Articles | Volume 5, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017
Research article
 | Highlight paper
 | 
16 Oct 2017
Research article | Highlight paper |  | 16 Oct 2017

Seismic monitoring of small alpine rockfalls – validity, precision and limitations

Michael Dietze, Solmaz Mohadjer, Jens M. Turowski, Todd A. Ehlers, and Niels Hovius

Viewed

Total article views: 7,278 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
4,726 2,292 260 7,278 417 161 196
  • HTML: 4,726
  • PDF: 2,292
  • XML: 260
  • Total: 7,278
  • Supplement: 417
  • BibTeX: 161
  • EndNote: 196
Views and downloads (calculated since 16 Mar 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 16 Mar 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 7,278 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 6,792 with geography defined and 486 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 14 Dec 2024
Download
Short summary
We use a seismometer network to detect and locate rockfalls, a key process shaping steep mountain landscapes. When tested against laser scan surveys, all seismically detected events could be located with an average deviation of 81 m. Seismic monitoring provides insight to the dynamics of individual rockfalls, which can be as small as 0.0053 m3. Thus, seismic methods provide unprecedented temporal, spatial and kinematic details about this important process.