Protection forest and avalanche risk correlation in forested terrain affected by Vaia storm

Abstract ID: 3.13041 | Accepted as Talk | Talk | TBA | TBA

Martin Pederiva (1)
Natalie Piazza (2), Enrico Tomelleri (1)
(1) Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazza Università 1, 39100 Bolzano, IT
(2) Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine,, Udine, Italy

Categories: Adaptation, ES-Forests, Hazards
Keywords: protective forests, snow avalanche, forest management, RAMMS, ecosystem services

Categories: Adaptation, ES-Forests, Hazards
Keywords: protective forests, snow avalanche, forest management, RAMMS, ecosystem services

The content was (partly) adapted by AI
Content (partly) adapted by AI

Mountain forests are increasingly undergoing disturbances such as wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks. These events compromise essential services, including protection against natural hazards like avalanches. This study examined the 2018 Vaia storm’s impact on forests in Trentino, Italy, focusing on the increased avalanche risk in windthrown patches of the Fassa Valley. Using RAMMS avalanche simulation tool, different management scenarios were modeled to assess their effectiveness in mitigating avalanche risk: (1) no forest cover (clear-cut equivalent), (2) intact protective forest (pre-Vaia, reference), (3) retention of windthrown deadwood (post-Vaia), and (4) complete removal of windthrown trees. Simulations for two return periods (30 and 100 years) represented frequent and extreme avalanche events. The study focused on two sites: the Lusia Forest and the Soraga Forest. These areas provided contrasting conditions in terms of windthrow extent, forest cover, and topographical features. Lusia Forest experienced widespread windthrow potentially creating new avalanche release areas, while the Soraga Forest had more localized windthrow patches within avalanche tracks, allowing for a comparative assessment of management outcomes under varying disturbance scales. The results confirmed that intact forests (Scenario 2, reference) offered the highest protection, particularly in forests within avalanche release zones. However, in areas with historical avalanche paths, the protective role of forests was limited during extreme avalanche events. Retaining deadwood (Scenario 3) effectively reduced avalanche velocity and pressure by increasing surface roughness, whereas complete tree removal (Scenario 4) intensified avalanche impacts on exposed infrastructure. Our results underscore the need for site-specific management that considers forest cover, topography, and avalanche dynamics. In Lusia Forest, deadwood retention significantly reduced avalanche impacts on larger windthrown areas, while in the Soraga Forest, where windthrow was limited, the protective effect of deadwood was less pronounced. Furthermore, coarse woody debris in transition zones may increase the wood load making the avalanche more destructive. These findings highlight careful post-disturbance management of windthrow areas, stressing the advantages of less intervention. However, while deadwood provides protection for some time, long-term resilience depends on successful forest regeneration.

Choose the session you want to submit an abstract. Please be assured that similar sessions will either be scheduled consecutively or merged once the abstract submission phase is completed.

Select your preferred presentation mode
Please visit the session format page to get a detailed view on the presentation timings
The final decision on oral/poster is made by the (Co-)Conveners and will be communicated via your My#IMC dashboard

Please add here your abstract meeting the following requirements:
NO REFERNCES/KEYWORDS/ACKNOWEDGEMENTS IN AN ABSTRACT!
Limits: min 100 words, max 350 words or 2500 characters incl. tabs
Criteria: use only UTF-8 HTML character set, no equations/special characters/coding
Copy/Paste from an external editor is possible but check/reformat your text before submitting (e.g. bullet points, returns, aso)

Add here affiliations (max. 30) for you and your co-author(s). Use the row number to assign the affiliation to you and your co-author(s).
When you hover over the row number you are able to change the order of the affiliation list.

1
2
1

Add here co-author(s) (max. 30) to your abstract. Please assign the affiliation(s) of each co-author in the "Assigned Aff. No" by using the corresponding numbers from the "Affiliation List" (e.g.: 1,2,...)
When you hover over the row number you are able to change the order of the co-author list.

1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
Close