Using a single remote-sensing image to calculate the height  of a landslide dam and the maximum volume of a lake

Zou, Weijie; Zhou, Yi; Wang, Shixin; Wang, Futao; Wang, Litao; Zhao, Qing; Liu, Wenliang; Zhu, Jinfeng; Xiong, Yibing; Wang, Zhenqing; Qin, Gang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2081-2022

Articles | Volume 22, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2081-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Earthquake-induced hazards: ground motion amplification and...

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2081-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 22, issue 6

Research article

|

22 Jun 2022

Research article |

| 22 Jun 2022

Using a single remote-sensing image to calculate the height of a landslide dam and the maximum volume of a lake

Weijie Zou, Yi Zhou, Shixin Wang, Futao Wang, Litao Wang, Qing Zhao, Wenliang Liu, Jinfeng Zhu, Yibing Xiong, Zhenqing Wang, and Gang Qin

Download

Final revised paper (published on 22 Jun 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 31 Jan 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2022-35', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Feb 2022

I think that paper can be accepted, though I still have some doubts about the sufficiency of just one example (the 2018 Baige landslide dam) to validate the general applicability of the proposed method. However, I expect that it will give start for some discussion.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Weijie Zou, 07 Mar 2022
  
  Dear reviewer #1:
  Thank you for your positive feedback! And we take your suggestion into serious discussion.
  In our way of validating the theory, we have used some medium data such as the real lake area in the image and the evolution of the riverbed in order to take the error under control and support the process we promote. We think that the factor that influences the reliability of the outcome most is the process that we decide the input parameters. Therefore, we have performed sensitive analysis on the input parameters and the image solution. We agree that using only one example is vulnerable, and thus, in the following work, the discussion based on more cases will be carried out to support our method. And we are looking forward to more scholars taking part in the discussion about this method.
  Kind regards.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-AC1
  - RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Mar 2022
    
    Dear Authors,
    I agree, it is a right way.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-RC2
    
    AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Weijie Zou, 05 Apr 2022
    
    Thank you for your comments and suggestions!
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-AC3
    
    AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Weijie Zou, 05 Apr 2022
    
    Thank you for your comments and suggestions!
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-AC4
AC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-35', Weijie Zou, 30 Mar 2022

Dear readers:
According to our own check, we found a mistake on our core formula (6). The LB in formula (6) should be replaced by LB', which represents the length of the dam along the riverbed.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on nhess-2022-35', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Apr 2022

The paper introduced a method to calculate different parameters, required for risk assessment of landslide dams. The paper is presenting an interesting method. However, following points should be considered before its acceptance for publication.

• The title is ambiguous as the calculations are not merely based on a satellite image.

• Introduction should explain these parameters and also their connection with risk assessment.

• Most of the paper explains the long procedure with very short discussion and rapid hazard assessment section.

• Rapid hazard assessment section needs more explanation.

• The section should be supplemented with a figure, explaining the complete process of determination of parameters.

• May I suggest to include another landslide dam for validation purpose

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-RC3
- AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Weijie Zou, 06 Apr 2022
  
  Dear Reviewer#2,
  
  Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and your valuable advice. We all agree with you completely. Based on the comments and suggestions, we have made extensive revisions to the original manuscript. A point-by-point response is presented in the supplement.
  We will revise our manuscript based on your helpful comments after interactive discussion.
  
  Thanks again.
  
  Weijie Zou on behalf of all co-authors.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-AC5
RC4:
'Comment on nhess-2022-35', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Apr 2022
The authors proposed a procedure for calculating the landslide dam height and barrier lake volume. I think the procedure can effectively support the quick decision-making regarding hazard mitigation. I suggest that the paper can be accepted. I also give some comments for the author to modify the manuscript.

General comments

Lines 71-76. I think this paragraph is not appropriate in Section Introduction. In the Introduction Section, it is necessary to emphasize the disadvantages of the current methods for parameter calculation of the landslide dam.

Two landslide dams occurred in the same position in Baige village. Please clarify which landslide dam is the object of the study.

Are there any other methods to calculate the parameters of landslide dam, which can be used as a comparative analysis.

Some specific comments

Line 43 “Generally speaking” and Line 71 “What’s more”, I think these words are not suitable for using in academic paper.

Line 84 please revise. DEM, not Dem

Please revise the sentence of Line 196. I suggest it can be modified as “The data can be found in…” or list the references in the Figure legend.

The texts in Figure 2, 6 and 9 are too small. Please revise them.

Lines 383-384. References should not be included in the conclusion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-RC4
- AC6: 'Reply on RC4', Weijie Zou, 24 Apr 2022
  
  Dear Reviewer#3
  We thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for many constructive comments and suggestions, which were useful to improve the manuscript. Please be kind to check the attached document for our reply to your comments.
  Thanks again.
  Weijie Zou on behalf of all co-authors.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-35-AC6

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Apr 2022) by Hans-Balder Havenith

AR by Weijie Zou on behalf of the Authors (24 Apr 2022) Author's response Manuscript

EF by Sarah Buchmann (26 Apr 2022) Author's tracked changes

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (04 May 2022) by Hans-Balder Havenith

AR by Weijie Zou on behalf of the Authors (05 May 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 May 2022) by Hans-Balder Havenith

AR by Weijie Zou on behalf of the Authors (28 May 2022)

Short summary

Landslide dams are secondary disasters caused by landslides, which can cause great damage to mountains. We have proposed a procedure to calculate the key parameters of these dams that uses only a single remote-sensing image and a pre-landslide DEM combined with landslide theory. The core of this study is a modeling problem. We have found the bridge between the theory of landslide dams and the requirements of disaster relief.