|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|4683842||1349370||2017||8 صفحه PDF||ندارد||دانلود کنید|
• Tree-growth responses were studied on a landslide of known age.
• Seventy-four disturbed individuals of P. abies were analysed in detail.
• Growth responses were compared with the external disturbances and tree parameters.
• The general model of an event–response relationship was evaluated.
Dendrogeomorphic methods are frequently used in landslide analyses. Although methods of landslide dating based on tree rings are well developed, they still indicated many questions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequently used theoretical scheme based on the event–response relationship. Seventy-four individuals of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) exhibiting visible external disturbance, were sampled on the Girová landslide (the largest historical flow-like landslide in the Czech Republic). This landslide reactivated in May 2010, and post-landslide tree growth responses were studied in detail. These growth responses were compared with the intensity and occurrence of visible external tree disturbance: tilted stems, damaged root systems, and decapitation. Twenty-nine trees (39.2%) died within one to four years following the 2010 landslide movement. The trees that died following the landslide movement were significantly younger and displayed significantly greater stem tilting than the live trees. Abrupt growth suppression was a more-frequent response among the dead trees, whereas growth release dominated among the live trees. Only two trees (2.7%) created no reaction wood in response to the landslide movement. Forty-four percent of the trees started to produce reaction wood structure after a delay, which generally spanned one year. Some eccentric growth was evident in the tree rings of the landslide year and was significant in the first years following the landslide movement. Missing rings were observed only on the upper sides of the stems, and no false tree rings were observed. The results confirm the general validity of event-response relationship, nevertheless this study points out the limitations and uncertainties of this generally accepted working scheme.
Journal: Geomorphology - Volume 276, 1 January 2017, Pages 51–58