Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Landslide erosion controlled by hillslope material

Nature Geoscience volume 3, pages 247–251 (2010)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Steep hillslopes in mountain belts are eroded by landslides, and landsliding is ultimately driven by the topographic relief produced by fluvial and glacial erosion1,2,3,4,5. Landslide erosion rates are derived from estimates of landslide volume and can help to appraise landscape responses to tectonic, climatic and anthropogenic forcing. However, the scaling relationships—power-law equations that are used to estimate the volume of the landslide from the area of the failure—are derived from a limited number of measurements, and do not discriminate between bedrock and soil landslides. Here we use a compilation of landslide geometry measurements from 4,231 individual landslides to assess the relative volume–area scaling of bedrock and soil landslides. We find that shallow, soil-based landslides can be approximated by an exponent of γ = 1.1–1.3. In contrast, landslides that involve the failure of bedrock have a deeper scar area, and hence larger volume, and are characterized by γ = 1.3–1.6. On the basis of observations that soil residence times in uplifting mountains can be as low as a few centuries6, we suggest that both deep bedrock and frequent, shallow soil landslides can erode steep hillslopes at rates commensurate with even rapid tectonic uplift.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Effect of the volume–area scaling exponent γ on predicted total landslide volume (VT).
Figure 2: Landslide geometry scaling.
Figure 3: Box plots of landslide scar depth and deposit thickness as a function of landslide area for soil and bedrock landslides.
Figure 4: Scaling exponents (γ) from the landslide data sets used in this study, previous empirical studies and previous models.
Figure 5: Soil and landslide depths.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Burbank, D. et al. Bedrock incision, rock uplift and threshold hillslopes in the northwestern Himalayas. Nature 379, 505–510 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hovius, N., Stark, C. & Allen, P. Sediment flux from a mountain belt derived by landslide mapping. Geology 25, 231–234 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmidt, K. & Montgomery, D. Limits to relief. Science 270, 617–620 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Whipple, K., Kirby, E. & Brocklehurst, S. Geomorphic limits to climate-induced increases in topographic relief. Nature 401, 39–43 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Korup, O. et al. Giant landslides, topography, and erosion. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 261, 578–589 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Basher, L., Tonkin, P. & McSaveney, M. Geomorphic history of a rapidly uplifting area on a compressional plate boundary: Cropp River, New Zealand. Z. Geomorphol. 69, 117–131 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gabet, E. A theoretical model coupling chemical weathering and physical erosion in landslide-dominated landscapes. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 264, 259–265 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Raymo, M. & Ruddiman, W. Tectonic forcing of late Cenozoic climate. Nature 359, 117–122 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hilton, R. et al. Tropical-cyclone-driven erosion of the terrestrial biosphere from mountains. Nature Geosci. 1, 759–762 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hilton, R., Galy, A. & Hovius, N. Riverine particulate organic carbon from an active mountain belt: Importance of landslides. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1017 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Willett, S. D., Hovius, N., Brandon, M. T. & Fisher, D. M. Tectonics, Climate, and Landscape Evolution (Geol. Soc. Am., 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blaschke, P., Trustrum, N. & Hicks, D. Impacts of mass movement erosion on land productivity: A review. Prog. Phys. Geog. 24, 21–52 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Malamud, B., Turcotte, D., Guzzetti, F. & Reichenbach, P. Landslide inventories and their statistical properties. Earth Surf. Processes Landforms 29, 687–711 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hovius, N., Stark, C., Hao-Tsu, C. & Jiun-Chuan, L. Supply and removal of sediment in a landslide-dominated mountain belt: Central Range, Taiwan. J. Geol. 108, 73–89 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lavé, J. & Burbank, D. Denudation processes and rates in the Transverse Ranges, southern California: Erosional response of a transitional landscape to external and anthropogenic forcing. J. Geophys. Res. 109, F01006 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Imaizumi, F. & Sidle, R. Linkage of sediment supply and transport processes in Miyagawa Dam catchment, Japan. J. Geophys. Res. 112, F03012 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Simonett, D. in Landform studies from Australia and New Guinea (eds Jennings, J. N. & Mabbutt, J. A.) 64–84 (Australian National Univ. Press, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Niemi, N., Oskin, M., Burbank, D., Heimsath, A. & Gabet, E. Effects of bedrock landslides on cosmogenically determined erosion rates. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 237, 480–498 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yanites, B., Tucker, G. & Anderson, R. Numerical and analytical models of cosmogenic radionuclide dynamics in landslide-dominated drainage basins. J. Geophys. Res. 114, F01007 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dussauge, C., Grasso, J. & Helmstetter, A. Statistical analysis of rockfall volume distributions: Implications for rockfall dynamics. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2286 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stark, C. & Guzzetti, F. Landslide rupture and the probability distribution of mobilized debris volumes. J. Geophys. Res. 114, F00A02 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Guzzetti, F., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., Rossi, M. & Valigi, D. Landslide volumes and landslide mobilization rates in Umbria, central Italy. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 279, 222–229 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Burbank, D. Rates of erosion and their implications for exhumation. Mineral. Mag. 66, 25–52 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heimsath, A., Dietrich, W., Nishiizumi, K. & Finkel, R. The soil production function and landscape equilibrium. Nature 388, 358–361 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hungr, O. & Evans, S. Entrainment of debris in rock avalanches: An analysis of a long run-out mechanism. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 116, 1240–1252 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carson, M. & Kirkby, M. Hillslope Form and Process (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Smale, M., McLeod, M. & Smale, P. Vegetation and soil recovery on shallow landslide scars in Tertiary hill country, East Cape Region, New Zealand. New Zeal. J. Ecol. 21, 31–41 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Trustrum, N. A. & De Rose, R. C. Soil depth-age relationship of landslides on deforested hillslopes, Taranaki, New Zealand. Geomorphology 1, 143–160 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Restrepo, C. et al. Landsliding and its multiscale influence on mountainscapes. Bioscience 59, 685–698 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cruden, D. & Varnes, D. in Landslides Investigation and Mitigation. Special Report 247 (eds Turner, A. K. & Schuster, R. L.) 36–71 (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Allen, P. Flentje, J. Griffiths, R. Guthrie, F. Imaizumi, J. Iwahashi, H. Kelsey, A. Knappen, M. A. Madej, Y. Martin, C. May, L. Owen, C. Pain, L. Reid, A. Strom, J. Poesen, R. Sidle, M. Van Den Eeckhaut and H. Yamagishi for generously sharing landslide data and A. Heimsath for a stimulating discussion. I.J.L. thanks Sigma Xi and the Washington NASA Space Grant Consortium for support.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Oliver Korup

    Present address: Present address: Institut für Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Potsdam, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany,

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth and Space Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1310, USA

    Isaac J. Larsen & David R. Montgomery

  2. Swiss Federal Research Institutes WSL/SLF, Flüelastr. 11, CH-7260 Davos, Switzerland

    Oliver Korup

Authors
  1. Isaac J. Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David R. Montgomery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oliver Korup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to data compilation, analysis and writing. I.J.L. primarily conducted the data compilation and analysis.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Isaac J. Larsen or Oliver Korup.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 1448 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Larsen, I., Montgomery, D. & Korup, O. Landslide erosion controlled by hillslope material. Nature Geosci 3, 247–251 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo776

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo776

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing