Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Invited research article

Sediment–water flows in mountain streams: Recognition and

classification based on field evidence
A. Brenna a,⁎, N. Surian a, M. Ghinassi a, L. Marchi b
a
Department of Geosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
b
Research Institute for Geo-hydrological Protection, National Research Council (CNR IRPI), Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sediment transport in mountain streams occurs through different flow types that are categorized in accordance with
Received 15 June 2020 hydraulics and physical properties of a flowing material, and considering the dominant transport mechanism as
Received in revised form 2 September 2020 debris flow, debris flood, hyperconcentrated flow, and water flow. Given that directly monitoring transport
Accepted 3 September 2020
processes is often infeasible, a sound alternative to process recognition is to consider the morphological and
Available online 10 September 2020
sedimentological features of related deposits—attributes that chiefly depend on flow type. Accordingly, this work
Keywords:
developed a post-flood survey protocol for distinguishing various flow types on the basis of the geomorphological
Flood and sedimentological features of deposits and their effects on vegetation. The case study selected for developing
Debris flood deposits and applying the protocol is the Tegnas catchment (Dolomites, Italy), a mountain basin affected by an intense
Geomorphological survey storm in October 2018. We conducted a literature review to identify diagnostic evidence for identifying different
Sedimentological survey flow types and developed a survey form to ease data collection and interpretation. Field surveys were integrated
Imbrication with grain size analyses, measurements of the inclination angle (δ) of imbricated clasts, and estimations of organic
Organic material content content (OMLOI) in deposits. Field criteria allowed us to classify each channel sub-reach in accordance with the
characteristics of flood deposits. The main stem of the catchment and its steep tributaries were characterized mainly
by water and debris flow processes, respectively. Nevertheless, our survey also showed that debris floods occurred
in several sub-reaches of the main stem and tributaries. The comparison of δ and OMLOI under different
flow type deposits uncovered significant differences in δ and slight differences in OMLOI. The findings led us to
conclude that a combination of field diagnostic criteria and quantitative measurements of additional parameters
in a post-flood survey enables a reliable recognition of flow types.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A range of sediment–water flows take place in mountain streams.
Different from lowland gravel-bed rivers dominated by water flow
(Church, 2006), headwater streams in mountain catchments are
typified by sediment transport occurring through different processes
(Coussot and Meunier, 1996; Wilford et al., 2004; Church, 2013;
Church and Jakob, 2020). Although a continuum exists between
sediment–gravity and fluid–gravity flows (Benvenuti and Martini,
2002; Pierson, 2005a), these processes are conveniently classified as
debris flow, debris flood, hyperconcentrated flow, and water flow on
the basis of the physical properties of a flowing material, and consider-
ing the transport mechanism characteristics (Pierson and Costa, 1987;
Church and Jakob, 2020).
Different processes of sediment transport can affect a single
stream, depending on changes in sediment availability (i.e., sediment
sources and their connectivity) and water runoff induced by a specific
⁎ Corresponding author at: Via Giovanni Gradenigo, 6, 35131 Padova- Italy.
E-mail address: andrea.brenna@unipd.it (A. Brenna).
hydrological event (Cronin et al., 1999; Lavigne and Suwa, 2004). During
such an event, different transport mechanisms may be activated concur-
rently at various sites within a channel network, and this occurrence is
influenced by hydraulic factors and sediment supply (Bodoque et al.,
2011, 2015). The evaluation of hydro-geomorphic hazards has recently
received increasing attention in both scientific and technical communi-
ties, with several studies demonstrating the importance of including
geomorphological hazards in flood risk evaluation, especially for dynamic
braided rivers and mountain streams (e.g., Baker, 1994; Krapesch et al.,
2011; Rinaldi et al., 2015; Braud et al., 2016). Post-flood surveys and the
detection of flood-induced changes to landscape provide relevant insights
to the evaluation of hydro-geomorphic hazards. These surveys consider
changes in channel size and configuration, deposition and erosion, land-
slide activation, and large wood dynamics (see Rinaldi et al., 2016),
among other aspects, but the recognition of flow mechanisms is currently
a minimally explored issue. Each flow type is associated with peculiar
geomorphological dynamics, hazard characteristics, and interactions
with control structures (e.g., Waldron, 1967; Costa and Jarrett, 1981;
Costa, 1988; Wilford et al., 2004; Pierson, 2005a; Bertrand et al., 2013).
For this reason, expanding our knowledge about the dynamics of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107413
0169-555X/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
mountain streams necessitates a reliable post-flood recognition proce-
dure for flow as this clears the way for improved investigations into the
hydro-geomorphic responses of mountain streams to hydrological
events. A more comprehensive understanding of the sediment transport
processes occurring during floods in mountain streams is crucial to
predicting sediment–water dynamics, mapping spatial distribution of
geomorphological hazards, and designing mitigation measures.
Given that directly monitoring sediment transport processes dur-
ing a flood is extremely difficult owing to safety reasons and the
commonly fleeting durations of hydrological events in small and me-
dium size catchments (Borga et al., 2008; Hapuarachchi et al., 2011),
a sound alternative is to recognize flow dynamics through a post-
event field survey of flood deposits. The geomorphological and sedi-
mentological characteristics of flood deposits depend primarily on
the physical properties and transport mechanism (i.e., suspended
load, bedload, mass movement) of a process that mobilizes sedi-
ments (Wells and Harvey, 1987; Costa, 1988; Sohn et al., 1999;
Benvenuti and Martini, 2002). This allows the use of field evidence
(e.g., morphology and sedimentary features) in reconstructing flow
type at the time of deposition (Postma, 1986). On the basis of
this premise, we categorized flows into debris flow, debris flood,
hyperconcentrated flow, and water flow in accordance with the
physical properties, hydraulics, and transport mechanism character-
istics to appropriately identify flows using field evidence.
Given the absence of a standardized approach to detecting flow type
on the grounds of field evidence, we developed a robust post-flood survey
protocol that distinguishes flow types along the stream network of a
mountain catchment, with consideration for the geomorphological and
sedimentological features of flood deposits. The specific objectives
pursued in this research were (1) to collect and integrate the field diag-
nostic criteria available from the literature and (2) to identify new, and
possibly quantitatively measurable, criteria for detecting flow types,
with particular regard for the less acknowledged debris floods. The
selected case study for developing and applying the proposed survey
procedure is the Tegnas catchment (Dolomites, Italy), which was affected
by a severe rainstorm that hit the region on 27 to 30 October 2018,
inducing considerable flooding in several catchments of the Eastern Ital-
ian Alps. The Tegnas catchment (51 km2) and its channel network are
Debris Flow
Suspended load
Mass movement
Bedload (stages 1-2-3)
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Representations of the sediment–water flow types that can occur in a mountain streams. Black arrows indicate sediment transport direction, and blue arrows represent the shear
stress of the flowing water on a streambed. The portion of streambed mobilized by the flowing water is drawn in darker grey. Bedload stages 1 to 3 in b, c, and e are referred to Carling
(1988).
sufficiently large and geomorphologically active to enable the occurrence
of a broad spectrum of processes as a response to a high-magnitude
hydrological event.
2. State of the art with respect to sediment–water flow evaluation in
mountain streams
2.1. Sediment–water flow types
Sediment–water transport mechanisms that can occur in relatively
steep mountain channels are debris flow, debris flood, hyperconcentrated
flow, and water flow (Church and Jakob, 2020). We interpreted the ana-
lyzed deposits as the depositional products of one of the aforementioned
flow types.
Debris flow is a sediment–gravity slurry flow occurring as a mass
movement definable as the “gravitational movement of a shearing,
highly-concentrated, yet relative mobile, mixture of debris and water”
(Blikra and Nemec, 1998) (Fig. 1a). Debris flows may flow without lateral
confinement or proceed in a gully, as is the case of flows moving into
steep channels (VanDine, 1985), and can involve a broad spectrum of
grain sizes (i.e., form clay to boulders). Debris flows comprise a sediment
concentration that often exceeds 60% in volume (Costa, 1984), which
thereby determines their flow mechanics (Iverson, 1997, 2003). In rheo-
logical terms, a debris flow is a non-Newtonian flow with viscoplastic
behavior (Pierson and Costa, 1987; Costa, 1988). Its flow mechanics
involve friction and momentum transfer between coarse grains
(e.g., gravel), electrochemical interactions between fine particles
(i.e., clay), and physical interactions between a flowing mass and a bed
as well as between sediment grains and fluid (Iverson, 2005). Several pro-
cesses that are referred to in the literature as debris torrents (VanDine,
1985), debris streams (Hsu, 1975), grain flows (Lowe, 1976), and mud
flows (Curry, 1966) can be ascribed to debris flows.
Water flow (also called streamflow, normal streamflow, or clearwater
flow; Pierson and Costa, 1987) is the process ordinarily occurring in rivers
and streams; it includes the movement of clastic particles as suspended
load (i.e., clay, silt, and sand) and bedload (i.e., sand, gravel, cobble, and
boulders) (Church, 2006; Hicks and Gomez, 2016) (Fig. 1b). Sediment is
mobilized by the competence of flowing water because of the viscous
Water Flow Hyperconcentrated Flow Hyperconcentrated Flow
and Debris Flood
Suspended load
Suspended load
(d)
Debris Flood
Bedload (severe stage 3),
sheet ow
Bedload (severe stage 3),
sheet ow
(c) (e)
 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
fluid forces acting on each entrained individual grain (Kuhnle, 2013;
Yager and Schott, 2013). The concentration of suspended sediment is
low at generally <4% by volume (e.g., Waananen et al., 1970) and insuffi-
cient to appreciably influence the rheological proprieties of flowing water.
The fluid remains Newtonian typified by liquid behavior and turbulent
flow (Pierson and Costa, 1987; Costa, 1988). Bedload, depending by the
force of the flowing water and the streambed characteristics, can range
from stage 1 (i.e., only sand is entrained overpassing a static bed), to
stage 2 (i.e., bed material is partially entrained and transported at low
rate), to stage 3 (i.e., the entire streambed becomes fully mobile)
(Carling, 1988; Ashworth and Ferguson, 1989).
Debris floods are defined as “rapid flows of water, heavily charged
with debris, in steep channels” during which “the streambed may be
destabilized causing massive movement of sediment” mobilized
by the tractive forces of water (Hungr et al., 2001, 2014; Hungr, 2005)
(Fig. 1c). Accordingly, Church and Jakob (2020) recently stated
that “debris floods represent water driven flood flows with high
bedload transport of gravel to boulder size material”, which is a severe
case of stage 3 (sensu Carling, 1988) bedload transport. The text con-
tinues: “such process are distinctly two-phase flows, with water overly-
ing a slurry-like flow characterized as an incipient granular mass flow
(Manville and White, 2003)”. During a debris flood, the shear stress of
the turbulent flowing water on a streambed is capable to induce full mo-
bility (sensu Wilcock and McArdell, 1993) of almost all bed grain sizes,
mainly transported as bedload. Moreover, momentum transfer by grain-
grain collision can mobilize a “sheet flow” that may be several grains
deep (Gao, 2008; Palucis et al., 2018), making the streambed in a “live
bed” condition (Church and Jakob, 2020). Debris floods can potentially
occur in rivers of any size, but are more common in mountain streams
with abundant coarse sediment supply and steep channels, and more
likely affected by intense hydrological events (e.g., flash floods).
Hyperconcentrated flows (Costa, 1988; Pierson, 2005a) or
hyperconcentrated streamflows (Pierson and Costa, 1987) were originally
defined as flows highly charged with fine sediment transported in
suspension (at least 20% and no >60% by volume; Beverage and
Culbertson, 1964) (Fig. 1d). From a rheological point of view, the lower
threshold, which marks the transition from ordinary suspended load in
water flows to hyperconcentrated flows, is defined as the transition
from a Newtonian to a non-Newtonian fluid (e.g., Pierson and Costa,
1987; Rickenmann, 1991; Xu, 2002, 2003) and is identified by the insur-
gence of a low yield strength in flow. The upper threshold corresponds to
the point where yield strength increases rapidly, almost asymptotically,
rendering the complete suspension of gravel particles possible, regardless
of whether flow is moving or not (Pierson and Scott, 1985; Pierson and
Costa, 1987; Coussot and Piau, 1994). The yield strength of a sediment–
water mixture depends on the suspended sediment concentration, grain
size distribution, and mineralogy of involved fines (Hampton, 1972;
Pierson and Scott, 1985). Hyperconcentrated flows can be defined as
plastic and turbulent to laminar and non-Newtonian fluids that have an
apparent liquid flow behavior (Pierson and Costa, 1987; Costa, 1988;
Coussot and Meunier, 1996) in which flowing water transports a high
amount of suspended sediment. Most hyperconcentrated flows and
relative deposits considered in the literature have been studied in volcanic
settings, where lahars involving high amount of low-density volcanic
particles are frequent (e.g., Cronin et al., 2000; Lavigne and Thouret,
2002; Lavigne and Suwa, 2004), but such flows have also been observed
in large rivers (e.g., Li et al., 1997).
Over the last decades the term “hyperconcentrated flow” has been
widely used to describe sub-aerial sediment–water flows involving
both very high suspended load and bedload, misleading the original
definition of Beverage and Culbertson (1964) (see Church and Jakob,
2020, for a thorough discussion of this issue). In the light of the distinc-
tion between suspension and bedload dominance in a transport process,
as emphasized by Manville and White (2003), Scheidl and Rickenmann
(2010), and Church and Jakob (2020), it is crucial to distinctly classify
hyperconcentrated flows sensu stricto (s.s.) (i.e., flows dominated by
3
suspended load) and debris floods (i.e., flows dominated by bedload).
A flood, under adequate hydraulic conditions and grain sizes of involved
material, might induce concurrently a hyperconcentrated flow
overriding a debris flood (Church and Jakob, 2020) (Fig. 1e), but this is
not a general case, since these two types of flow can occur separately
(Fig. 1c and d). Having clarified this terminological distinction, it is
possible to assert that, in a mountain stream, deposition from debris
floods is mainly due to bedload-carpet accretion and sheet flow freezing
(Manville and White, 2003; Church and Jakob, 2020) whereas rapid and
intense suspension fallout is the main depositional process related with
hyperconcentrated flows s.s., possibly associated to traction-carpet
accretion (Pierson, 2005a).
2.2. Features of sediment–water flow deposits
The following sections summarize the field diagnostic criteria avail-
able from the literature for sediments deposited by each flow type in
mountain streams. In the light of the inaccurate use of the term
“hyperconcentrated flow” in the literature, we must premise that sedi-
ments described by previous studies as “intermediate”, “transitional”, or
“hyperconcentrated” type–flow deposits (e.g., Hooke, 1967; Smith,
1986; Wells and Harvey, 1987) have been interpreted case-by-case as
products of “hyperconcentrated flow s.s.” or “debris flood”. The criteria
adopted for such distinction rely on the more restricted definitions of
sediment transporting phenomena clarified by Church and Jakob
(2020), and consider the dominant transport and depositional mecha-
nisms (i.e., suspended load or bedload; see Section 2.1) deductible
from the descriptions provided by each cited work.
2.2.1. Geomorphological features of sediment–water flow deposits
Landforms produced by debris flows are usually diagnostic, as
observed in the field (e.g., Wells and Harvey, 1987; Luckman, 1992;
Pierson, 2005b; Remaître et al., 2005) and laboratory studies (e.g., De
Haas et al., 2015). Debris flow deposits commonly assume a narrow
and elongated shape with a steep front and flanks (Hungr, 2000;
Breien et al., 2008), pressure ridges on top (Wells and Harvey, 1987;
Masson et al., 1993; Catane et al., 2007), and positive relief (convex sur-
face where flow freezing occurs; Staley et al., 2006). Often coarse mar-
ginal levees (Costa, 1984; Gallino and Pierson, 1985) are preserved,
and well-developed depositional lobes characterize the terminal por-
tion of deposits (Carling, 1987a; Nieuwenhuijzen and Van Steijn,
1990). On the surface of debris flow accumulations, common occur-
rences are a high concentration of coarse clasts at the margins of a de-
posit, a random distribution of boulders that can be partially coated by
a sandy mud layer, and deposits dammed by very large boulders
(Meyer and Wells, 1997; Kim and Lowe, 2004).
Debris flood, hyperconcentrated flow, and water flow deposits are
instead characterized by similar geomorphological evidence (Costa,
1988; Pierson, 2005b), including a large width-to-thickness ratio, with
progressive thinning moving to the front and flanks. These deposits
appear in planform as low-relief fans, sheets, or splays, which are typi-
cally incised by channels, scours, and pools. Boulder bars and berms
are products of debris floods deposition, which may be accompanied
by flowing water with both Newtonian (i.e., a severe stage 3 bedload
associated to ordinarily water flow with suspended load; e.g., Carling,
1989) and non-Newtonian behavior (i.e., a debris flood associated to a
hyperconcentrated flow; e.g., Carling, 1987b; Dinehart, 1999). Collapse
depressions and numerous stacked lobes can be found on the surface
and distal part of debris flood deposits (Wells and Harvey, 1987). A
number of bedforms, associated with well-developed diagonal, trans-
verse, side and longitudinal bars, sometimes surmounted by small
sediment lobes, with a mean surface grain size markedly different
from that of channel thalweg, are typical of bedload transport from
water flows (Ferguson and Werritty, 1983; Wells and Harvey, 1987).
Large amounts of overbank sandy deposits form after large water floods
(Pizzuto, 1987) but also as suspension fallout from hyperconcentrated
4 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
flows at energy drop locations (Pierson, 2005a; Cronin et al., 2000).
Different types of bedforms, as well as regular sequences of pools,
steps, and riffles also typify organized water flows deposits (Kennedy,
1969; Montgomery and Buffington, 1997; Best, 2005).
2.2.2. Sedimentological features of sediment–water flow deposits
Debris flows frequently mobilize slope debris that contains angular
and sub-angular clasts, whereas debris flood and water flows often
move streambed grains that have developed a more or less marked
rounding because of abrasion during movement (e.g., Huddart, 1994;
Church and Jakob, 2020). Grain size sorting is one of the most important
parameters for the description and discrimination of flow deposits.
Debris flow deposits are characterized by extremely poorly to poorly-
sorted material (Costa, 1988; Bertran and Texier, 1999), whereas
debris flood deposits are slightly more sorted (i.e., from poorly to
moderately sorted; see Blair and McPherson (1994) and “gravel–domi-
nated hyperconcentrated flow deposits” of Smith (1986)). Sorting in
water flow sediments is variable, but commonly ranges from moderate
to good (Collinson, 1996; Powell, 1998). Hyperconcentrated flow s.s.
deposits are sand–dominated, moderately to well sorted, and often char-
acterized by normal grading (Pierson and Scott, 1985; Cronin et al., 2000).
Sorting of hyperconcentrated flow deposits decreases when there
are coarser levels of particles (i.e., fine gravel to gravel) deposited
by tractive processes intercalated to sandy deposits (“sand–dominated
hyperconcentrated flow deposits” described by Smith (1986)). Finally,
a matrix-supported texture is typical of debris flow deposits (Nemec
and Steel, 1984; Blair, 1999), whereas clast-supported and openwork
textures are more commonly generated by water flows (Collinson,
1996). Exceptions to this distribution are matrix-free, grain-flow deposits,
which are end-members of cohesionless debris flows (Nemec and Steel,
1984; Moscariello et al., 2002) that evolve under the effects of dispersive
pressure and kinematic sieving (Nemec, 1990).
Some specific sedimentary features can be diagnostic of different
flow types:
(1) Stratification: Debris flow deposits are usually massive
diamictons; hyperconcentrated flows may generate both
massive and crudely stratified deposits with horizontal bed-
ding; debris flood deposits are usually crudely stratified;
water flow deposits are well-stratified deposits with plane-
parallel or cross-stratifications (Collinson and Thompson,
1982; Smith, 1986; Smith and Lowe, 1991; Blair and
McPherson, 1994; Bertran and Texier, 1999; Sohn et al.,
1999; Cronin et al., 2000; Benvenuti and Martini, 2002;
Kataoka and Nakajo, 2004; Sletten and Blikra, 2007).
(2) Preferred clast orientation: Elongated clasts may arrange randomly
or with a parallel-to-flow orientation of the longest axes (a-axes)
in debris flow deposits (Lawson, 1982; Bertran et al., 1997;
Major, 1998; Karátson et al., 2002). The orientation of a-axes
changes to transverse-to-flow form if clasts are rolled by traction,
as is occurring during water flows (Rust, 1972). A-axes are
commonly oriented both in the parallel and transverse-to-flow
directions in deposits of debris floods, while are randomly oriented
in hyperconcentrated flow deposits (if elongated gravel–size clasts
are present) (Smith, 1986).
(3) Clast imbrication: Imbrication in debris flow deposits can range
from absent (Wells, 1984; Cenderelli and Kite, 1998) to weak
(Major, 1998; Sohn, 2000). Imbrication progressively increases
in debris flood deposits and is commonly well-developed in
water flow deposits, with the a–b axes plane usually dipping
upstream (Starkel, 1972; Pflüger and Seilacher, 1991; Benvenuti
and Martini, 2002; Schlunegger and Garefalakis, 2018). Some
researchers examined the dip of an imbrication angle (i.e., dip
angle of the a–b axes plane) in different flow deposits
(e.g., Carling, 1987b), observing that the inclination of imbricated
clasts tends to increase as fluid–gravity flows transition into
sediment–gravity flows.
2.2.3. Effects of sediment–water flows on vegetation
Debris flows severely damage in-channel vegetation, thus causing
trees breaking and such typical effects as extended bark erosion on the
upstream side of the trunk of trees, mud coating on the backside of the
trunks, and gravel embedding in wood (Braam et al., 1987; Pierson,
2005b; Stoffel et al., 2005). As noted by Costa (1984), however, debris
flows do not necessarily damage vegetation. When damage does occur,
it rapidly decreases toward the edges of flow, where even small trees
are engulfed in debris flow deposits but not wiped out. As flow progresses
to debris flood, and hyperconcentrated and water flow varieties, damage
further diminishes, even if severe effects can still occur because of high-
flow conditions. Bark erosion is usually concentrated near the bed and
the maximum water stage. In contrast to damage from debris flows,
water flow damage can extend to the outer parts of the area affected by
the flow (Pierson, 2005b; Ruiz-Villanueva et al., 2010).
2.2.4. Organic material content of sediment–water flow deposits
Depending on the presence of soil and vegetation in source areas
and along propagation paths, debris flows may include organic ma-
terial (e.g., logs and other woody material, grass, leaves) (VanDine,
1985). Organic material is mobilized in slurry flows through mecha-
nisms similar to those that transport mineral particles and is depos-
ited together with inorganic fraction (Hubert and Filipov, 1989).
Water flows also involve vegetation pieces of large (e.g., trees) to
very small (e.g., seeds) sizes (Gurnell, 2007; Wohl et al., 2019), but
several hydrochory studies showed that the dynamics of vegetation
in fluid–gravity flows are strongly influenced by the buoyancy and
morphology of plant material (e.g., Gurnell et al., 2002; Merritt and
Wohl, 2002). Floatation characteristics promote wood piece and or-
ganic fragment transport and sedimentation processes that remark-
ably differ from those characterizing mineral and rock particles
(e.g., Swanson, 2003; Goodson et al., 2003).
3. General setting
3.1. The Tegnas catchment
The Tegnas catchment is located in the Dolomites (Eastern Italian
Alps) and drains an area of 51 km2 with a maximum elevation of 2872
m a.s.l. (Fig. 2). The main stem flowing in the Angheraz and San Lucano
valleys is the Tegnas Torrent, which originates at about 1300 m a.s.l.,
flows into the Cordevole River (at an elevation of 610 m a.s.l), and has
a length of 10.5 km. Its major tributary is the Bordina Torrent, but several
steep channels flow into the Tegnas from the south flank of the Pale di San
Lucano, the north flank of the M. Agner, and the east flank of the Pale di
San Martino (Fig. 2). The valley slopes are steep and consist mostly of
exposed rocks with minimal or no soil cover. The San Lucano valley
floor is up to 490 m wide and is underlain by Quaternary deposits
(Testa et al., 2013). From a geological point of view, the substrate of
the catchment is composed mainly of dolostone and limestone (Sciliar
Formation), but some siliciclastic, clay-rich deposits (Werfen Formation)
and volcanic rocks crop out in the Bordina valley (Giordano, 2011; Testa
et al., 2013; Lucianetti et al., 2016).
The lower part of the catchment is covered largely by a mixed broad-
leaf and coniferous forest; extended rock outcrops appear at an elevation
higher than 1500 to 1600 m a.s.l., while anthropic structures (i.e., roads,
houses) are few and limited to the valley floor. The terminal sector of
the Tegnas Torrent, crossing the urban area of Taibon Agordino, is chan-
nelized by artificial levees. Bank protections are located along some
reaches of the Tegnas in the San Lucano valley, but the Angheraz valley
is completely free of artificial structures. A large check dam is located on
the Tegnas Torrent immediately upstream the confluence of the Bordina
 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413 5

Fig. 2. Location map and physiographic characteristics of the Tegnas catchment.

Torrent, and a few small check dams have been constructed along some
steep tributaries.
The climate of the San Lucano valley is typically alpine, with cold
winters and temperate summers. During the cold season, precipitation
falls in the form of snow, and rainfall occurs mostly during spring and
late autumn. The mean annual precipitation measured at Col di Prà
(Fig. 2) from 2001 to 2019 amounted to 1610 mm. The Tegnas fluvial
regime is pluvio–nival.
estimated by Testa and Aldighieri (2011)—15 to 20 m3s−1 (recurrence
intervals of about 1.5 years)—the results derived for the Tegnas catch-
ment indicated that a high-magnitude flood struck the Tegnas Torrent
during the Vaia Storm.
4. Materials and methods
4.1. Segmentation of the stream network

3.2. The Vaia storm A survey of flood deposits caused by the Vaia Storm was conducted on
a stream network that extended 9.9 km along the Tegnas Torrent and 3.0
Between 27 and 30 October 2018, an extraordinary rain-and-wind km along the downstream reaches (i.e., near confluence with the Tegnas)
storm named “Vaia” struck North Italy, with particularly high intensity of nine tributaries (Fig. 2 and Table 1). To collect field data, we divided the
occurring in the Eastern Italian Alps in the Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto, stream network into homogeneous reaches (Brierley and Fryirs, 2005;
and Friuli-Venezia Giulia regions. The storm developed as an explosive Rinaldi et al., 2013), taking into account the most important discontinu-
cyclogenesis following a cold input from the Gulf of Lion to the southern ities (i.e., tributary confluences, the presence of substantial anthropic
side of the Alps (Cavaleri et al., 2019). Strong wind damaged forests, and structures and changes in lateral confinement, valley orientation
intense rainfall induced large floods in several catchments of northeast- and slope, channel width, and morphological settings). Then, applying
ern Italy. Beginning this meteorological event was an initial rainfall
phase from the morning of 27 October to the evening of 28 October,
followed by a second and more intense phase that peaked on the eve-
Table 1
ning of 29 October, with rainfall rates reaching up to 40 to 50 mm/h in Characteristics of the studied streams and the lengths of the channels considered in this
the central part of Belluno Province (ARPAV, 2018). The Tegnas catch- work.
ment was one of the basins that were most strongly affected by the
Stream Drainage Total Surveyed Percentage of total
Vaia event. The cumulative precipitation over the catchment, estimated Area channel channel channel length
through the interpolation of data gathered by a regional rain gauges (km2) length length surveyed
network, amounted to 523 mm. Air temperature data were used to dis- (m) (m) (%)
criminate snowfall from rainfall: most of precipitation (459 mm) oc- Tegnas 51.4 ≈10500 9900 ≈94.3
curred as rainfall; the most intense precipitation occurred in the Fagher 0.7 1860 200 10.8
evening of 29 October, with maximum hourly rate of approximately Civetta 0.8 1600 280 17.5
Scandola 1.4 1910 320 16.8
35 mm/ h (Zaramella, personal communication). The peak water dis-
Bordina 12.4 ≈ 4450 320 ≈7.2
charge was indirectly estimated through a survey of high watermarks Lagunaz 0.7 1580 360 22.8
at a stable cross-section in the downstream sector of the Tegnas Torrent Mez 1.5 2560 450 17.6
(upstream drainage area: 49.4 km2); the calculated discharge was 154 Dell'Acqua 1.1 1730 400 23.1
m3s−1, with uncertainty bounds between 134 and 167 m3s−1 S. Lucano 0.8 2100 320 15.2
Besaosega 2.0 2550 330 12.9
(Zaramella et al., 2019). Compared with the formative discharge
6 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413

the GIS-based procedure developed by Ferencevic and Ashmore (2012),
as was done by Righini et al. (2017), we partitioned each reach
into sub-reaches featuring homogeneous channel slopes. The sub-
reaches had a length of 300 to 500 m along the Tegnas Torrent
and 200 to 400 m along the tributaries. The physiographic characteristics
(i.e., length, slope, drainage area, morphological configuration) of the sub-
reaches were defined using the aerial photographs acquired by the Ve-
neto Region in 2015; the images had a resolution of 0.2 m (https://idt2.
regione.veneto.it). The definition of the physiographic characteristics
was also addressed using a digital elevation model with a resolution of
5 m; the model (with a vertical error typically around ±0.5 m) was de-
rived from a 1:5000 topographic map (https://idt2.regione.veneto.it). To
define the channel morphology of the narrow sub-reaches, the informa-
tion obtained from the aerial photographs was integrated with data
from some available pre-event field photographs of the channels and
field observations.
the features reported in the literature as diagnostic attributes for one
or more transport mechanisms. Through an extensive review of previ-
ous works (see Section 2.2), we identified the most specific diagnostic
field evidence (i.e., the features associated with a specific flow) of the
four considered flow types, grouping them into morphological and sed-
imentological evidence and effects on vegetation affected by the flows.
4.2.1. Geomorphological field evidence of flow types
The survey of geomorphological evidence involved observing the
surface characteristics and morphological configurations of the deposits
(Fig. 3a). At each survey site, we observed the morphological features of
the sedimentary bodies in terms of the planform shape of a deposit; the
geometry of its front, flanks, and surface; the occurrence of peculiar
landforms (e.g., marginal levees, boulder bars, lobes); and the charac-
teristics of the surface capping a depositional body (e.g., the presence
of randomly distributed boulders, steps, pools).

4.2. Field survey of deposits
The detailed field survey of the Vaia event deposits was conducted
between May and August 2019 at a scale of 1:5000 along the 12.9 km
stretch of the stream network, with focus directed toward the material
mobilized and deposited by the flood in October 2018. No extensive
hydro-meteorological events mobilized large volumes of sediments be-
tween the occurrence of the Vaia Storm and the initiation of the field
survey. For each sub-reach defined by the stream network segmenta-
tion, we identified one or more survey sites where the deposits mobi-
lized by the Vaia event were distinguishable from older deposits and
their surface and sub-surface features could be characterized (Fig. 3).
Local observations were spatially extended on the basis of the lateral
continuity of recognized deposits, defining sedimentary bodies depos-
ited by a specific flow type during the Vaia event. Because the aim of
the survey was to classify the deposits on the grounds of the flow type
responsible for their sedimentation, the observation was focused on
4.2.2. Sedimentological field evidence of flow types
This survey centered on sedimentological evidence that is easily rec-
ognizable in the field by observing the characteristics of sediments at
exposed sections of the survey sites (Fig. 3a). At each survey site, we
used comparator charts to evaluate dominant class rounding
(i.e., angular, sub-angular, sub-rounded, rounded), grain size sorting
(i.e., extremely poor, poor, moderate, good), sediment textures
(i.e., matrix-supported, clast-supported, partially openwork, open-
work), and evaluated development of stratifications (i.e., absent,
crudely stratified, well-stratified). The preferential orientation of elon-
gated clasts with respect to flow direction was determined by examin-
ing >20 clasts at each survey site. Main flow direction was ascertained
on the basis of the morphology (e.g., lobate, fan-shaped) of a deposit
or the orientation of the longitudinal axis of a stream at a survey site.
To complete the sedimentological survey, the occurrence of some spe-
cific sedimentary structures (e.g., slump faults, pebbles clusters,
erosive structures, cross and planar stratification) was also investigated.

Fig. 3. Some of the survey sites considered for the geomorphological and sedimentological description of the Vaia flood deposits (a, taken at sub-reach T4.2), grain size analyses, and sediment
sampling. Image b (taken at sub-reach T1.2) shows the boulders mobilized during the Vaia event. Images c and d (taken at sub-reaches T1.3 and T2.1, respectively) illustrate the standard setting
of the survey sites, with grids for the grain size analyses, exposed sections for the sedimentological descriptions (black squares; each section has an area of 2-10 m2), and points of sediment
sampling for organic content measurements (red diamonds). Grey arrows indicate flow direction.
 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413 7

Specific attention was paid to collecting data on clast imbrication.
Imbrication was visually evaluated, with the imbricate structures oc-
curring at a surveyed section classified as absent (i.e., no imbrica-
tion), weak (i.e., very sparse imbrications), moderate (i.e., some
imbrications), and strong (i.e., several imbrications) manifestations
(Fig. 4a). To inquire into the possible relationship between transport
mechanism and the dip angle of an imbrication, we determined the
dip angle inclination of the a–b axes planes of about 20 to 30 imbri-
cated clasts randomly selected at each survey site. The angle be-
tween an a–b plane and a horizontal surface (α; Fig. 4b) was
measured in the field using a compass with an inclinometer. Effec-
tive dip angle inclinations (δ, the angle between an a–b plane and a
depositional interface; Fig. 4b) were calculated by incorporating α
into the local slope of the channel depositional surface (S). S was
ascertained for each sub-reach as the difference between the mean
channel elevation at the upstream and downstream sub-reach limits
divided by sub-reach length. For each imbricated clast, we evaluated
the orientation of the a-axis, which can be perpendicular to main
flow direction (i.e., ω ≈ 90°; Fig. 4c), parallel to main flow direction
(i.e., ω ≈ 0°; Fig. 4d), or oblique (Fig. 4e).
4.2.3. Vegetation field evidence of flow types
In each sub-reach, we documented the effects of flow on the trees
located within the channel and in the overbank areas. Effects on vegeta-
tion were classified on the basis of the severity of damage (i.e., from
severe—e.g., several broken trunks and splintered stumps— to light),
the spatial extent of damage (i.e., concentrated to the central area of
flow or extending to the outer parts of the area affected by the flow),
and the characteristics of bark erosion (i.e., extended or concentrated
near a bed and the maximum water stage).
4.2.4. Grain size analyses of Vaia deposits
For each sub-reach, the maximum grain size (Dmax) and the mean
grain size (i.e., D50, determined only for the main stem of the Tegnas
Torrent and the Bordina Torrent) of the mobilized sediments were mea-
sured. We identified all the largest cobbles and boulders recognizable as
clasts that were mobilized during the Vaia event; the identification was
anchored in field evidence, such as the position of the clasts on top
of older deposits (Fig. 3b), or evidence of recent rotation from the pre-
flood position (e.g., position of clast portions covered by moss). The b-

(a)

Imbricate structure

0 0.1 m

1m 1m 1m
1m

1m

1m

(b) (c)

b ω
α δ

(d) (e)
a

b b ω
ω a

Fig. 4. Information collected for imbricated clasts. Panel (a) provides examples of imbricate structure and degrees of imbrication. Considering a mean grain size of 30-50 mm, weak
imbrication is associated to deposits with less than about 10 imbricated clasts in 1 m2 of exposed section, whereas strong imbrication implies the presence of more than about 30
imbricated clasts in 1 m2 of exposed section. Geometrical information collected for imbricated clasts are summarized in (b). (c), (d), and (e) are top views of the a-axes orientations of
imbricated clasts with respect to main flow direction (perpendicular in c, parallel in d, and randomly oriented in e). α: angle between the a–b axes plane of an imbricated clast and a
horizontal surface; S: slope of a channel depositional surface; δ: angle between the a–b axes plane of an imbricated clast and the surface of sediment deposition (δ = α + S); ω: angle
between the a-axis of an imbricated clast and flow direction. Grey arrows indicate main flow direction.
8 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
axes (i.e., the intermediate axes) of 10 to 15 of the largest mobilized
clasts at each sub-reach were measured using a ruler or a tape.
The D50 of the Vaia deposits was calculated as follows: at each sub-
reach of the Tegnas main stem, a sampling site representative of the
material mobilized and deposited during the Vaia event was selected
for the application of grid-by-number counting (Wolman, 1954;
Church et al., 1987). A grid was defined by stretching a 20 m long tape
perpendicular to the main flow direction, along four to six lines spaced
at intervals of 5 to 10 m (Fig. 3c and d). Samples were collected every 0.5
m along the tape, with 200 to 280 particles collected in accordance with
the sample size recommended by Bunte and Abt (2001) to achieve
satisfactory precision in grain size distribution. A half-phi template
with square openings was used to sort particles finer than 128 mm on
the basis of their b-axes, as suggested by Wohl et al. (1996). For larger
clasts, b-axes were measured using a ruler or a tape. Particles finer
than 2 mm were classified as “sand” or “mud” (i.e., a mixture of silt
and clay) on the grounds of their cohesiveness, as evaluated by wetting
and manipulating a small sample of the material.
4.2.5. A “Sediment–Water Flows: Field Survey Worksheet” for deposit
description and classification
A worksheet for the field survey of the event deposits (Fig. 5) was
developed for deposit classification based on geomorphological and
sedimentological characteristics. The worksheet comprises two core
sections. The first summarizes general information on a survey site
and is intended to collect data on large mobilized clasts and the geom-
etry of imbricated clasts (i.e., dip direction and inclination and a-axis
orientation with respect to main flow direction). The second section is
designed to acquire information on field-observable geomorphologic
features (five indicators), effects on vegetation (three indicators), and
diagnostic sedimentological characteristics (eight indicators). Evidence
to be included in the worksheet was determined with reference to their
importance, as inferred from the literature review (see Section 2.2) and
their potentially unambiguous recognition during fieldwork. This latter
aspect was tested during the field surveys in the Tegnas catchment.
Each evidence can be diagnostic of or consistent with one or more
flow types. For example, well-developed stratification is exclusively
indicative of water flow deposits, whereas moderately developed strat-
ification is consistent with debris flood, and hyperconcentrated and
water flow deposits. A total of 75 pieces of evidence was considered in
the field survey: 35 consistent with and 24 diagnostic of debris flows,
24 consistent with and 3 diagnostic of hyperconcentrated flows, 26 con-
sistent with and 6 diagnostic of debris floods, and 34 consistent with
and 18 diagnostic of water flows (Fig. 5).
4.3. Map of Vaia deposits
Based on the data collected in the field, the Vaia deposits were clas-
sified as being of the debris flow, debris flood, hyperconcentrated flow,
and water flow varieties. We plotted a 1:5000-scale map of the
surveyed stream network to indicate the deposits classified by flow
type (see the Map of the Vaia Storm Deposits, Supporting Information).
The extent of deposition areas was defined using an aerial photograph
acquired in July 2019 (i.e., after the Vaia Storm) by Veneto Region at a
resolution of 0.2 m. Aside from presenting the type and distribution of
deposits, the map shows (1) the erosion of high banks and valley slopes,
(2) the presence of large isolated boulders (b-axis > 1.5 m), (3) the
location of boulder bars and berms, (4) reaches affected by sediment
bypass (i.e., no sedimentation) during the floods, and (5) sites consid-
ered for detailed deposit characterization, grain size measurement,
and sediment sampling.
4.4. Assessment of organic material content
We hypothesized that flow deposits occurring within the same catch-
ment are characterized by different concentrations of organic material
given the varying physical and hydraulic properties of transport processes
(i.e., sediment–gravity and fluid–gravity flows; see Section 2.2.4) and
their influence on organic fragment dynamics. To test this hypothesis,
we estimated organic material content within the flood deposits at each
survey site. The presence of visible organic fragments was visually
assessed during the description of the deposits, and organic material
was quantitatively measured for samples of sand and mud fraction, that
potentially contain small pieces of vegetation which are likely the most
sensitive to variations in flow properties. One or more sediment samples
weighing 200 to 300 g, excluding macroscopic (i.e., centimeter sized)
vegetation particles, were collected from the Vaia deposits at each survey
site. Organic matter content was estimated via a loss-on-ignition
procedure (Schulte and Hopkins, 1996). All the samples were cold stored
at −18 °C before processing, and half of each sample was archived in cold
storage. Following the procedure adopted by Sutherland (1998), we hand
sieved each half-sample through a 2 mm screen. Only fractions finer than
2 mm were included in the analysis. An 8 to 10 g sub-sample was
randomly collected from each sample and ground into powder using an
agate mortar. About 4 g of the ground material was then placed in a
crucible and heated at 70 °C for 24 h to remove moisture. The dry sample
weight was determined, after which the sample was placed in a muffle
furnace and combusted for 16 h at 550 °C (cf. Sutherland, 1998; Wang
et al., 2011). The sample was weighed after the heating procedure. The
difference in sample mass before and after heating was divided by the
pre-heating mass and multiplied by 100; the derived value represented
organic material content as percentage in weight (OMLOI).
5. Results
5.1. Stream network characteristics
The Tegnas main stem was divided into seven reaches (Fig. 6). Reach
T1 flows along the Angheraz valley and is characterized by a high slope
(S = 8.7%–21.3%) and strong lateral confinement. Reaches T2 to T7 are
located within the San Lucano valley and have lower slopes (S = 0.3%–
6.1%) and variable confinement (i.e., reaches 2 and 4 are unconfined,
reaches 3, 5, 6 and 7 are partially confined; see Table S1). The channel
morphology defined at the reach scale is reported in Table 2. Twenty-
six sub-reaches with lengths between 297 and 483 m were defined
along the Tegnas main stem on the basis of the local slope. Nine sub-
reaches were defined along the terminal portion of the tributaries
(Fig. 6). All the tributaries are characterized by a high slope also in the
terminal portion of their course (S = 13.0%–39.1%), except for the
Bordina Torrent (i.e., the main Tegnas tributary), which formed a large
fan with a slope of 6.3%. The physiographic characteristics of all the
examined sub-reaches are summarized in Table 2.
The median grain size (D50) of the channel material along the Tegnas
Torrent ranged from 9 to 61 mm. The mean dimension (b-axis) of 10
to 15 of the largest mobilized clasts at each sub-reach varied from
0.30 m (T1.3) to 1.55 m (T6.1 and T6.2). Even larger mobilized clasts
(mean b-axes of up to 1.60 m) were measured in some tributaries
(Table 2).
5.2. Classification of flow types at sub-reach scale
A field worksheet (Fig. 5) was compiled for each survey site to de-
scribe the deposits. Fig. 7 presents some examples of evidence com-
monly observed during the field surveys. Debris flow, debris flood,
hyperconcentrated flow, and water flow deposits were discriminated
on the basis of the volume of field evidence detected for each flow
type. The determination of the dominant flow type was addressed
accordingly to the flow type with the highest volume of recognized
characteristics, calculated as the percentages of diagnostic and consis-
tent evidence detected during the survey respect to the number of diag-
nostic and consistent evidence considered in the worksheet (Fig. 5) for
each type of flow (Table 3).
 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413 9

Fig. 5. Field survey worksheet for the post-event description of deposits and their interpretation based on the flow type that mobilize and deposit sediments. Each white box refers to a
piece of evidence.

The flood deposits had observable thickness that varied from a num-
ber of decimeters up to 2 m, and the sedimentary bodies deposited by
a specific flow type had extensions falling between a few decameters
and some hundreds of meters. No survey was carried out in reach T7
because the Vaia deposits were removed from the urban stretch of the
Tegnas Torrent immediately after the flood. Reach T3 was dominated
by a bypass of sediment with limited sedimentation, so the recognition
of evidence on flow type was very limited. At the remaining 31 sub-
reaches, the field survey allowed us to recognize considerable evidence
of flow types (Table 3). Along the Tegnas main stem, three sub-reaches lo-
cated in the steep reach T1 were classified as affected by debris
flow during the Vaia event (Table 3 and Fig. 8). Water flow was the dom-
inant process in most of the sub-reaches in reaches 2 to 6, but debris
floods occurred at five sub-reaches (i.e., T2.4, T4.1, T4.2, T6.2, and T6.3;
Fig. 8). Debris flows occurred in most of the steep tributaries, but debris
flood deposits have been observed in the Fagher, Bordina, and Dell'Acqua
Torrents (Table 3 and Fig. 8). No sub-reach was classified as dominated by
hyperconcentrated flow deposits, but some deposits localized in limited
portions of the channel showed characteristics possibly ascribable to
hyperconcentrated flows deposition (e.g., normal grading, high presence
of sand, and poorly developed horizontal stratification) (see the Map of
the Vaia Storm Deposits, Supporting Information).
10 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413

Fig. 6. Reaches and sub-reaches defined along the Tegnas main stem and tributaries. The base map is an aerial photograph acquired in 2015.

For the debris flow and water flow deposits, most of the recog-
nized evidence belongs to the classes defined in the literature
(e.g., sub-reaches T1.1 and T4.4 affected by debris flow and water
flow, respectively; Table 3), with only a few exceptions. The de-
posits ascribed to debris floods showed both diagnostic evidence
and features shared with other flow types (e.g., sub-reach T2.4 in
Table 3).
5.3. Clast imbrication
Among the sedimentological features considered during the sur-
vey, clast imbrication was paid particular attention. In line with the
results of previous works (e.g., Rust, 1972; Bertran et al., 1997), the
a-axes of imbricated clasts that were mostly oriented perpendicular
to flow direction (i.e., imbrication organized on the b-axes of the

Table 2
Physiographic characteristics of the stream network before the Vaia event [morphological configuration based on the Montgomery and Buffington, 1997 classification: C: cascade; S-P: step
pool; P-B: plane bed; P-R: pool riffle; W: wandering] and grain sizes of the Vaia event deposits determined at the sub-reach scale. Drainage areas were calculated at the upstream limit of
each sub-reach.

Stream Reach Sub-reach Morphological configuration Total drainage area (km2) Length (m) Slope (%) D50 (mm) Dmax (m)

Tegnas T1 T1.1 C 8.7 433 21.3 – 0.70

T1.2 C 9.9 433 13.4 30 0.66
T1.3 C 10.4 433 13.1 38 0.29
T1.4 S-P 17.6 367 11.0 38 1.34
T1.5 S-P 18.9 305 9.5 – –
T1.6 P-B 20.7 305 8.7 18 0.53
T2 T2.1 W 21.0 297 5.9 25 0.53
T2.2 W 33.7 469 3.1 18 0.36
T2.3 W 34.5 469 2.3 20 0.52
T2.4 W 34.7 469 2.0 10 0.64
T3 T3.1 S-P 35.3 309 4.8 25 –
T3.2 S-P 37.5 309 2.3 33 –
T4 T4.1 P-R 38.3 327 2.6 10 0.79
T4.2 W 38.5 327 3.1 52 0.39
T4.3 W 39.2 327 2.8 19 0.54
T4.4 W 41.3 323 0.3 17 0.35
T4.5 W 41.6 323 2.6 17 0.33
T4.6 W 42.7 278 1.3 9 0.34
T5 T5.1 P-R 43.5 412 3.3 34 –
T5.2 S-P 44.4 412 4.9 37 0.93
T6 T6.1 S-P 47.0 405 6.1 61 1.55
T6.2 S-P 47.2 405 4.9 31 1.54
T6.3 P-B 48.4 405 4.7 45 0.64
T6.4 P-R 49.4 405 3.7 53 0.43
T7 T7.1 P-R 50.0 483 3.2 – –
T7.2 P-R 50.7 483 2.6 – –
Fagher FA1 FA1.1 S-P 0.7 200 39.1 – 0.38
Civetta CI1 CI1.1 C 0.8 278 24.5 – 1.41
Scandola SC1 SC1.1 C 1.4 319 24.3 – 1.60
Bordina BO1 BO1.1 P-B 12.3 319 6.3 32 0.54
Lagunaz LA1 LA1.1 C 0.7 360 36.1 – 0.50
Mez ME1 ME1.1 C 1.5 450 22.0 – 0.51
Dell'Acqua DA1 DA1.1 C 1.1 403 13.0 – 0.47
S. Lucano SL1 SL1.1 C 0.8 317 28.0 – 0.86
Besaosega BE1 BE1.1 C 1.9 329 33.3 – 1.28
 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413 11

Fig. 7. Examples of geomorphological and sedimentological evidence found during the survey of the Vaia event deposits in the Tegnas catchment. Images a, b, and c show landforms
associated with different flow types (i.e., debris flow, debris flood, and water flow). Images d, e, and f present imbricated clasts with different dip angle inclinations (δ). A deposit with
very poor grain size sorting and matrix-supported texture and a deposit with moderate selection and partially openwork texture are shown in images g and h, respectively. Photographs
i, j, and k show typical examples of sediments left by debris flows (i.e., massive, extremely poor selected, and matrix-rich deposits; image i), debris floods (i.e., crudely stratified, poorly
selected, and from clast-supported to partially openwork deposits; image j), and water flows (i.e., well stratified with good selection within each bed deposit; image k). Grey arrows in-
dicate flow direction.

clasts) were considered indicative of water flows (Fig. 9a and
Table 4), whereas the a-axes of imbricated clasts primarily oriented
parallel to flow direction (i.e., imbrication organized on the a-axes
of the clasts) were regarded as reflective of debris flood or debris
flow deposits (Fig. 9b and c, Table 4). In all the cases, the a–b axes
planes dipped upstream with respect to flow direction.
About 540 measurements of imbrication angle inclination
(i.e., the δ angle of the a–b axes plane dip of an individual imbricated
clast; Fig. 4b) were acquired at the survey sites. The measurements of
clast imbrication (Table S2) were related to the flow types classified
on the basis of field evidence, and distinctive imbrication angles re-
lated to different flow deposits were observed (Fig. 9d). The mean in-
clinations of the imbrication angle of the clasts deposited by water
flows and debris floods were 35° (standard deviation of 8.56°) and
51° (standard deviation of 11.59°), respectively; when occurring
for clasts deposited by debris flows, this inclination is even higher,
with a mean δ of 59° (standard deviation of 9.01°). Imbrication incli-
nation of water flow deposits is significantly different from that of
debris flood and debris flow deposits, because the mean dip angle in-
clination falls without the standard deviation ranges of the other two
flow types (Fig. 9d). Conversely, dip angle inclinations of debris flood
and debris flow deposits are not statistically different (Fig. 9d). No
data were collected for hyperconcentrated flow deposits, due to
their limited presence and relatively low degree of certainty in
interpretation.
5.4. Organic material in deposits
A total of 35 samples collected along the Tegnas main stem and its
tributaries was analyzed to determine organic material content. Relating
such content as percentage in weight (OMLOI) to flow type (Fig. 10 and
Table S3) uncovered that the deposits left by different flow types were
characterized by slightly different organic matter concentrations. The
mean OMLOI obtained for water flow deposits was 2.77%, and those mea-
sured for debris flood and debris flow deposits were 3.95% and 3.98%, re-
spectively. More appreciable differences arose in higher values of OMLOI
(Fig. 10): The upper quartiles (i.e., the 75th percentiles) of OMLOI were
3.03%, 4.96%, and 5.66% for water flow, debris flood, and debris flow
deposits, respectively.
6. Discussion
6.1. Field evidence of flow types
The recognition of different flow types on the basis of deposit
characteristics is not always a straightforward task. Often, morphologies
associated with deposits are conditioned by local topography (cf.
Glasser et al., 2009 for a similar issue in glacial environments), and
original depositional features can be modified by later water flows.
Our observations showed that a systematic survey of field evidence,
reported in the literature as typically produced by a specific flow type
12 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413

Table 3
Field evidence of flow types recognized in each survey site and resulting type of flow (DFW: debris flow, HF: hyperconcentrated flow, DFD: debris flood, WF: water flow). N: number of
field evidence “consistent with” (C) or “diagnostic for” (D) a specific flow type detected during the survey; %: percentage of detected evidence respect to the number of evidence consid-
ered in the worksheet for each type of flow (i.e., N*100 divided by the total number of evidence considered in the worksheet for each specific flow type). In bold are reported the higher %
obtained for both C and D evidence, which were adopted to determine the flow type of a deposit. *: Sub-reaches T4.2 and T6.3 were characterized by dominant debris flood deposits, but
the survey sites are located at sites where water flow sediments were deposited (see the Map of the Vaia Storm Deposits, Supporting Information).

Flow type DFW HF DFD WF

Type of field evidence C D C D C D C D

Number of evidence 35 23 24 3 26 6 34 18
considered in the
worksheet

Stream Sub-reach N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Flow type determined

Tegnas T1.1 14 40 6 25 8 33 0 0 6 23 0 0 3 9 0 0 DFW

T1.2 8 23 4 17 7 29 0 0 13 50 2 33 8 24 0 0 DFD
T1.3 3 9 1 4 7 29 0 0 10 39 1 17 16 47 7 39 WF
T1.4 16 46 9 38 9 38 0 0 8 31 2 33 4 12 0 0 DFW
T1.5 Same as CI1.1 and SC1.1 DFW
T1.6 6 17 2 8 10 42 1 33 13 50 2 33 9 27 1 6 DFD
T2.1 3 9 0 0 10 42 0 0 12 46 1 17 22 65 11 61 WF
T2.2 4 11 0 0 10 42 0 0 12 46 1 17 21 62 10 56 WF
T2.3 4 11 0 0 13 54 0 0 15 58 2 33 21 62 7 39 WF
T2.4 10 29 2 8 10 42 0 0 15 58 5 83 9 27 1 6 DFD
T3.1 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 2 8 0 0 3 9 0 0 By-pass/WF
T3.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 2 33 3 9 3 17 By-pass/WF
T4.1 5 14 2 8 10 42 0 0 14 54 3 50 9 27 0 0 DFD
T4.2* 4 11 0 0 8 33 0 0 14 54 1 17 19 56 6 33 WF*
T4.3 4 11 0 0 9 38 0 0 11 42 1 17 19 56 10 56 WF
T4.4 4 11 0 0 9 38 0 0 12 46 0 0 21 62 11 61 WF
T4.5 5 14 0 0 9 38 0 0 11 42 0 0 22 65 11 61 WF
T4.6 2 6 0 0 8 33 0 0 10 39 0 0 21 62 11 61 WF
T5.1 1 3 0 0 6 25 0 0 9 35 1 17 15 44 8 44 WF
T5.2 1 3 0 0 6 25 0 0 9 35 1 17 16 47 9 50 WF
T6.1 3 9 0 0 6 25 0 0 10 39 1 17 19 56 10 56 WF
T6.2 11 31 4 17 10 42 0 0 12 46 3 50 8 24 1 6 DFD
T6.3* 4 11 1 4 12 50 0 0 12 46 0 0 18 53 8 44 WF*
T6.4 1 3 0 0 9 38 0 0 10 39 0 0 15 44 5 28 WF
T7.1 Not surveyed
T7.2 Not surveyed
Fagher FA1.1 8 23 3 13 8 33 0 0 13 50 3 50 10 29 2 11 DFD
Civetta CI1.1 18 51 9 38 9 38 0 0 7 27 0 0 3 9 0 0 DFW
Scandola SC1.1 20 57 15 63 6 25 0 0 4 15 0 0 3 9 0 0 DFW
Bordina BO1.1 9 26 1 4 10 42 0 0 12 46 2 33 9 27 2 11 DFD
Lagunaz LA1.1 12 34 6 25 7 29 0 0 6 23 0 0 4 12 0 0 DFW
Mez ME1.1 17 48 9 38 8 33 0 0 9 35 2 33 5 15 0 0 DFW
Dell'Acqua DA1.1 10 29 4 17 10 42 0 0 16 62 4 67 9 27 0 0 DFD
S. Lucano SL1.1 14 40 10 42 5 21 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 6 0 0 DFW
Besaosega BE1.1 14 40 8 33 8 33 0 0 5 19 0 0 4 12 0 0 DFW

LA 7.2
3.1 BE 7.1
3.2 4.5 SL
2.4 4.1 4.3 5.2 6.1 6.3 6.4
BO 6.2
2.1 4.2 4.4 4.6 5.1
2.3 ME DA
1.6 2.2
CI 1.5
FA SC 0 2 km
1.4
1.3
Reach limit Debris flow deposits
1.2
Sub-reach limit Debris flood deposits
1.1 Water flow deposits

Fig. 8. Main water–sediment flow types occurring during the Vaia event along the Tegnas Torrent and its main tributaries, defined on the basis of the characteristics of the deposits. The
base map is an orthophotograph acquired in 2019, after the Vaia Storm.
 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413 13

Fig. 9. Typical geometry of clast imbrication found in water flow deposits (a), debris flood deposits (b), and debris flow deposits (c). The box and whisker plot (d) refers to the distribution
of the dip angle inclinations (angle δ) measured in water flow deposits (WF, 272 imbricated clasts), debris flood deposits (DFD, 160 imbricated clasts), and debris flow deposits (DFW, 109
imbricated clasts). Box ends represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, whisker ends denote the 10th and 90th percentiles, whereas horizontal lines indicate the median dip angle
inclinations. Crosses and dashed boxes refer to the mean and standard deviation of dip angle inclination, respectively.

Table 4
Orientation of imbricated clasts in different flow type deposits.

Deposit flow type Survey sites with imbrication/total survey sites Number of surveyed imbricated clasts Orientation of a-axes of imbricated clasts respect
to flow direction

Parallel Intermediate Perpendicular

Water flow 15/15 272 26 14 232

Debris flood 8/8 160 101 15 44
Debris flow 8/10 109 75 19 15

in a mountain stream, is a promising approach for classifying deposits as
results of debris flow, debris flood, or water flow sedimentation. Although
we do not independently know what was the actual flow type in each of
the sub-reaches during the Vaia Storm, the reliability of our
Fig. 10. OMLOI (expressed as percentage in weight, wt%) in the fine fraction of sediment
(grain size <2 mm) measured through a loss-on-ignition procedure at 15, 11, and 9
sampling sites representing water flow (WF), debris flood (DFD), and debris flow
(DFW) deposits, respectively. Box ends represent the 25th and 75th percentiles,
whiskers ends denote the 10th and 90th percentiles, whereas horizontal lines indicate
the median OMLOI values derived with consideration for all the sampling sites. Crosses
and dashed boxes refer to the mean and standard deviation of OMLOI values.
interpretations is supported by the dominant trend in flow transitions.
In most of the cases we observed downstream transition from
sediment–gravity to fluid–gravity flow deposits (e.g., sub-reaches T1.1,
T1.2, T1.3, and ME1.1, T4.1, T4.2, T4.3; see Fig. 8), which is conform
to the processes sequence normally expected along a declining gradient
(e.g., Bodoque et al., 2015). An exception is sub-reach T1.4, where
a transition to debris flow occurred downstream of sub-reaches
exhibiting debris flood (i.e., FA1.1) and water flow (i.e., T1.3), on a channel
gradient unlikely to produce a sediment–gravity flow. We can speculate
that the debris flow was triggered by the material injected into the
channel from a landslide sourced from the left flank of the Angheraz
Valley (see the Map of the Vaia Storm Deposits and Fig. S1, Supporting
Information). Alternatively, a debris flow could have occurred in
the Fagher Torrent during the first phase of the event, accumulating
along sub-reach T1.4. Debris flow deposits could have been later removed
along FA1.1 by a debris flood afterwards occurred in the Fagher Torrent
(Table 3).
A further point of strength for our interpretations is represented
by the almost absence of deposits interpreted as hyperconcentrated
flow products. Hyperconcentrated flow s.s. requires high availability of
fine material, sand, and low density particles within the catchment,
transportable as suspended load in a turbulent flow. Except for
volcanoclastic settings (e.g., Pierson and Major, 2014), these conditions
typify semi-arid and arid alluvial settings (e.g., Mather and Hartley,
2005; Wang and Ta, 2016). On the contrary, under the control of the
local geology, several mountain catchments of alpine environments
mainly produce coarse debris (e.g., Sklar et al., 2020) that feed channels
and are mobilized as sediment–gravity flows or high bedload transport
during floods (e.g., Crosta and Frattini, 2004; Wilford et al., 2004;
Rickenmann and Koschni, 2010). This is the case of the Tegnas catch-
ment, where the steep slopes (mainly composed of carbonate rocks)
14 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
provide boulders, cobbles, and gravels to the stream network. Accord-
ingly, most of flood deposits surveyed in this work are composed of
cobble to boulder–gravels, which were classified as sedimentary
products left by debris flows and fluid–gravity flows with dominant
bedload transport (i.e., debris floods and water flows). Our interpreta-
tions derive from the survey of the deposits left by the flows and stored
within the stream network. Therefore, we cannot exclude that
hyperconcentrated flows actually occurred along some portions of the
stream network, but they could have mainly bypassed the study reaches
(for instance due to gradient reasons). Besides, hyperconcentrated flow
deposits could also have been later removed by subsequent flows.
In agreement with the findings of Costa (1988) and Benvenuti and
Martini (2002), our data confirmed that an appropriate field recognition
from post-event evidence is easier with respect to end-member pro-
cesses (i.e., water and debris flows). Accordingly, geomorphological
features, effects on vegetation, and sedimentological characteristics
tend to be polarized between debris and water flow indicators
(Table 3), consistent with the typical characteristics of the deposits gen-
erated by these flows, as described in the literature. Among the evidence
consistent with other flow types but detected in water flow deposits
(i.e., anomalous evidence), is the occurrence at several survey sites of
cobbles and boulders randomly studded on a deposit surface (evidence
usually related to debris flood sedimentation). The occurrence of these
clasts was likely due to the localized injection (e.g., local collapses) of
large clasts into flow. In rare cases, the following additional anomalous
evidence were observed in water flow deposits: (1) the convex relief
of a deposit (due to localized high sedimentation in a narrow portion
of a channel), (2) the imbrication mainly organized on the a-axes of
elongated clasts, and (3) the presence of mud (likely infiltrated during
the falling limb of the flood). The anomalies found at survey sites
classified as affected by debris flow deposition, including deposit sur-
faces incised by channels, multiple stacked lobes, and open plane beds
and pebble clusters, were regarded as reflective of post-deposition
reworking processes induced by later water fluxes.
Relatively few works have revolved around the study of
hyperconcentrated flow and debris flood deposits in mountain
streams (Theule et al., 2015; Church and Jakob, 2020), and the field
evidence available from the literature for these flows is limited. We
identified some indicators, including multiple stacked sediment
lobes and the bimodal orientation of a-axes of elongated clasts in de-
posits classified as left by debris floods (Table 3). An additional no-
ticeable aspect observed in debris flood deposits and potentially
useful for the recognition of this type of deposit is that they com-
monly showed geomorphological and sedimentological characteris-
tics typical of both debris and water flow deposits. In some sub-
reaches, for instance, the debris flood deposits were concurrently
characterized by the presence of pressure ridges and the emergence
of sediment lobes on top of a deposit (evidence of debris and water
flows, respectively). The wide variety of evidence observed in debris
flood deposits corresponds with the compound transport mecha-
nisms characterizing these fluxes, i.e. (1) an intense tractive bedload
transport, similarly to severe water flows, associated with (2) the
establishment of a slurry-like “sheet flow” having an “incipient gran-
ular mass flow” behavior (Manville and White, 2003), which ap-
proaches the particle dynamics of debris flows. Moreover, a debris
flood can locally or temporarily transform in an actual end-member
flow through the dilution (e.g., by water injection) or concentration
(e.g., by solid material recruiting) of sediment in flux (Rhoads and
Sukhodolov, 2008; Nagl et al., 2020), accumulating, therefore,
water and/or debris flow deposits.
Due to the lack of sediments interpreted as hyperconcentrated
flow deposits among the deposits studied in this work, we cannot
discuss in detail their features. Future applications of the survey pro-
tocol in upland catchments prone for hyperconcentrated flow occur-
rence (e.g., volcanic catchments), could provide further material of
discussion for identification of such kind of deposits in mountain
streams on the basis of the literature criteria summarized in our
field survey worksheet (Fig. 5).
6.2. Additional parameters for flow type identification and future outlook
The results on the inclination of imbrication angles (δ) and organic
content in fine sediments (OMLOI) were analyzed as a function of flow
types associated with deposits, defined on the basis of the field evidence
(Figs. 9 and 10).
Water flow deposits significantly differed in terms of δ (mean values
of 35°) from debris flood and debris flow deposits (mean values of 51°
and 59°, respectively) (Fig. 9d). Although particle geometry may influ-
ence imbrication angles, the mean inclinations of the a–b plane at 24°
to 38° (Blacknell, 1981), 23° (Rust, 1984), and 18° to 30° (Carling,
1987b) have been measured by other researchers in water flow sedi-
ments. The deposits analyzed in the literature and likely classifiable as
debris flood products are characterized by steeper dip inclinations
(30°–50° in Hendry, 1976; 60° in Jarrett and Costa, 1984; 47° in
Carling, 1987b), and even higher inclinations have been measured in
gravity flow deposits (e.g., 53°–72° in Kohlbeck et al., 1994). The data
collected in the current research agree with previously published results
(Fig. 11), suggesting that the dip angle inclination of imbricated clasts
tends to increase as movement transitions from water flows to debris
floods and debris flows. This sedimentological evidence can be ex-
plained in terms of the higher internal shear stress active in both debris
flows (Iverson, 2005) and sheet flows with “incipient granular mass
flow” of debris floods (Manville and White, 2003) in comparison with
that occurring in normal water flows. The higher shearing, in addition
to pressure shadows, folds, laminations and faults (Massari, 1984;
Nemec, 1990; Phillips, 2006), induces a more pronounced overlap,
overthrust, and tilting of elongated clasts, resulting in higher δ angles
of debris flow and debris flood deposits. A systematic measurement of
the imbrication angle in sediments of different flow types can be ad-
dressed in future studies to confirm our preliminary results. In case of
confirmation, the inclination of imbricated clasts could be included
Fig. 11. Summary of the dip angle inclinations of imbricated clasts and OMLOI values
determined at 30 survey and sampling sites. The definitions of flow types (WF: water
flow, in blue; DFD: debris flood, in green; DFW: debris flow, in red) responsible for the
sedimentation of deposits analyzed at each site derived from field evidence are provided
in Table 3. The dimension of each point represents the degree of imbrication at the
survey site (weak, moderate, or strong). The dip angle inclinations of imbricated clasts
reported in previous works are plotted as boxes, colored depending on type of deposit
(blue for water flow sediments, green for debris flood sediments, and red for debris flow
sediments) and presented on the left side of the fig. (H: Hendry, 1976; B: Blacknell,
1981; R: Rust, 1984; J: Jarrett and Costa, 1984; C: Carling, 1987; K: Kohlbeck et al., 1994).
 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
among the parameters for distinguishing transport mechanisms on the
basis of the sedimentology of deposits.
The OMLOI of water flow sediments (mean OMLOI of 2.77%) was
slightly lower than the OMLOI measured in debris flood (mean OMLOI of
3.95%) and debris flow (mean OMLOI of 3.98%) deposits (Fig. 10).
The data suggested a relationship between OMLOI and flow type, but the
differences were not statistically significant. The concentration of vegeta-
tion, or organic matter, in the fine fraction of sediments in deposits
left by sediment–gravity flows tend to be moderately higher than that
in the fine fraction of sediments in water–gravity flow deposits. These
phenomena can be attributed to the floatation properties of vegetation,
which, in the presence of free-flowing water occurring during normal
water flow conditions, remain suspended on the water surface instead
of settling and being trapped with inorganic components of transport
(Goodson et al., 2003; Gurnell, 2007). In debris flows, vegetation is incor-
porated within the sediment–water flux (cf. Burns and Gabet, 2015), with
dynamics that are similar to that of mineral particles. Vegetation is thus
accumulated with inorganic material. Nevertheless, the presence of
organic material in flows and, eventually, in their deposits, is first deter-
mined by the availability of vegetation within a channel, in source areas,
and along a flow path (Gurnell, 2007). The high variability of OMLOI in
the debris flood and debris flow deposits analyzed in this work is likely
due to the availability of vegetation involved in the flows. When the
concentration of vegetation particles was high, the debris flood and debris
flow deposits exhibited a high OMLOI, but under low vegetation concen-
trations in a flow, these deposits necessarily showed low OMLOI. For this
reason, the upper quartiles of the plots in Fig. 10 were better indicators
of distinction among flow types on the basis of the OMLOI of deposits.
Additional efforts are required to fully explore the relationship between
the organic content of fine sediments and flow type. Specific attention
should be paid to the availability of vegetation material in flux, taking
into account, for instance, vegetation cover in a source area and along a
flow path.
Taken together, the δ and OMLOI results (Fig. 11) led to the con-
clusion that most of the water flow deposits surveyed in this study
have homogeneous characteristics (i.e., low δ angle and low OMLOI;
blue circle in Fig. 11). A few water flow deposits had high OMLOI,
which is probably related to the local recruitment and forced sedi-
mentation of vegetation, but these deposits still had a low δ angle
(black circle in Fig. 11). A higher dispersion of δ and OM LOI data
was observed for debris flood and debris flow deposits (Fig. 11),
but we also recognized a central belt where the majority of debris
flood deposits fell and an upper field (red circle in Fig. 11) where
debris flow deposits were located.
Some aspects still require additional insight before routine use of the
above-mentioned parameters in flow type recognition: To what extent
do local catchment and channel vegetation characteristics influence
OMLOI values? How do clast shapes control imbrication angles? Is it
possible to identify thresholds of δ angles and OMLOI between different
flow deposits, and will these be usable in the evaluation of different
catchments and streams for flow recognition, or are they strictly site
specific? In this study, δ angle and OMLOI were used as additional data
for supporting the interpretation of flow types on the grounds of field
evidence, but the adoption of quantitatively measurable parameters
represents a promising approach to the increasingly robust recognition
and classification of flood deposits on the basis of their transport and
sedimentation mechanisms. These parameters can add valuable infor-
mation, particularly as regards debris floods, for which identification
based only on field evidence is problematic or ambiguous in some
cases. A wider acquisition of these data in sites where an independent
recognition of flow types is conducted (e.g., considering the field
evidence summarized in this work) will strengthen the preliminary re-
sults obtained in this research. Such an acquisition is also expected to
pave the way for testing the applicability of our findings. Finally, as
the field evidence discussed in the previous section, δ and OMLOI need
to be tested also in hyperconcentrated flow deposits to explore the
15
entire sequence of sediment transporting phenomena that can occur
in steep channels.
7. Conclusions
Minimal research has been devoted to the systematic recognition
of different flow type deposits in a mountain catchment after a flood.
We analyzed the Tegnas catchment (Dolomites, Northern Italy) after
the occurrence of a high-magnitude flood (i.e., Vaia Storm, October
2018) and used an extensive literature review as the basis in devel-
oping a post-event survey protocol intended for the recognition
and classification of flow types in accordance with the geomorpho-
logical and sedimentological features of deposits. Two quantitatively
measurable parameters—the inclination angle of imbricated clasts
and the organic matter content of deposits—were identified as
promising indicators of flow types.
The use of a comprehensive survey protocol that encompasses the
most important geomorphological and sedimentological evidence
enables the discrimination of various flow types as well as a more accu-
rate description and interpretation of deposits and related transport/de-
positional processes (i.e., water flow, debris flood, and debris flow). The
proposed approach turned out to be crucial for the recognition of debris
floods, which are commonly less known than water and debris flows
(Church and Jakob, 2020). The lack of hyperconcentrated flow deposits
among the sedimentary products studied in this work prevents to fully
explore the effectiveness of our protocol in distinguishing this type of
process, which completes the sequence of sediment—water flows that
can occur in mountain channels.
The survey protocol and interpretation criteria are summarized in a
field survey form (Fig. 5), which is a tool for post-event deposit surveys
that requires expertise in fluvial geomorphology and clastic sedimentol-
ogy. Since any operator bias in the identification of the field evidence
could affect the retrospectively classification of flows, we provided
several quantitative indications and operative examples of features
description to minimize the potential bias. The criteria selected in this
work are applicable to explorations of mountain streams, where
water–sediment transport can occur as different flow types during ordi-
nary, high-magnitude, and extreme hydrological events (Bodoque et al.,
2015). The survey of deposition is more effective when performed right
after an event because the original characteristics of sediments can be
obliterated by succeeding water–sediment mobilizations, vegetation
colonization, and human interventions.
The adoption of the survey protocol put forward in this work is
expected to improve our capability to recognize flow types in mountain
catchments as it clears the way for the improved comprehension of
mountain stream dynamics and related hazards. The main outcomes
of this study are as follows:
(1) Several distinctive features characterized water and debris flows
deposits. The field recognition of debris floods is more challenging
given that their deposits often exhibited evidence similar to those
left by water and debris flows. For this reason, crucial to a reliable
and appropriate recognition of flow type is a comprehensive
survey of the geomorphological and sedimentological characteris-
tics of deposits. This approach prevents the overestimation or
underestimation of the importance of a single observed evidence.
(2) The data showed that the inclination of the imbricated clasts
tended to significantly increase as a transition occurred from
water flow deposition to debris flood and debris flow deposi-
tion. Because such an inclination is easily measurable in the
field, it represents a promising parameter for distinguishing
flows on the basis of the specific sedimentological features of
their deposits.
(3) Our data suggested that flow type can affect organic matter
content in the fine fraction of sediment. This hypothesis
should be further tested, but organic matter can represent an
16 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
additional measurable parameter for the distinction of flow
types on the grounds of deposit characteristics. It is also us-
able in combination with the inclination of imbricated clasts.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial in-
terests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funds from the University of Padova
(research fellowship “Sediment transport during extreme flood events”
and DOR funds). Rainfall data of Col di Prà station have been provided
by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Veneto Region (ARPAV).
The authors thank Fabio Cancel for field survey assistance and Davide
Tognin for collaborating in the organic material content analysis. We also
thank the Editor, Achim A. Beylich, and the editorial staff at Geomorphol-
ogy for supporting this invited paper. We are grateful to the reviewer
Michael Church, whose thorough comments on the classification of
flow types were fundamental for improving the manuscript, and to an
anonymous reviewer.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107413.
References
ARPAV – Centro Meteorologico di Teolo, 2018. Maltempo in Veneto: pioggia e vento
eccezionali. https://www.arpa.veneto.it/arpav/temi-ambientali/meteo/riferimenti/
documenti/documenti-meteo/Maltempo%20in%20Veneto%20x%20sito%20arpav.pdf.
Ashworth, P.J., Ferguson, R.I., 1989. Size-selective entrainment of bed load in gravel bed
streams. Water Resour. Res. 25 (4), 627–634. https://doi.org/10.1029/
WR025i004p00627.
Baker, V.R., 1994. Geomorphological understanding of floods. In: Morisawa, M. (Ed.), Geo-
morphology and Natural Hazards. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 139–156
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-82012-9.50014-1.
Benvenuti, M., Martini, I.P., 2002. Analysis of terrestrial hyperconcentrated flows and their
deposit. In: Martini, I.P., Baker, V.R., Garzón, G. (Eds.), Flood and Megaflood Processes
and Deposits: Recent and Ancient Examples. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 167–193
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304299.ch10.
Bertran, P., Texier, J.P., 1999. Facies and microfacies of slope deposits. Catena 35 (2–4),
99–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(98)00096-4.
Bertran, P., Hetu, B., Texier, J.P., Van Steijn, H., 1997. Fabric characteristics of subaerial
slope deposits. Sedimentology 44 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
3091.1997.tb00421.x.
Bertrand, M., Liébault, F., Piégay, H., 2013. Debris-flow susceptibility of upland catch-
ments. Nat. Hazards 67 (2), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0575-4.
Best, J., 2005. The fluid dynamics of river dunes: a review and some future research direc-
tions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 110 (F4), 1–21. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2004JF000218.
Beverage, J.P., Culbertson, J.K., 1964. Hyperconcentrations of suspended sediment.
J. Hydraul. Div. 90 (6), 117–128.
Blacknell, C., 1981. Sandy gravel accumulation in a fluvial environment. Geol. J. 16 (4),
287–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.3350160407.
Blair, T.C., 1999. Sedimentology of the debris-flow-dominated Warm Spring Canyon allu-
vial fan, Death Valley, California. Sedimentology 46 (5), 941–965. https://doi.org/
10.1046/j.1365-3091.1999.00260.x.
Blair, T.C., McPherson, J.G., 1994. Alluvial fans and their natural distinction from rivers
based on morphology, hydraulic processes, sedimentary processes, and facies assem-
blages. J. Sediment. Res. 64 (3a), 450–489. https://doi.org/10.1306/D4267DDE-2B26-
11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Blikra, L.H., Nemec, W., 1998. Postglacial colluvium in western Norway: depositional pro-
cesses, facies and palaeoclimatic record. Sedimentology 45 (5), 909–960. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1998.00200.x.
Bodoque, J.M., Eguibar, M.A., Díez-Herrero, A., Gutiérrez-Pérez, I., Ruíz-Villanueva, V.,
2011. Can the discharge of a hyperconcentrated flow be estimated from paleoflood
evidence? Water Resour. Res. 47 (12). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010380.
Bodoque, J.M., Díez-Herrero, A., Eguibar, M.A., Benito, G., Ruiz-Villanueva, V., Ballesteros-
Cánovas, J.A., 2015. Challenges in paleoflood hydrology applied to risk analysis in
mountainous watersheds–a review. J. Hydrol. 529, 449–467. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.12.004.
Borga, M., Gaume, E., Creutin, J.D., Marchi, L., 2008. Surveying flash floods: gauging the
ungauged extremes. Hydrol. Process. 22 (18), 3883. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7111.
Braam, R.R., Weiss, E.E.J., Burrough, P.A., 1987. Spatial and temporal analysis of mass
movement using dendrochronology. Catena 14 (6), 573–584. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0341-8162(87)90007-5.
Braud, I., Borga, M., Gourley, J., Hurlimann Ziegler, M., Zappa, M., Gallart, F., 2016. Flash
floods, hydro-geomorphic response and risk management. J. Hydrol. 541, 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.005.
Breien, H., De Blasio, F.V., Elverhøi, A., Høeg, K., 2008. Erosion and morphology of a debris
flow caused by a glacial lake outburst flood, Western Norway. Landslides 5 (3),
271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-008-0118-3.
Brierley, G.J., Fryirs, K.A., 2005. Geomorphology and River Management: Applications of
the River Styles Framework. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Bunte, K., Abt, S.R., 2001. Sampling surface and subsurface particle-size distributions in
wadable gravel - and cobble - bed streams for analyses in sediment transport, hy-
draulics, and streambed monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-74. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO
https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-74.
Burns, K., Gabet, E.J., 2015. The effective viscosity of slurries laden with vegetative ash.
Catena 135, 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.06.008.
Carling, P.A., 1987a. A terminal debris-flow lobe in the northern Pennines, United King-
dom. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edin-
burgh 78 (3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263593300011081.
Carling, P.A., 1987b. Hydrodynamic interpretation of a boulder berm and associated de-
bris-torrent deposits. Geomorphology 1 (1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-
555X(87)90006-7.
Carling, P.A., 1988. The concept of dominant discharge applied to two gravel-bed streams
in relation to channel stability thresholds. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 13 (4), 355–367.
https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290130407.
Carling, P.A., 1989. Hydrodynamic models of boulder berm deposition. Geomorphology 2
(4), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-555X(89)90018-4.
Catane, S.G., Cabria, H.B., Tomarong, C.P., Saturay, R.M., Zarco, M.A.H., Pioquinto, W.C.,
2007. Catastrophic rockslide-debris avalanche at St. Bernard, southern Leyte. Philip-
pines. Landslides 4 (1), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-006-0050-3.
Cavaleri, L., Bajo, M., Barbariol, F., Bastianini, M., Benetazzo, A., Bertotti, L., Papa, A., 2019.
The October 29, 2018 storm in Northern Italy–an exceptional event and its modeling.
Prog. Oceanogr. 178, 102178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2019.102178.
Cenderelli, D.A., Kite, J.S., 1998. Geomorphic effects of large debris flows on channel mor-
phology at North Fork Mountain, eastern West Virginia, USA. Earth Surf. Process.
Landf. 23 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199801)23:1<1::AID-
ESP814>3.0.CO;2-3.
Church, M., 2006. Bed material transport and the morphology of alluvial river channels.
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 34, 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
earth.33.092203.122721.
Church, M., 2013. Steep headwater channels. In: Shroder, J.F. (Ed.), Treatise on
Geomorphology. vol. 9. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 528–549. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374739-6.00253-0.
Church, M., Jakob, M., 2020. What is a debris flood? Water Resources Research https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020WR027144 accepted article.
Church, M.A., McLean, D.G., Wolcott, J.F., 1987. River bed gravels: sampling and analysis.
In C.R. Thorne, J.C. Bathurst, R.D. Hey (Eds.), Sediment Transport in Gravel-bed Rivers
(pp. 43-87). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Collinson, J.D., 1996. Alluvial sediments. In: Reading, H.G. (Ed.), Sedimentary Environ-
ments: Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 37–81.
Collinson, J.D., Thompson, D.B., 1982. Sedimentary Structures. (208 pp.). Allen & Unwin, St
Leonards, Australia.
Costa, J.E., 1984. Physical geomorphology of debris flows. In: Costa, J.E., Fleisher, P.J. (Eds.),
Developments and Applications of Geomorphology. Springer, Berlin, Germany,
pp. 268–317 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69759-3_9.
Costa, J.E., 1988. Rheologic, geomorphic and sedimentologic differentiation of water
floods, hyperconcentrated flows and debris flows. In: Baker, V.R., Kochel, R.C.,
Patton, P.C. (Eds.), Flood Geomorphology. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 113–122.
Costa, J.E., Jarrett, R.D., 1981. Debris flows in small mountain stream channels of Colorado
and their hydrologic implications. Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 18 (3), 309–322. https://doi.
org/10.2113/gseegeosci.xviii.3.309.
Coussot, P., Meunier, M., 1996. Recognition, classification and mechanical description of
debris flows. Earth Sci. Rev. 40 (3–4), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-8252
(95)00065-8.
Coussot, P., Piau, J.M., 1994. On the behavior of fine mud suspensions. Rheol. Acta 33 (3),
175–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00437302.
Cronin, S. J., Neall, V. E., Lecointre, J. A., Palmer, A. S., 1999. Dynamic interactions between
lahars and stream flow: a case study from Ruapehu volcano, New Zealand. Geol. Soc.
Am. Bull., 111(1), 28-38. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1999)111<0028:DIBLAS>2.3.CO;2.
Cronin, S.J., Lecointre, J.A., Palmer, A.S., Neall, V.E., 2000. Transformation, internal stratifica-
tion, and depositional processes within a channelised, multi-peaked lahar flow. N. Z.
J. Geol. Geophys. 43 (1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2000.9514874.
Crosta, G.B., Frattini, P., 2004. Controls on modern alluvial fan processes in the central
Alps, northern Italy. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 29 (3), 267–293. https://doi.org/
10.1002/esp.1009.
Curry, R.R., 1966. Observation of alpine mudflows in the Tenmile Range, Central Colorado.
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 77 (7), 771–776. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1966)77
[771:OOAMIT]2.0.CO;2.
De Haas, T., Braat, L., Leuven, J.R., Lokhorst, I.R., Kleinhans, M.G., 2015. Effects of debris
flow composition on runout, depositional mechanisms, and deposit morphology in
laboratory experiments. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 120 (9),
1949–1972. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003525.
 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
Dinehart, R.L., 1999. Sediment transport in the hyperconcentrated phase of the March 19,
1982, lahar. In: Pierson, T.C. (Ed.), Hydrologic Consequences of Hot-rock/Snowpack
Interactions at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Washington, 1982-84, USGS Professional
Paper 1586. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, pp. 37–52.
Ferencevic, M.V., Ashmore, P., 2012. Creating and evaluating digital elevation model-
based stream-power map as a stream assessment tool. River Res. Appl. 28 (9),
1394–1416. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1523.
Ferguson, R.I., Werritty, A., 1983. Bar development and channel changes in the gravelly River
Feshie, Scotland. In: Collinson, J.D., Lewin, J. (Eds.), Modern and Ancient Fluvial Systems.
John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 181–193 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444303773.ch14.
Gallino, G.L., Pierson, T.C., 1985. Polallie Creek Debris Flow and Subsequent Dam-break
Flood of 1980, East Fork Hood River Basin, Oregon. Vol. 2273. US Geological Survey
(22 pp.).
Gao, P., 2008. Transition between two bed-load transport regimes: Saltation and sheet
flow. J. Hydraul. Eng. 134 (3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(2008)134:3(340).
Giordano, D., 2011. Valle di San Lucano: aspetti geomorfologici. In: Aldighieri, D., Testa, B.
(Eds.), Atti del convegno: L’armonia fra uomo e natura nelle Valli Dolomitiche. Aracne
Editrice, Roma, Italy, pp. 49–82.
Glasser, N.F., Harrison, S., Jansson, K.N., 2009. Topographic controls on glacier sediment–
landform associations around the temperate North Patagonian Icefield. Quat. Sci. Rev.
28 (25–26), 2817–2832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.07.011.
Goodson, J.M., Gurnell, A.M., Angold, P.G., Morrissey, I.P., 2003. Evidence for hydrochory
and the deposition of viable seeds within winter flow-deposited sediments: the
River Dove, Derbyshire, UK. River Res. Appl. 19 (4), 317–334. https://doi.org/
10.1002/rra.707.
Gurnell, A.M., 2007. Analogies between mineral sediment and vegetative particle dynam-
ics in fluvial systems. Geomorphology 89 (1–2), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2006.07.012.
Gurnell, A.M., Piégay, H., Swanson, F.J., Gregory, S.V., 2002. Large wood and fluvial processes.
Freshw. Biol. 47 (4), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00916.x.
Hampton, M.A., 1972. The role of subaqueous debris flow in generating turbidity currents.
J. Sediment. Res. 42 (4).
Hapuarachchi, H.A.P., Wang, Q.J., Pagano, T.C., 2011. A review of advances in flash flood
forecasting. Hydrol. Process. 25 (18), 2771–2784. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8040.
Hendry, H.E., 1976. The orientation of discoidal clasts in resedimented conglomerates,
Cambro-Ordovician, Gaspé, eastern Quebec. J. Sediment. Res. 46 (1), 48–55. https://
doi.org/10.1306/212F6EB5-2B24-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Hicks, D.M., Gomez, B., 2016. Sediment transport. In: Kondolf, G.M., Piégay, H. (Eds.),
Tools in Fluvial Geomorphology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 324–356
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118648551.ch15.
Hooke, R.L., 1967. Processes on arid-region alluvial fans. The Journal of Geology 75 (4),
438–460. https://doi.org/10.1086/627271.
Hsu, K.J., 1975. Catastrophic debris streams (sturzstroms) generated by rockfalls. Geol.
Soc. Am. Bull. 86 (1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1975)86<129:
CDSSGB>2.0.CO;2.
Hubert, J.F., Filipov, A.J., 1989. Debris-flow deposits in alluvial fans on the west flank of the
White Mountains, Owens Valley, California, USA. Sediment. Geol. 61 (3–4), 177–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738(89)90057-2.
Huddart, D., 1994. Rock-type controls on downstream changes in clast parameters in
Sandur systems in southeast Iceland. J. Sediment. Res. 64 (2a), 215–225. https://doi.
org/10.1306/D4267D61-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Hungr, O., 2000. Analysis of debris flow surges using the theory of uniformly progressive
flow. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms: The Journal of the British Geomorpho-
logical Research Group 25 (5), 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837
(200005)25:5<483::AID-ESP76>3.0.CO;2-Z.
Hungr, O., 2005. Classification and terminology. In: Jakob, M., Hungr, O. (Eds.), Debris-
flow Hazards and Related Phenomena. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 9–24 https://
doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27129-5_2.
Hungr, O., Evans, S.G., Hutchinson, I.N., 2001. A review of the classification of landslides of
the flow type. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience 7 (3), 221–238. https://doi.
org/10.2113/gseegeosci.7.3.221.
Hungr, O., Leroueil, S., Picarelli, L., 2014. The Varnes classification of landslide types, an
update. Landslides 11 (2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0436-y.
Iverson, R.M., 1997. Hydraulic modeling of unsteady debris-flow surges with solid-fluid
interactions. In: Chen, C-l. (Ed.), Proceedings, First International Conference on De-
bris-flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment. Hydraulics Di-
vision, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 550–560.
Iverson, R.M., 2003. The debris-flow rheology myth. In: Rickenmann, D., Chen, C-l. (Eds.),
Debris-flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment. IOS Press,
Amsterdam, Nederland, pp. 303–314.
Iverson, R.M., 2005. Debris-flow mechanics. In: Jakob, M., Hungr, O. (Eds.), Debris-Flow Haz-
ards and Related Phenomena. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 105–134 https://doi.org/
10.1007/3-540-27129-5_6.
Jarrett, R.D., Costa, J.E., 1984. Hydrology, Geomorphology, and Dam-break Modeling of the
July 15, 1982, Lawn Lake Dam and Cascade Lake Dam failures, Larimer County, Colo-
rado (No. 84-612). US Geological Survey.
Karátson, D., Sztanó, O., Telbisz, T., 2002. Preferred clast orientation in volcaniclastic mass-
flow deposits: application of a new photo-statistical method. J. Sediment. Res. 72 (6),
823–835. https://doi.org/10.1306/040402720823.
Kataoka, K., Nakajo, T., 2004. Flow transformation and depositional organization of debris
flow-hyperconcentrated flow-streamflow spectrum in volcanic fan-delta setting.
Journal of the Sedimentological Society of Japan 59 (59), 17–26. https://doi.org/
10.4096/jssj1995.59.17.
Kennedy, J.F., 1969. The formation of sediment ripples, dunes, and antidunes. Annu. Rev.
Fluid Mech. 1 (1), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fl.01.010169.001051.
17
Kim, B.C., Lowe, D.R., 2004. Depositional processes of the gravelly debris flow deposits,
South Dolomite alluvial fan, Owens Valley, California. Geosci. J. 8 (2), 153. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF02910191.
Kohlbeck, F., Mojica, J., Scheidegger, A.E., 1994. Clast orientations of the 1985 lahars of the
Nevado del Ruiz, Colombia and implications for depositional processes. Sediment.
Geol. 88 (3–4), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738(94)90059-0.
Krapesch, G., Hauer, C., Habersack, H., 2011. Scale orientated analysis of river width
changes due to extreme flood hazards. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (8), 2137.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-2137-2011.
Kuhnle, R.A., 2013. Suspended load. In: Shroder, J.F. (Ed.), Treatise on Geomorphology.
vol. 9. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-374739-6.00234-7.
Lavigne, F., Suwa, H., 2004. Contrasts between debris flows, hyperconcentrated flows and
stream flows at a channel of Mount Semeru, East Java, Indonesia. Geomorphology 61
(1-2), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2003.11.005.
Lavigne, F., Thouret, J.C., 2002. Sediment transportation and deposition by rain-triggered
lahars at Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. Geomorphology 49 (1–2), 45–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(02)00160-5.
Lawson, D.E., 1982. Mobilization, movement and deposition of active subaerial sediment
flows, Matanuska Glacier, Alaska. The Journal of Geology 90 (3), 279–300. https://doi.
org/10.1086/628680.
Li, W., Qi, P., Sun, Z., 1997. Deformation of river bed and the characteristics of sediment
transport during hyper-concentrated flood in the Yellow River. International Journal
of Sediment Research 12 (3), 72–79.
Lowe, D.R., 1976. Grain flow and grain flow deposits. J. Sediment. Res. 46 (1), 188–199.
https://doi.org/10.1306/212F6EF1-2B24-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Lucianetti, G., Mastrorillo, L., Mazza, R., 2016. Preliminary conceptual model of an Alpine
carbonate aquifer (Pale di San Martino, Dolomites, Italy). Acque Sotterranee-Italian
Journal of Groundwater, 27–36 https://doi.org/10.7343/as-2016-199 AS17-199.
Luckman, B.H., 1992. Debris flows and snow avalanche landforms in the Lairig Ghru,
Cairngorm Mountains, Scotland. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
74 (2–3), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353676.1992.11880355.
Major, J.J., 1998. Pebble orientation on large, experimental debris-flow deposits. Sedi-
ment. Geol. 117 (3–4), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0037-0738(98)00014-1.
Manville, V., White, J.D.L., 2003. Incipient granular mass flows at the base of sediment-
laden floods, and the roles of flow competence and flow capacity in the deposition
of stratified bouldery sands. Sediment. Geol. 155 (1–2), 157–173. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0037-0738(02)00294-4.
Massari, F., 1984. Resedimented conglomerates of a Miocene fan-delta complex, Southern
Alps, Italy. In: Koster, E.H., Steel, R.J. (Eds.), Sedimentology of Gravels and Conglomer-
ates. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Calgary, Canada, pp. 259–278.
Masson, D.G., Huggett, Q.J., Brunsden, D., 1993. The surface texture of the Saharan debris
flow deposit and some speculations on submarine debris flow processes. Sedimentol-
ogy 40 (3), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.1993.tb01351.x.
Mather, A.E., Hartley, A., 2005. Flow events on a hyper-arid alluvial fan: Quebrada
Tambores, Salar de Atacama, northern Chile. Geol. Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ. 251 (1),
9–24. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2005.251.01.02.
Merritt, D.M., Wohl, E.E., 2002. Processes governing hydrochory along rivers: hydraulics,
hydrology, and dispersal phenology. Ecol. Appl. 12 (4), 1071–1087. https://doi.org/
10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1071:PGHARH]2.0.CO;2.
Meyer, G.A., Wells, S.G., 1997. Fire-related sedimentation events on alluvial fans, Yellow-
stone National Park, USA. J. Sediment. Res. 67 (5), 776–791. https://doi.org/10.1306/
D426863A-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Montgomery, D.R., Buffington, J.M., 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drain-
age basins. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 109 (5), 596–611. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606
(1997)109<0596:CRMIMD>2.3.CO;2.
Moscariello A., Marchi, L., Maraga, F., Mortara, G., 2002. Alluvial fans in the Italian Alps:
sedimentary facies and processes. In I. P. Martini, V. R. Baker, G. Garzón (Eds.),
Flood and Megaflood Processes and Deposits: Recent and Ancient Examples, Black-
well Science, Oxford (UK), (pp. 141-166). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781444304299.ch9.
Nagl, G., Hübl, J., Kaitna, R., 2020. Velocity profiles and basal stresses in natural debris
flows. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 45 (8), 1764–1776. https://doi.org/10.1002/
esp.4844.
Nemec, W., 1990. Aspects of Sediment Movement on Steep Delta Slopes. In: Colella, A.,
Prior, D.B. (Eds.), Coarse-Grained Deltas. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 29–73
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444303858.ch3.
Nemec, W., Steel, R.J., 1984. Alluvial and coastal conglomerates: their significant features
and some comments on gravelly mass-flow deposits. In: Koster, E.H., Steel, R.J. (Eds.),
Sedimentology of Gravels and Conglomerates. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geolo-
gists, Calgary, Canada, pp. 1–31.
Nieuwenhuijzen, M.E., Van Steijn, H., 1990. Alpine debris flows and their sedimentary
properties. A case study from the French Alps. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 1 (2),
111–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.3430010204.
Palucis, M.C., Ulizio, T., Fuller, B., Lamb, M.P., 2018. Intense granular sheetflow in steep
streams. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45 (11), 5509–5517. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018GL077526.
Pflüger, F., Seilacher, A., 1991. Flash flood conglomerates. In: Einsele, G., Ricken, W.,
Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Cycles and Events in Stratigraphy. Springer, Berlin, Germany,
pp. 383–391.
Phillips, E., 2006. Micromorphology of a debris flow deposit: evidence of basal shearing,
hydrofracturing, liquefaction and rotational deformation during emplacement.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 25 (7–8), 720–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.07.004.
Pierson, T.C., 2005a. Hyperconcentrated flow—transitional process between water flow and
debris flow. In: Jakob, M., Hungr, O. (Eds.), Debris-flow Hazards and Related Phenom-
ena. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 159–202 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27129-5_8.
18 A. Brenna et al. / Geomorphology 371 (2020) 107413
Pierson, T.C., 2005b. Distinguishing Between Debris Flows and Floods From Field Evidence
in Small Watersheds (No. 2004-3142). US Geological Survey.
Pierson, T.C., Costa, J.E., 1987. A rheologic classification of subaerial sediment-water flows.
In: Costa, J.E., Wieczorek, G.F. (Eds.), Debris Flows/Avalanches: Process, Recognition,
and Mitigation. Reviews in Engineering Geology. Vol. 7. The Geological Society of
America, Boulder, CO, pp. 1–12.
Pierson, T.C., Major, J.J., 2014. Hydrogeomorphic effects of explosive volcanic eruptions on
drainage basins. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 42, 469–507. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-earth-060313-054913.
Pierson, T.C., Scott, K.M., 1985. Downstream dilution of a lahar: transition from debris
flow to hyperconcentrated streamflow. Water Resour. Res. 21 (10), 1511–1524.
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR021i010p01511.
Pizzuto, J.E., 1987. Sediment diffusion during overbank flows. Sedimentology 34 (2),
301–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.1987.tb00779.x.
Postma, G., 1986. Classification for sediment gravity-flow deposits based on flow condi-
tions during sedimentation. Geology 14 (4), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1130/
0091-7613(1986)14<291:CFSGDB>2.0.CO;2.
Powell, D.M., 1998. Patterns and processes of sediment sorting in gravel-bed rivers. Prog.
Phys. Geogr. 22 (1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339802200101.
Remaître, A., Malet, J.P., Maquaire, O., 2005. Morphology and sedimentology of a complex
debris flow in a clay-shale basin. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 30 (3), 339–348. https://
doi.org/10.1002/esp.1161.
Rhoads, B.L., Sukhodolov, A.N., 2008. Lateral momentum flux and the spatial evolution of
flow within a confluence mixing interface. Water Resour. Res. 44 (8). https://doi.org/
10.1029/2007WR006634.
Rickenmann, D., 1991. Hyperconcentrated flow and sediment transport at steep slopes.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 117 (11), 1419–1439. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(1991)117:11(1419).
Rickenmann, D., Koschni, A., 2010. Sediment loads due to fluvial transport and debris
flows during the 2005 flood events in Switzerland. Hydrological Processes: An Inter-
national Journal 24 (8), 993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7536.
Righini, M., Surian, N., Wohl, E., Marchi, L., Comiti, F., Amponsah, W., Borga, M., 2017. Geo-
morphic response to an extreme flood in two Mediterranean rivers (northeastern
Sardinia, Italy): Analysis of controlling factors. Geomorphology 290, 184–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.04.014.
Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., Comiti, F., Bussettini, M., 2013. A method for the assessment and
analysis of the hydromorphological condition of Italian streams: the Morphological
Quality Index (MQI). Geomorphology 180, 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2012.09.009.
Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., Comiti, F., Bussettini, M., 2015. A methodological framework for
hydromorphological assessment, analysis and monitoring (IDRAIM) aimed at pro-
moting integrated river management. Geomorphology 251, 122–136. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.05.010.
Rinaldi, M., Amponsah, W., Benvenuti, M., Borga, M., Comiti, F., Lucía, A., Marchi, L., Nardi,
L., Righini, M., Surian, N., 2016. An integrated approach for investigating geomorphic
response to extreme events: methodological framework and application to the Octo-
ber 2011 flood in the Magra River catchment, Italy. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 41 (6),
835–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3902.
Ruiz-Villanueva, V., Díez-Herrero, A., Stoffel, M., Bollschweiler, M., Bodoque, J.M.,
Ballesteros, J.A., 2010. Dendrogeomorphic analysis of flash floods in a small ungauged
mountain catchment (Central Spain). Geomorphology 118 (3–4), 383–392. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.02.006.
Rust, B.R., 1972. Pebble orientation in fluvial sediments. J. Sediment. Res. 42 (2).
Rust, B.R., 1984. Proximal braidplain deposits in the Middle Devonian Malbaie Formation
of Eastern Gaspé, Quebec, Canada. Sedimentology 31 (5), 675–695. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-3091.1984.tb01230.x.
Scheidl, C., Rickenmann, D., 2010. Empirical prediction of debris-flow mobility and deposi-
tion on fans. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 35 (2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/
esp.1897.
Schlunegger, F., Garefalakis, P.E., 2018. Clast imbrication in coarse-grained mountain streams
and stratigraphic archives as indicator of deposition in upper flow regime conditions.
Earth Surface Dynamics 6 (3), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-743-2018.
Schulte, E.E., Hopkins, B.G., 1996. Estimation of soil organic matter by weight loss-on-ig-
nition. Soil organic matter: Analysis and interpretation 46, 21–31. https://doi.org/
10.2136/sssaspecpub46.c3.
Sklar, L.S., Riebe, C.S., Genetti, J., Leclere, S., Lukens, C.E., 2020. Downvalley fining of hill-
slope sediment in an alpine catchment: implications for downstream fining of sedi-
ment flux in mountain rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms https://doi.
org/10.1002/esp.4849 accepted article.
Sletten, K., Blikra, L.H., 2007. Holocene colluvial (debris-flow and water-flow) processes
in eastern Norway: stratigraphy, chronology and palaeoenvironmental implications.
Journal of Quaternary Science: Published for the Quaternary Research Association
22 (6), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1086.
Smith, G.A., 1986. Coarse-grained nonmarine volcaniclastic sediment: Terminology and
depositional process. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 97 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1130/
0016-7606(1986)97<1:CNVSTA>2.0.CO;2.
Smith, G.A., Lowe, D.R., 1991. Lahars: volcano hydrologic-events and deposition in the de-
bris flow—hyperconcentrated flow continuum. In: Fisher, R.V., Smith, G.A. (Eds.), Sed-
imentation in Volcanic Settings. Broken Arrow, OK, Society for Sedimentary Geology.
Sohn, Y.K., 2000. Coarse-grained debris-flow deposits in the Miocene fan deltas, SE Korea:
a scaling analysis. Sediment. Geol. 130 (1–2), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0037-
0738(99)00099-8.
Sohn, Y.K., Rhee, C.W., Kim, B.C., 1999. Debris flow and hyperconcentrated flood-flow de-
posits in an alluvial fan, northwestern part of the Cretaceous Yongdong Basin, Central
Korea. The Journal of Geology 107 (1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1086/314334.
Staley, D.M., Wasklewicz, T.A., Blaszczynski, J.S., 2006. Surficial patterns of debris flow depo-
sition on alluvial fans in Death Valley, CA using airborne laser swath mapping data. Geo-
morphology 74 (1–4), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.07.014.
Starkel, L., 1972. The role of catastrophic rainfall in the shaping of the relief of the lower
Himalaya (Darjeeling Hills). Geogr. Pol. 21, 103–147.
Stoffel, M., Lièvre, I., Conus, D., Grichting, M.A., Raetzo, H., Gärtner, H.W., Monbaron, M.,
2005. 400 years of debris-flow activity and triggering weather conditions: Ritigraben,
Valais, Switzerland. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 37 (3), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1657/
1523-0430(2005)037[0387:YODAAT]2.0.CO;2.
Sutherland, R.A., 1998. Loss-on-ignition estimates of organic matter and relationships to or-
ganic carbon in fluvial bed sediments. Hydrobiologia 389 (1–3), 153–167. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1003570219018.
Swanson, F.J., 2003. Wood in rivers: a landscape perspective. In: Gregory, S.V., Boyer, K.L.,
Gurnell, A.M. (Eds.), The Ecology and Management of Wood in World Rivers. Sympo-
sium. vol. 37. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 299–313.
Testa, B., Aldighieri, B., 2011. Geomorfologia fluviale in Valle San Lucano: il progetto
Tegnas. In: Aldighieri, D., Testa, B. (Eds.), Atti del Convegno: L’armonia Fra Uomo e
Natura Nelle Valli Dolomitiche. Aracne Editrice, Roma, Italy, pp. 49–82.
Testa, B., Aldighieri, B., Bertini, A., Blendinger, W., Caielli, G., de Franco, R., Giordano, D.,
Kustatscher, E., 2013. Geomorphodiversity of the San Lucano Valley (Belluno Dolomites,
Italy): a Well-Preserved Heritage. Geoheritage 5 (3), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12371-013-0079-3.
Theule, J.I., Liébault, F., Laigle, D., Loye, A., Jaboyedoff, M., 2015. Channel scour and fill by
debris flows and bedload transport. Geomorphology 243, 92–105. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.05.003.
VanDine, D.F., 1985. Debris flows and debris torrents in the southern Canadian Cordillera.
Can. Geotech. J. 22 (1), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1139/t85-006.
Waananen, A.O., Harris, D.D., Williams, R.C., 1970. Floods of December 1964 and January
1965 in the Far Western States: Part 2. Streamflow and Sediment Data (861 pp.).
Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA: US.
Waldron, H.H., 1967. Debris flow and erosion control problems caused by the ash erup-
tions of Irazu Volcano, Costa Rica. US Geol. Surv. Bull. 1241, 1–37.
Wang, Z., Ta, W., 2016. Hyper-concentrated flow response to aeolian and fluvial interac-
tions from a desert watershed upstream of the Yellow River. Catena 147, 258–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.07.033.
Wang, Q., Li, Y., Wang, Y., 2011. Optimizing the weight loss-on-ignition methodology to
quantify organic and carbonate carbon of sediments from diverse sources. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 174 (1–4), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1454-z.
Wells, N.A., 1984. Sheet debris flow and sheetflood conglomerates in Cretaceous cool-
maritime alluvial fans, South Orkney Islands, Antarctica. In: Koster, E.H., Steel, R.J.
(Eds.), Sedimentology of Gravels and Conglomerates. Canadian Society of Petroleum
Geologists, Calgary, Canada, pp. 133–145.
Wells, S.G., Harvey, A.M., 1987. Sedimentologic and geomorphic variations in storm-gen-
erated alluvial fans, Howgill Fells, northwest England. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 98 (2),
182–198. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1987)98<182:SAGVIS>2.0.CO;2.
Wilcock, P.R., McArdell, B.W., 1993. Surface-based fractional transport rates: Mobilization
thresholds and partial transport of a sand-gravel sediment. Water Resour. Res. 29 (4),
1297–1312. https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR02748.
Wilford, D.J., Sakals, M.E., Innes, J.L., Sidle, R.C., Bergerud, W.A., 2004. Recognition of debris
flow, debris flood and flood hazard through watershed morphometrics. Landslides 1
(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-003-0002-0.
Wohl, E.E., Anthony, D.J., Madsen, S.W., Thompson, D.M., 1996. A comparison of surface
sampling methods for coarse fluvial sediments. Water Resour. Res. 32 (10),
3219–3226. https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR01527.
Wohl, E., Kramer, N., Ruiz-Villanueva, V., Scott, D.N., Comiti, F., Gurnell, A.M., ... Fausch, K.D.,
2019. The natural wood regime in rivers. BioScience 69 (4), 259–273. https://doi.org/
10.1093/biosci/biz013.
Wolman, M.G., 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. EOS, Transactions
American Geophysical Union 35 (6), 951–956. https://doi.org/10.1029/
TR035i006p00951.
Xu, J., 2002. Implication of relationships among suspended sediment size, water discharge
and suspended sediment concentration: the Yellow River basin, China. Catena 49 (4),
289–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00064-4.
Xu, J., 2003. Hyperconcentrated flows in the lower Yellow River as influenced by drainage
basin factors. Z. Geomorphol. 47 (3), 393–410.
Yager, E.M., Schott, H.E., 2013. The initiation of sediment motion and formation of armor
layers. In: Shroder, J.F. (Ed.), Treatise on Geomorphology. vol. 9. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, pp. 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374739-6.00232-3.
Zaramella, M., Marchi, L., Cazorzi, F., Crema, S., Cavalli, M., Borga, M., 2019. Extreme rain-
fall and flooding from the Vaia storm of October 27–30, 2018 on North-Eastern Italy.
In: Pirastru, M., Giadrossich, F. (Eds.), Atti del Convegno: Processi Idrologici ed Erosivi
nei Sistemi Agrari ed Ambientali. PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy, pp. 37–40.