Earthquake-induced debris flows at Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico

Coviello, Velio; Capra, Lucia; Norini, Gianluca; Dávila, Norma; Ferrés, Dolors; Márquez-Ramírez, Víctor Hugo; Pico, Eduard

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-9-393-2021

Articles | Volume 9, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-9-393-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-9-393-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 9, issue 3

Research article

|

21 May 2021

Research article |

| 21 May 2021

Earthquake-induced debris flows at Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico

Velio Coviello, Lucia Capra, Gianluca Norini, Norma Dávila, Dolors Ferrés, Víctor Hugo Márquez-Ramírez, and Eduard Pico

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 May 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 25 May 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'RC', Matteo Roverato, 08 Jun 2020
- AC1: 'reply to SC1', Velio Coviello, 04 Oct 2020
RC1: 'Comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Aug 2020
- AC2: 'reply to RC1', Velio Coviello, 04 Oct 2020
RC2: 'Interactive comment on “Earthquake-induced debris flows at Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico” by Velio Coviello et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Sep 2020
AC3: 'reply to RC2', Velio Coviello, 04 Oct 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Velio Coviello (deceased) on behalf of the Authors (24 Oct 2020) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Nov 2020) by Xuanmei Fan

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Nov 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (21 Dec 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Manuscript Number: esurf-2020-36

Title: Earthquake-induced debris flows at Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico

Recommendation: Major revision

Overview and general comments:

Manuscript studies the co-seismic landslides that are triggered by the Puebla-Morelos EQ (MW 7.1). The study suggests that the volcanic landscape could further enhance the impact of the EQ. It is a comprehensive report of the event, however, the results seem to lack novelty. The method of the work is not clearly described, it should be extended beyond postprocessing the used data. Additionally, the text is hard to follow there are several redundant information and no clear line that leads to the take home message of the manuscript—"new insights to constrain a multi-hazard risk assessment”. The study fails to show, how this result is reached. Hence in its current form I am afraid that the manuscript won’t attract its deserved attention by the community.

Major Issues:

These landslides are some ~70km away from the epicenter, which is quite large distance to trigger landslides. Are they somewhat closer to the rupture fault?

Reviewer 2 suggested authors to reflect from other global earthquake triggered landslides, though Hokkaido EQ might not be the best example, since the case study in the manuscript is a volcanic region, hence I recommend authors to rather take a look in such cases, e.g. Kumamoto 2016 EQ. von Specht et al. (2019) studies co-seismic landslides around the Aso Caldera, they suggest a velocity-based model to study the co-seismic landslides; while Fan et al. (2019; 2020) are the most up to date comprehensive review about the recent developments in the area of exploring co-seismic landslides. These articles could help authors improving their work in introduction and in discussion.

Fan, X., Scaringi, G., Korup, O., West, A. J., Westen, C. J., Tanyas, H., et al. (2019). Earthquake‐Induced Chains of Geologic Hazards: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Impacts. Reviews of Geophysics, 57(2), 421–503. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000626

Fan, X., Yunus, A. P., Scaringi, G., Catani, F., Subramanian, S. S., Xu, Q., & Huang, R. (2020). Rapidly evolving controls of landslides after a strong earthquake and implications for hazard assessments. Geophysical Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090509

von Specht, S., Ozturk, U., Veh, G., Cotton, F., & Korup, O. (2019). Effects of finite source rupture on landslide triggering: the 2016 MW 7.1 Kumamoto earthquake. Solid Earth, 10(2), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-463-2019

Abstract:

Reviewer 1 suggested rewriting the abstract and clearly describing the findings and interesting point. Although I fully agree on the 1st reviewer, I see inadequate minor changes in the abstract with nearly no information on the findings of the current work. It lacks any clear result of the conducted work; it just reports that the observations are unique and the results call for reassessing the multi-hazard risk assessment concept in the region. The abstract does not lead to this suggestion, authors should explain how it is reached. In the meantime, the abstract is somewhat long, and written in a mixed manner: it follows, study site information and event description, research questions, again study site information and event description, method, and nearly no results. Additionally, I recommend authors to use active voice instead of passive sentences in the abstract, also throughout the manuscript.

Introduction:

I recommend authors to improve their introduction fundamentally, in its current state, it is weak in content and involves a lot of interpretation about the study area. Authors mix several perspectives about volcanic landslides and EQ-induced landslides, which makes it hard to follow. Authors frequently use serious of citations to support their arguments, which indeed do not prepare the reader to the content of the manuscript. For example the sentence “In the following years, a growing number of studies started focusing on the impact of landsliding caused by large-magnitude earthquakes on the sediment yield (e.g., Pearce and Watson, 1986; Dadson et al., 2004; Marc et al., 2019).”. What is important on these articles for the purpose of the current study? There are a few more similar examples in the introduction.

Data and methods:

This section sound like a data and post processing of that data, there is no method in it.
Authors use frequently passive voice in the section, if the NDVI, the timing of the landslides, and radiometric calibration are adapted from another work, they should be cited. Field data sounds to be collected by someone else as well, authors should cite those sources, if they did it themselves, then better to use active voice. A dedicated method section is necessary.

Timing of the events:

Authors frequently refer to some locations, e.g. Amecameca and Atlautla, it would ease following the text if there would be a general introductory image.
Authors should consider using the Soil Water Index to estimate the soil wetness, a option is to use the method suggested by Chen et al. (2017).

Chen, C.-W., Saito, H., & Oguchi, T. (2017). Analyzing rainfall-induced mass movements in Taiwan using the soil water index. Landslides, 14(3), 1031–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0788-1

Initiation of co-seismic landslides:

Authors refers frequently to seismic amplification justifiably, why it is not shown in the manuscript? In the study area it might not be possible to compute it precisely due to lack of data, in that case authors could at least show the total curvature, which is the base of the site amplification.

Line 322—323: von Specht et al. (2019) shows impact of the site amplification on landslide location on the landscape.

von Specht, S., Ozturk, U., Veh, G., Cotton, F., & Korup, O. (2019). Effects of finite source rupture on landslide triggering: the 2016 MW 7.1 Kumamoto earthquake. Solid Earth, 10(2), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-463-2019

Minor suggestions:

Abstract:

In the abstract magnitude of the Puebla-Morelos EQ is specified only with “M” initial, isn’t it commonly referred as “MW”?

Introduction:

Line 29: the first sentence of the Introduction does not really lead anywhere, EQs and rainfall are certainly triggering landslides independently. I assume authors want to emphasize that antecedent rainfall could enhance the total co-seismic landslides. Or do they mean subsequent rainfall could further trigger landslides on those EQ weakened hillslopes?

Line 55–67: involves some interpretation about the study area. It is better to move it to the dedicated section.

Line 60: “volcano’s summit” --> wrong use of possessive apostrophe. I have witnessed some others throughout the manuscript, please pay attention to its correct use.

Context and study site:

A better title would be “Study area” only. It would be nice if the authors could edit and shortened the section a bit, but it is not necessary.

Landslide mapping:

C14 dating is first mentioned in the results section, I guess it should be listed also in a dedicated method section.

Line 163: How many landslides, their total area or volume? Please cite the paper/work, who conducted the analyses?
Line 168–171: The sentence is hard to understand, please paraphrase.
Line 181–183: The sentence is hard to understand, please paraphrase.
Line 184: Cite the source paper of this C14 dating.

Characterization of debris flows and associated deposits:

Line 205–206: are these the 5 landslides that were mentioned at the beginning of the previous section?

Discussion:

This section should also highlight the contribution of the authors to the existing literature. It currently focusses only on understanding the reasons of landsliding on Popocatépetl Volcano.

Line 312–315: some supporting references would cement these nice arguments.

Figures:
Supporting text, e.g. axis ticks, are very small to read nearly in all the figures.

Figure 1: Would it be possible to show also the ruptured fault?
Figure 2: Please mark subplots by a, b, c, d.
Figure 3: Landslides are rather tiny in the image, 1 or 2 more subplots zooming in them could help.
Figure 4: Please highlight the PO1906, 1927, and 1911 in subplot a. would it be possible to show the outline of the landslides in subplot b, or show additionally Overhead view
From Google Earth or satellite images.
Figure 6: Subplot b and d: the marks of A, B, C, and D are not contrasting enough to spot them easily. Subplot e refers to the figure 4a, I assume?
Figure 7: Really informative image, helps reader to follow nicely, please mark the subplots with a, b, c… and link them to table 1 in the figure. Another option could be to integrate table 1 inside this figure, it is of course the choice of the authors.
Figure 8: Please try to link the figure to figure 4a
Figure 10: what do the different colors of the bars mean?

Tables:
Table 1: What is the slope unit?
Table 2: Involves a lot of numerical information, it is hard to understand, would it be possible to convert it to a figure, e.g. bars?
Table 3: It could be merged with table 1, or better both of them in Figure 7.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 Dec 2020) by Xuanmei Fan

AR by Velio Coviello (deceased) on behalf of the Authors (08 Feb 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes

ED: Publish as is (01 Mar 2021) by Xuanmei Fan

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (13 Mar 2021) by A. Joshua West (Editor)

AR by Velio Coviello (deceased) on behalf of the Authors (16 Mar 2021) Manuscript

Short summary

The Puebla–Morelos earthquake (19 September 2017) was the most damaging event in central Mexico since 1985. The seismic shaking produced hundreds of shallow landslides on the slopes of Popocatépetl Volcano. The larger landslides transformed into large debris flows that travelled for kilometers. We describe this exceptional mass wasting cascade and its predisposing factors, which have important implications for both the evolution of the volcanic edifice and hazard assessment.