly impacted local fluvial processes and nearby ecosystems. For example, the 2018 Big Bar landslide caused a major hydraulic barrier in the Fraser River, which impeded upstream salmon migration for 2 years. To better understand the impact of landslides on the biosphere, defined here as ’ecohazard’ impacts, we assessed the distribution, size and character of landslides near the Fraser River over the past 12 to 15 ka. We created a landslide inventory using 2560 km 2 of airborne lidar along the Fraser Canyon Corridor, a 375‐km stretch of the Fraser River, which flows through varied topography and bedrock. We mapped 274 landslides with planform areas between 2 × 10 3 and 2 × 10 6 m 2 and estimated volumes that range from 600 to 1.05 × 10 8 m 3 . While the landslides with the largest area were flows/spreads in volcanic rocks, landslides in intrusive and metamorphic rocks had the highest median area. Area–volume relations were consistent across lithology and failure styles. Area–frequency and volume–frequency distributions have a positive skew, in agreement with other landslide inventories. Area–runout relations were also consistent across classifications, meaning the likelihood of a given landslide event reaching the Fraser River is primarily controlled by valley morphology rather than lithology or specific failure mechanics. We propose an ecohazard impact framework to classify the risk posed to salmon migration for the different classes of landslides documented in our inventory. We found that landslides of similar size and character to the Big Bar landslide are relatively common within the Fraser River Corridor; however, their location within the valley will determine how likely they are to significantly impact the ecosystem.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".