In European mountain regions, forests play an important role in the mitigation of risk due to natural hazards such as landslides, rockfalls, floods and avalanches. Conifer species usually provide a protective effect at higher altitude, while at lower altitudes broadleaf species are dominant. These forests are or were often managed as coppice systems. The high stem density of coppice stands, their rapid growth and the permanence of root systems in the soil can be considered as assets in terms of protective function. However, these considerations are poorly researched and there is generally a lack of studies investigating the suitability of coppice as protection forests. The issue is relevant, considering that many coppice stands in mountain regions have become uneconomic and are now abandoned and overaged. Whether and how to manage these forests stands is a key question for practitioners. In this contribution we analyze the implications of coppice management for slope stability and in particular to mitigate shallow landslides, focusing on root reinforcement, the main mechanism by which vegetation can reinforce slopes. We review available studies concerning root distribution and dynamics in coppice stands to formulate hypotheses about their contribution in terms of root reinforcement. Finally we highlight the lacks of knowledge and the further steps needed to properly evaluate the effectiveness of the coppices in protecting against shallow landslides.

Root reinforcement dynamics of European coppice woodlands and their effect on shallow landslides: A review / Vergani, C; Buckley, P; Conedera, M; Giadrossich, F; Schwarz, M; Pividori, M; Salbitano, F; Rauch, H S; Lovreglio, R. - In: EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS. - ISSN 0012-8252. - 167:(2017), pp. 88-102. [10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.02.002]

Root reinforcement dynamics of European coppice woodlands and their effect on shallow landslides: A review

Giadrossich, F;Lovreglio, R
2017

Abstract

In European mountain regions, forests play an important role in the mitigation of risk due to natural hazards such as landslides, rockfalls, floods and avalanches. Conifer species usually provide a protective effect at higher altitude, while at lower altitudes broadleaf species are dominant. These forests are or were often managed as coppice systems. The high stem density of coppice stands, their rapid growth and the permanence of root systems in the soil can be considered as assets in terms of protective function. However, these considerations are poorly researched and there is generally a lack of studies investigating the suitability of coppice as protection forests. The issue is relevant, considering that many coppice stands in mountain regions have become uneconomic and are now abandoned and overaged. Whether and how to manage these forests stands is a key question for practitioners. In this contribution we analyze the implications of coppice management for slope stability and in particular to mitigate shallow landslides, focusing on root reinforcement, the main mechanism by which vegetation can reinforce slopes. We review available studies concerning root distribution and dynamics in coppice stands to formulate hypotheses about their contribution in terms of root reinforcement. Finally we highlight the lacks of knowledge and the further steps needed to properly evaluate the effectiveness of the coppices in protecting against shallow landslides.
Root reinforcement dynamics of European coppice woodlands and their effect on shallow landslides: A review / Vergani, C; Buckley, P; Conedera, M; Giadrossich, F; Schwarz, M; Pividori, M; Salbitano, F; Rauch, H S; Lovreglio, R. - In: EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS. - ISSN 0012-8252. - 167:(2017), pp. 88-102. [10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.02.002]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11388/179382
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 62
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 60
social impact