Advertisement

Landslides

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Dynamic and geomorphic characterizations of the Mocoa debris flow (March 31, 2017, Putumayo Department, southern Colombia)

  • Helbert García-Delgado
  • Silvia Machuca
  • Enif Medina
Recent Landslides
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

On the night of March 31, 2017, a rainfall-induced landslide event with more than 600 shallow landslides was triggered in Mocoa (Putumayo Department, southern Colombia). These landslides and the subsequent Mocoa Debris Flow (MDF) event caused, according to data published from the Unidad Nacional para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres (UNGRD, disaster risk management government agency), a catastrophic aftermath where 333 people were killed (including at least 118 children), 398 people were injured, and 76 people are still missing. In order to unravel the kinematic aspects of the MDF formation and the geomorphic setting which conditioned debris flow and landslide formation, high-resolution drone and satellite imagery, geomorphic indices, landslide inventory, and rainfall data from the event were analyzed. Flow discharge and velocity calculations associated to the MDF were calculated using three different methodologies which showed that the flow acquired a volume of ~ 2.6 × 106 m3 and an average velocity of 8–12 m/s, while the landslides developed in the Taruca, Taruquita, Mulato, and Sangoyaco basins contributed an estimated volume of about 298,000 m3. A landslide volume of about 3.44 × 106 m3 of material was calculated, from which less than 10% feed the MDF. Heavy rainfall and antecedent rainfalls were the triggering factors associated to shallow landslides developed on granitic rocks from the Mocoa monzogranite. Mass movements developed in residual soils from sedimentary rocks are more related to poor vegetation cover and intense anthropic activity such as extensive farming and deforestation. The recent activity of La Tebaida–Mocoa Fault and exhumation of the Mocoa monzogranite are considered as the main contributors to hillslope instability and landslide susceptibility. An active tectonic mountain front, steep slopes, and high drainage gradients are common at the study basins and are the key features controlling erosion and sedimentation rates. In this document, a brief introduction to the climatic, geological, and geomorphological characteristics of the involved basins and kinematic behavior of the MDF are presented.

Keywords

Mocoa debris flow Landslide Geomorphic indices Northern Andes Heavy rainfall 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Servicio Geológico Colombiano for their economic support and technical assistance on the Mocoa project (Project 1000637). We also acknowledge the team from the Grupo de Evaluación de Amenaza por Movimientos en masa (Mass movement hazard assessment work group) and Corpoamazonía for their support during field survey and for providing high-resolution imagery, as well as people of Mocoa city who guided us and provided evidence and witness reports for this work. We would like to thank also an anonymous reviewer for the critical comments and suggestions which improved the quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. Behling R (2017) Landslide and debris flow detection—Mocoa, Colombia. GFZ Potsdam, https://disasterscharter.org/documents/10180/564243/Mocoa-Landslide-map. Accessed 1 May 2017
  2. Borrelli L, Ciurleo M, Gullà G (2018) Shallow landslide susceptibility assessment in granitic rocks using GIS-based statistical methods: the contribution of the weathering grade map. Landslides 15(6):1127–1142.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-018-0947-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bull WB (2007) Tectonic geomorphology of mountains: a new approach to paleosiesmology. Blackwell publishing, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bull WB, McFadden LD (1977) Tectonic geomorphology north and south of the Garlock fault, California. In: Doehring DO (ed) Geomorphology in arid regions. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Geomorphology Symposium. State University of New York, Binghamton, pp 115–138Google Scholar
  5. Burbank DW, Leland J, Fielding E, Anderson RS, Brozovic N, Reid MR, Duncan C (1996) Bedrock incision, rock uplift and threshold hillslopes in the northwestern Himalayas. Nature 379:505–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannon PJ (1976) Generation of explicit parameters for a quantitative geomorphic study of Mill Creek drainage basin. Oklahoma Geol Notes 36(1):3–16Google Scholar
  7. Cheng D, Cui Y, Su F, Jia Y, Choi CE (2018) The characteristics of the Mocoa compound disaster event, Colombia. Landslides 15(6):1223–1232.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-018-0969-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chigira M, Mohamad Z, Sian LC, Komoo I (2011) Landslides in weathered granitic rocks in Japan and Malaysia. Bull Geol Soc Malaysia 57:1–6Google Scholar
  9. Coussot P, Meunier M (1996) Recognition, classification and mechanical description of debris flows. Earth Sci Rev 40(3–4):209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cui P, Zhou GD, Zhu XH, Zhang JQ (2013) Scale amplification of natural debris flows caused by cascading landslide dam failures. Geomorphology 182:173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dearman WR (1974) Weathering classification in the characterisation of rock for engineering purposes in British practice. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 9:33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02635301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durgin PB (1977) Landslides and the weathering of granitic rocks. Geol Soc Am Rev Eng Geol 3:127–131Google Scholar
  13. El-Hamdouni R, Irigara C, Fernández T, Chacón J, Keller EA (2008) Assessment of relative active tectonics, southwest border of Sierra Nevada (southern Spain). Geomorphology 96:150–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gómez J, Montes N, Nivia A, Diederix H (2015) Mapa Geológico de Colombia. Escala 1:1000000, Servicio Geológico Colombiano, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  15. Hack JT (1973) Stream-profiles analysis and stream-gradient index. J Res U S Geol Surv 1(4):421–429Google Scholar
  16. Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides 11(2):167–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ietto F, Perri F, Cella F (2016) Geotechnical and landslide aspects in weathered granitoid rock masses (Serre Massif, southern Calabria, Italy). Catena 145:301–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.06.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ietto F, Perri F, Cella F (2017) Weathering characterization for landslides modeling in granitoid rock masses of the Capo Vaticano promontory (Calabria, Italy). Landslides 15(1):1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0860-5 Google Scholar
  19. Irfan TY, Dearman WR (1978) The engineering petrography of a weathered granite in Cornwall, England. Q J Eng Geol 11:223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jaramillo L, Escovar R, Vesga CJ (1980) Edades K/Ar en rocas con alteración hidrotermal asociadas al sistema de pórfido de cobre y molibdeno de Mocoa, Intendencia del Putumayo, Colombia. Geologia Norandina 1:11–18Google Scholar
  21. Korup O (2004) Geomorphic implications of fault zone weakening: slope instability along the Alpine Fault, South Westland to Fiordland. N Z J Geol Geophys 47(2):257–267.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2004.9515052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Korup O (2006) Rock-slope failure and the river long profile. Geology 34(1):45–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kothyari GC, Rastogi BK, Morthekai P, Dumka RK, Kandregula RS (2015) Active segmentation assessment of the tectonically active South Wagad Fault in Kachchh, Western Peninsular India. Geomorphology 253:491–507.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.10.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lacerda WA (2007) Landslide initiation in saprolite and colluvium in southern Brazil: field and laboratory observations. Geomorphology 87(3):104–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.03.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Núñez A (2003) Reconocimiento geológico regional de las planchas 411 La Cruz, 412 San Juan de Villalobos, 430 Mocoa, 431 Piamonte, 448 Monopamba, 449 Orito y 465 Churuyaco. Memoria explicativa, Escala 1:100.000, INGEOMINAS, Bogotá, 259 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Ouimet W, Whipple K, Royden L, Sun Z, Chen Z (2007) The influence of large landslides on river incision in a transient landscape: eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau (Sichuan, China). GSA Bull 119(11–12):1462–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palacios D, Garcia R, Rubio V, Vigil R (2003) Debris flows in a weathered granitic massif: Sierra de Gredos, Spain. Catena 51(2):115–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00094-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pérez-Peña JV, Azor A, Azañón JM, Keller EA (2010) Active tectonics in the Sierra Nevada (Betic Cordillera, SE Spain): insights from geomorphic indices and drainage pattern analysis. Geomorphology 119:74–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pike RJ, Wilson SE (1971) Elevation-relief ratio, hypsometric integral and geomorphic area-altitude analysis. Geol Soc Am Bull 82:1079–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramírez-Herrera MT (1998) Geomorphic assessment of active tectonics in the Acambay Graben, Mexican volcanic belt. Earth Surf Process Landf 23:317–332.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199804)23:4<317::AID-ESP845>3.0.CO;2-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roda-Boluda D, D’Arcy M, McDonald J, Whittaker C (2018) Lithological controls on hillslope sediment supply: insights from landslide activity and grain size distributions. Earth Surf Process Landf 43(5):956–977.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Servicio Geológico Colombiano (SGC) (2018a) Caracterización del movimiento en masa tipo flujo del 31 de marzo de 2017 en Mocoa-Putumayo, Bogotá, pp 84Google Scholar
  33. Servicio Geológico Colombiano (SGC) (2018b) Amenaza por movimientos en masa tipo flujo de las cuencas de las quebradas Taruca, Taruquita, San Antonio y El Carmen y los ríos Mulato y Sangoyaco, municipio de Mocoa, escala 1:5.000. Bogotá, pp 108Google Scholar
  34. Sillitoe RH, Jaramillo L, Damon PE, Shafiqullah M, Escovar R (1982) Setting, characteristics, and age of the Andean porphyry copper belt in Colombia. Econ Geol 77:1837–1850.  https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.77.8.1837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Takahashi T (2014) Debris flow: mechanics, prediction and countermeasures, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, London 563 pp CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Velandia F, Acosta J, Terraza R, Villegas H (2005) The current tectonic motion of the Northern Andes along the Algeciras Fault System in SW Colombia. Tectonophysics 399:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xu MD, Feng QH (1979) Roughness of debris flows. Proceeding of the first conference of Chinese research of debris flows 51–52Google Scholar
  38. Yang ZN (1985) Preliminary study on the flowing velocity of viscous debris flows due to intense rainfall. Research of debris flows, Proceeding of the Lanzhou Institute of Glaciology and Cryopedology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. No. 4. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  39. Zapata S, Cardona A, Jaramillo C, Valencia V, Vervoort J (2016) U-Pb LA-ICP-MS geochronology and geochemistry of Jurassic volcanic and plutonic rocks from the Putumayo region (Southern Colombia): tectonic setting and regional correlations. Bol Geol 38(2):21–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Servicio Geológico Colombiano, Grupo de evaluación de amenazas por movimientos en masaBogotaColombia

Personalised recommendations