Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-69
https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2022-69
19 Jan 2023
 | 19 Jan 2023
Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal ESurf and is expected to appear here in due course.

Geospatial modelling of large wood supply to rivers: a state-of-the-art model comparison in Swiss mountain river catchments

Nicolas Steeb, Virginia Ruiz-Villanueva, Alexandre Badoux, Christian Rickli, Andrea Mini, Markus Stoffel, and Dieter Rickenmann

Abstract. Different models have been used in science and practice to identify instream large wood (LW) sources and to estimate LW supply to rivers. This contribution reviews the existing models proposed in the last 35 years and compares two of the most recent GIS-based models by applying them to 40 catchments in Switzerland. Both models, which we call here empirical GIS approach (EGA) and Fuzzy-Logic GIS approach (FGA), consider landslides, debris flows, bank erosion, and mobilization of instream wood as recruitment processes and compute volumetric estimates of LW supply based on three different scenarios of process frequency and magnitude. Despite being developed following similar concepts and fed with similar input data, the results from the two models differ markedly. In general, estimated supply wood volumes were larger in each of the scenarios when computed with the FGA and lower with the EGA models. Landslides were the dominant process identified by the EGA, whereas bank erosion was the predominant process according to the FGA model. These differences are discussed and results compared to available observations coming from a unique database. Regardless of the limitations of these models, they proved extremely useful for hazard assessment, and the design of infrastructure and other management strategies.

Nicolas Steeb et al.

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • CC1: 'Comment on esurf-2022-69', Andrés Iroumé, 21 Feb 2023
    • AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Nicolas Steeb, 18 Apr 2023
  • RC1: 'Comment on esurf-2022-69', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2023
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Nicolas Steeb, 18 Apr 2023
  • RC2: 'Comment on esurf-2022-69', Francesco Comiti, 28 Mar 2023
    • AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Nicolas Steeb, 18 Apr 2023

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • CC1: 'Comment on esurf-2022-69', Andrés Iroumé, 21 Feb 2023
    • AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Nicolas Steeb, 18 Apr 2023
  • RC1: 'Comment on esurf-2022-69', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Mar 2023
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Nicolas Steeb, 18 Apr 2023
  • RC2: 'Comment on esurf-2022-69', Francesco Comiti, 28 Mar 2023
    • AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Nicolas Steeb, 18 Apr 2023

Nicolas Steeb et al.

Nicolas Steeb et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 519 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
424 80 15 519 34 0 0
  • HTML: 424
  • PDF: 80
  • XML: 15
  • Total: 519
  • Supplement: 34
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 19 Jan 2023)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 19 Jan 2023)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 496 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 496 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 22 May 2023
Download
Short summary
Various models have been used in science and practice to estimate how much large wood (LW) can be supplied to rivers. This contribution reviews the existing models proposed in the last 35 years and compares two of the most recent spatially explicit models by applying them to 40 catchments in Switzerland. Differences in modelling results are discussed, and results compared to available observations coming from a unique database.