The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range
Abstract
Decades of quantitative measurement indicate that roots can mechanically reinforce shallow soils in forested landscapes. Forests, however, have variations in vegetation species and age which can dominate the local stability of landslide-initiation sites. To assess the influence of this variability on root cohesion we examined scarps of landslides triggered during large storms in February and November of 1996 in the Oregon Coast Range and hand-dug soil pits on stable ground. At 41 sites we estimated the cohesive reinforcement to soil due to roots by determining the tensile strength, species, depth, orientation, relative health, and the density of roots [Formula: see text]1 mm in diameter within a measured soil area. We found that median lateral root cohesion ranges from 6.823.2 kPa in industrial forests with significant understory and deciduous vegetation to 25.694.3 kPa in natural forests dominated by coniferous vegetation. Lateral root cohesion in clearcuts is uniformly [Formula: see text]10 kPa. Some 100-year-old industrial forests have species compositions, lateral root cohesion, and root diameters that more closely resemble 10-year-old clearcuts than natural forests. As such, the influence of root cohesion variability on landslide susceptibility cannot be determined solely from broad age classifications or extrapolated from the presence of one species of vegetation. Furthermore, the anthropogenic disturbance legacy modifies root cohesion for at least a century and should be considered when comparing contemporary landslide rates from industrial forests with geologic background rates.Key words: root strength, cohesion, landslide, debris flow, land use, anthropogenic disturbance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor
McLaren, W., Gil, L., Hunt, S. E., Riat, H. S., Ritchie, G. R. S., Thormann, A., Flicek, P., & Cunningham, F. (2016) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-016-0974-4 · Cited by 8,099
Pollen, N., & Simon, A. (2005) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2004wr003801 · Cited by 703
Current research issues related to post-wildfire runoff and erosion processes
Moody, J. A., Shakesby, R. A., Robichaud, P. R., Cannon, S. H., & Martin, D. A. (2013) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.03.004 · Cited by 693
Sidle, R. C., Ziegler, A. D., Negishi, J. N., Nik, A. R., Siew, R., & Turkelboom, F. (2006) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.019 · Cited by 601
Istanbulluoglu, E., & Bras, R. L. (2005) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface · doi:10.1029/2004jf000249 · Cited by 324
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmidt, K. M., Roering, J. J., Stock, J. D., Dietrich, W. E., Montgomery, D. R., & Schaub, T.
- Venue
- Canadian Geotechnical Journal
- Publisher
- NRC Research Press
- Published
- 2001-01-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 995-1024
- ISSN
- 0008-3674 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114550863
- Cited by
- 634
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/cgj-38-5-995
- The paper
- Schmidt, K. M., Roering, J. J., Stock, J. D., Dietrich, W. E., Montgomery, D. R., & Schaub, T. (2001). The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-38-5-995
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.