Flow-R, a model for susceptibility mapping of debris flows and other gravitational hazards at a regional scale

The development of susceptibility maps for debris flows is of primary importance due to population pressure in hazardous zones. However, hazard assessment by process-based modelling at a regional scale is difficult due to the complex nature of the phenomenon, the variability of local controlling factors, and the uncertainty in modelling parameters. A regional assessment must consider a simplified approach that is not highly parameter dependant and that can provide zonation with minimum data requirements. A distributed empirical model has thus been developed for regional susceptibility assessments using essentially a digital elevation model (DEM). The model is called Flow-R for Flow path assessment of gravitational hazards at a Regional scale (available free of charge under http://www.flow-r.org) and has been successfully applied to different case studies in various countries with variable data quality. It provides a substantial basis for a preliminary susceptibility assessment at a regional scale. The model was also found relevant to assess other natural hazards such as rockfall, snow avalanches and floods. The model allows for automatic source area delineation, given user criteria, and for the assessment of the propagation extent based on various spreading algorithms and simple frictional laws. We developed a new spreading algorithm, an improved version of Holmgren's direction algorithm, that is less sensitive to small variations of the DEM and that is avoiding over-channelization, and so produces more realistic extents. The choices of the datasets and the algorithms are open to the user, which makes it compliant for various applications and dataset availability. Amongst the possible datasets, the DEM is the only one that is really needed for both the source area delineation and the propagation assessment; its quality is of major importance for the results accuracy. We consider a 10 m DEM resolution as a good compromise between processing time and quality of results. However, valuable results have still been obtained on the basis of lower quality DEMs with 25 m resolution.

Can we infer plant facilitation from remote sensing? a test across global drylands

Facilitation is a major force shaping the structure and diversity of plant communities in terrestrial ecosystems. Detecting positive plant–plant interactions relies on the combination of field experimentation and the demonstration of spatial association between neighboring plants. This has often restricted the study of facilitation to particular sites, limiting the development of systematic assessments of facilitation over regional and global scales. Here we explore whether the frequency of plant spatial associations detected from high-resolution remotely sensed images can be used to infer plant facilitation at the community level in drylands around the globe. We correlated the information from remotely sensed images freely available through Google Earth with detailed field assessments, and used a simple individual-based model to generate patch-size distributions using different assumptions about the type and strength of plant–plant interactions. Most of the patterns found from the remotely sensed images were more right skewed than the patterns from the null model simulating a random distribution. This suggests that the plants in the studied drylands show stronger spatial clustering than expected by chance. We found that positive plant co-occurrence, as measured in the field, was significantly related to the skewness of vegetation patch-size distribution measured using Google Earth images. Our findings suggest that the relative frequency of facilitation may be inferred from spatial pattern signals measured from remotely sensed images, since facilitation often determines positive co-occurrence among neighboring plants. They pave the road for a systematic global assessment of the role of facilitation in terrestrial ecosystems. Read More: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/10.1890/14-2358.1

European summer temperatures since Roman times

The spatial context is critical when assessing present-day climate anomalies, attributing them to potential forcings and making statements regarding their frequency and severity in a long-term perspective. Recent international initiatives have expanded the number of high-quality proxy-records and developed new statistical reconstruction methods. These advances allow more rigorous regional past temperature reconstructions and, in turn, the possibility of evaluating climate models on policy-relevant, spatio-temporal scales. Here we provide a new proxy-based, annually-resolved, spatial reconstruction of the European summer (June–August) temperature fields back to 755 CE based on Bayesian hierarchical modelling (BHM), together with estimates of the European mean temperature variation since 138 BCE based on BHM and composite-plus-scaling (CPS). Our reconstructions compare well with independent instrumental and proxy-based temperature estimates, but suggest a larger amplitude in summer temperature variability than previously reported. Both CPS and BHM reconstructions indicate that the mean 20th century European summer temperature was not significantly different from some earlier centuries, including the 1st, 2nd, 8th and 10th centuries CE. The 1st century (in BHM also the 10th century) may even have been slightly warmer than the 20th century, but the difference is not statistically significant. Comparing each 50 yr period with the 1951–2000 period reveals a similar pattern. Recent summers, however, have been unusually warm in the context of the last two millennia and there are no 30 yr periods in either reconstruction that exceed the mean average European summer temperature of the last 3 decades (1986–2015 CE). A comparison with an ensemble of climate model simulations suggests that the reconstructed European summer temperature variability over the period 850–2000 CE reflects changes in both internal variability and external forcing on multi-decadal time-scales. For pan-European temperatures we find slightly better agreement between the reconstruction and the model simulations with high-end estimates for total solar irradiance. Temperature differences between the medieval period, the recent period and the Little Ice Age are larger in the reconstructions than the simulations. This may indicate inflated variability of the reconstructions, a lack of sensitivity and processes to changes in external forcing on the simulated European climate and/or an underestimation of internal variability on centennial and longer time scales.