The Effect of Riparian Tree Roots On The Mass-Stability of Riverbanks

THE EFFECT OF RIPARIAN TREE ROOTS ON THE MASS-STABILITY
OF RIVERBANKS
BRUCE ABERNETHY* AND IAN D. RUTHERFURD
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, The University of
Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Received 22 July 1999; Revised 25 November 1999; Accepted 3 December 1999
ABSTRACT
Plants interact with and modify the processes of riverbank erosion by altering bank hydrology, flow hydraulics and bank
geotechnical properties. The physically based slope stability model GWEDGEM was used to assess how changes in bank
geotechnical properties due to the roots of native Australian riparian trees affected the stability of bank sections surveyed
along the Latrobe River. Modelling bank stability against mass failure with and without the reinforcing effects of River Red
Gum(Eucalyptus camaldulensis) or Swamp Paperbark (Melaleuca ericifolia) indicates that root reinforcement of the bank
substrateprovides highlevels of bankprotection. Themodel indicates that theadditionof root reinforcement toanotherwise
unstable banksectioncanraise the factor of safety(F
s
) fromF
s
= 10uptoabout F
s
= 16. The additionof roots toriverbanks
improves stability even under worst-case hydrological conditions and is apparent over a range of bank geometries, varying
withtreeposition. Trees growingclosetopotential failureplanelocations, either lowonthebankor onthefloodplain, realize
the greatest bank reinforcement. Copyright #2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: riparian vegetation; root reinforcement; bank erosion; bank stability; mass failure
INTRODUCTION
There is wide agreement that riparian plants influence the stability of riverbanks (e.g. Hickin, 1984; Thorne,
1990; Abernethy and Rutherfurd, 1998), yet discussion of the role of vegetation in the physical processes of
bank erosion has largely remained general and speculative (but see Shields and Gray, 1992; Hubble and Hull,
1996; Abam, 1997). In large part, the difficulty of including vegetation in analyses of riverbank erosion lies in
the modifications to bank hydrology, flow hydraulics and bank geotechnical properties that the plants
introduce. As Thorne and Osman (1988) argue, these modifications are difficult to predict and are, therefore,
hard to incorporate into bank stability analyses. That the effects of vegetation change with season and plant
life cycle further complicates the matter.
Empirical studies have demonstrated clearly that alluvial channels supporting well-developed riparian
vegetation are deeper, narrower and migrate more slowly than their cleared counterparts (Andrews, 1984;
Hickin, 1984; Hey and Thorne, 1986). However, the utility of applying these results to other rivers is limited.
Predicting the influence of vegetation on channel change requires an understanding of both the underlying
mechanisms of bank failure and the pertinent mechanical features of plants. In this paper, we develop a model
of the influence of vegetation on the mass stability of riverbanks formed in cohesive material typical of
lowland floodplain reaches.
The shape and size of mass failures in cohesive riverbanks are controlled by the geometry of the bank
section, the geotechnical and hydrological properties of the bank material and the type and density of
vegetation. Although data are lacking to characterize all aspects of plant behaviour in respect of bank erosion,
root reinforcement of bank sediments is arguably the most important way that vegetation enhances mass
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 25, 921937 (2000)
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
* Correspondence to: Dr B. Abernethy, Sinclair Knight Merz, PO Box 2500, Malvern Victoria 3144, Australia. E-mail:
babernethy@skm.com.au
Contract/grant sponsor: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation
stability. However, inability to account adequately for the magnitude and distribution of root reinforcement
remains a major limitation of riverbank stability analyses. This restrains their physical basis and predictive
capacity.
Research into the role of vegetation in landslides and other slope stability problems has demonstrated that
even low root densities can provide substantial increases in shear strength compared to non-root-permeated
soils (Wu et al., 1979; Waldron and Dakessian, 1981; Ziemer, 1981; Gray and Leiser, 1982; Greenway, 1987;
Riestenberg, 1994; Schiechtl and Stern, 1996). However, riverbank failure mechanisms are quite different to
those found on hillslopes; riverbanks tend to be steeper and shorter, with a more varied profile. Assumptions
underpinning hillslope stability analyses are not often met by typical riverbank failure mechanisms. The
position of trees and their root distribution throughout the bank profile strongly influence riverbank failures
because of the relatively small size of the failure blocks. Unlike large-scale hillslope stability analyses, it is
inappropriate to apply an average value of root reinforcement throughout a riverbank profile when assessing
bank stability.
Abernethy and Rutherfurd (in press) explored the distribution and strength of the roots of Swamp
Paperbark (Melaleuca ericifolia) and River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). That study measured the
additional root reinforcement that these two native riparian tree species lent to bank sediments at sites along
the Latrobe River in Gippsland, Victoria, Australia (Figure 1). Here, we compare the stability of Latrobe
River bank-sections with and without the reinforcing effects of tree roots under a range of natural bank
conditions. We model bank stability with the generalized wedge method of slope stability analysis (Donald
and Zhao, 1995b), modified to include the additional strength of tree roots.
BANK STABILITY MODEL
There are numerous methods for analysing the stability of slopes (Duncan, 1992). Most methods adopt limit
equilibrium procedures where a safety factor, F
s
, is defined as the ratio of the stresses resisting failure to the
stresses required to bring the slope into a state of limiting equilibrium along a given failure surface:
F
s
=
s
(1)
where s = shear strength of the soil and = shear stress acting along the failure surface. In this case, the
driving stresses result from the downslope component of the weight of bank material. The MohrCoulomb
Figure 1. Latrobe River field sites
Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 25, 921937 (2000)
922 B. ABERNETHY AND I. D. RUTHERFURD
failure criterion describes the shear strength of a soil:
s = c tan (2)
where c = soil cohesion, = total stress normal to the shear plane and tan = coefficient of internal friction.
Soils reinforced by plant roots behave as composite materials in which elastic roots of relatively high
tensile strength are embedded in a matrix of relatively plastic substrate (Gray and Leiser, 1982). The
contribution to soil shear strength from the intermingled roots of plants can be considered as an additional
apparent cohesion, c
r
(Waldron, 1977; Wu et al., 1979; O'Loughlin and Ziemer, 1982). Roots have a
negligible influence on the frictional component of soil strength (Gray and Leiser, 1982). When water is
present in the soil, and steady downslope seepage conditions prevail, the total normal stress is replaced by an
effective stress ( u) where u is the pore-water pressure (Fredlund, 1987). Accounting for the effect of roots
and pore-water pressure, soil shear strength is described by:
s = c
/
c
r
( u) tan
/
(3)
where the primes denote effective stress parameters. (All units are kPa.)
Although the various facets of limit equilibrium theory are well known (Duncan, 1992), all stability
analyses exhibit some deficiencies and difficulties in application. Most analyses are based on some form of
the method of slices but some use multiple wedge analyses (e.g. Sarma, 1979, 1987). Conventional vertical
slice methods such as those used by Morgenstern and Price (1965), Spencer (1973), Janbu (1973) and
Fredlund and Krahn (1977) are generally regarded as the best available for stability analyses, but they will not
necessarily produce a kinematically admissible failure mechanism. Often, these methods result in unbalanced
forces and moments so that equilibrium conditions are not strictly satisfied (Donald and Zhao, 1995b).
According to Donald and Zhao (1995b), the generalized wedge method (GWEDGEM) fully satisfies force
and moment equilibrium while maintaining a kinematically admissible failure mechanism. The slip mass is
divided into several wedges where the inter-surface between any two wedges is not necessarily vertical. Shear
strengths on the interfaces are mobilized to the same degree as on the slip surface.
Various multivariable unconstrained search routines are included in GWEDGEM for the selection of
critical failure mechanisms. The failure mechanisms may be any multilinear shape. In addition, the user may
specify homogenous or non-homogenous materials, partial submergence, external loading, tension cracking
and pore-water pressures (Donald and Zhao, 1995a). Pitsch (1997) compared GWEDGEM with a number of
well-known slope stability models. She concluded that GWEDGEM gave results at least as good or better
than previously recognized accurate methods.
Model parameters
Data to describe model parameters were collected at sites along the lower Latrobe River near Rosedale
(Figure 1). The lower Latrobe River has a sinuous channel about 30 m wide and about 5 m deep, with a low
gradient and extensive meanders formed in resistant fine-grained banks with a sand bed. The river flows
along an alluvial ridge with steep natural levees, flanked by a broad floodplain that contains numerous cutoff
meanders and avulsed palaeochannels (Bird et al., 1979). The bankfull discharge of the Latrobe River at the
Rosedale gauge (Figure 1) is 100m
3
s
1
, while the flood of record occurred in December 1934 with an
estimated instantaneous peak discharge of 3505m
3
s
1
(Reinfelds et al., 1995).
Reinfelds et al. (1995) provide a full description of the river and document a long history of human
intervention, beginning in the 1890s with snag removal, riparian clearing and artificial cutoffs. Mass failure
of the banks is quite common through the study reach (Figure 1) occurring over a range of bank geometries.
Current management of channel instability is to spot-treat failed bank sections with rock riprap along with
widespread planting of endemic riparian species.
Observations of bank failure through the surveyed reach indicated that shallow sliding occurred over a
range of bank heights and angles. Some low, steep bank sections failed as a toppling slab while the higher
banks tended to fail by either deep-seated rotation or translation. Thorne's (1982) description of toppling slab
EFFECT OF TREE ROOTS ON BANK STABILITY 923
failures includes separation of the block from the intact bank by a vertical tension crack. Field observation
indicated that tension cracks were most likely to occur at sites with depleted vegetation cover. However,
isolating the influence of vegetation on tension cracking from other bank stability factors is difficult owing to
the highly variable effect of roots on the tensile strength of soil (Pizzuto, 1984).
GWEDGEM can account for tensile stress in the upper-bank profile but we excluded this effect from all
stability simulations. With no data to constrain the problem, assessing the stability of banks prone to tension
cracking after the introduction of vegetation relies heavily on the assumption that root reinforcement negates
tension crack development. Because we were unable to verify the effects of root reinforcement on tension
cracking, we could not apply such an assumption with confidence. Consequently, later stability predictions of
bare banks, where tension cracking is likely, may be somewhat overestimated and improvements in bank
stability with the addition of vegetation may be somewhat underestimated. However, our analyses do account
for root reinforcement with respect to shear strength, hydrostatic confining and pore-water pressures, bank
material properties and natural bank geometries.
Root reinforcement. Because of their riparian association and their history in bank stability work, we
elected to investigate the bank-reinforcing properties of Swamp Paperbark (Figure 2) and River Red Gum
(Figure 3). The two species provide a contrast in size and in distribution within the riparian corridor.
Swamp Paperbark is a wetland species found throughout southeast Australia, widely occurring on the
lower portions of riverbanks. Because the seedlings remain flexible, their establishment is assisted by laying
over during floods followed by a quick recovery as the river stage drops. In its mature form, Swamp
Paperbark is an erect shrub or small tree that suckers freely from the base to form dense, multistemmed
thickets (Costermans, 1989; Holliday, 1996). Stands are typically dome-shaped with stems ranging in height
from 05 m on the fringe to 10 m in the centre.
River Red Gum is found along, or near, almost all of the seasonal watercourses in arid and semi-arid
Australia and most streams and rivers in the southeast (Jacobs, 1955). However, River Red Gum seedlings are
Figure 2. Swamp Paperbark
sensitive to flooding in the first two years and the tree is found higher up the bank (Dexter, 1978), usually on
the bank top along the Latrobe River. Boland et al. (1989) describe the tree as medium-sized, commonly
growing to 20 m tall and occasionally exceeding 45 m. The crown is large, in open formation, and the tree
usually has a short thick bole.
In another paper (Abernethy and Rutherfurd, in press) we assessed the root reinforcement of a mature River
Red Gum and Swamp Paperbark stand at sites on the Latrobe River (Figure 1). We mapped the size and
location of all roots intersected by a number of vertical profile walls (Bo hm, 1979) dug into the bank
sediments at various distances between the tree trunks and the canopy driplines. We measured the tensile
strength of individual roots in the laboratory and in the field, and we assessed root anchorage in the bank
material. Applying these data to a simple model (adapted from Wu et al., 1979) we estimated the magnitude
of root reinforcement for each 10 cm increment of depth at each profile wall:
c
r
~
P
n
i
a
i
t
i
A
w
(4)
where A
w
= the area of the profile wall increment, n
i
= number of roots, a
i
= average cross-sectional area of
roots and t
i
is the tensile strength of roots in size-class i intersected by A
w
.
This technique produced an array of discrete c
r
values that defined root reinforcement at particular
distances, C, from the tree trunk (m) and depth, D, below the soil surface (m). Fitting a simple linear
regression through the log-transformed c
r
data of each species yielded the following expressions of root
reinforcement (kPa). For River Red Gum:
c
r
= e
49200099C1333D
R
2
= 0 70 (5)
Figure 3. River Red Gum
while for Swamp Paperbark:
c
r
= e
47690540C1891D
R
2
= 0 63 (6)
Distance away from the trunk is always measured parallel to the bank surface, while depth is measured
normal to the bank surface.
The two marked portions in Figure 4 indicate circumstances where the bank geometry precludes an explicit
definition of c
r
based on C and D. Points within the area A are defined by two possible coordinate pairs.
Where points are defined by more than one coordinate pair the model calculates all potential values of c
r
and
then, for the sake of conservatism, sets the lowest value of reinforcement for that point. In circumstances
described by the area B, no value of c
r
may be set, as C and D cannot be defined. Here the value of C at the
inflection point is applied across the entire area while D is calculated along the axis that originates at the
inflection and bisects area B.
The root networks of River Red Gum and Swamp Paperbark are severely curtailed by the presence of
permanently saturated bank material. For modelling purposes, we set c
r
to zero wherever permanently
saturated material occurred. We considered any point in a bank profile below the level of the summer base
flow to be permanently saturated and therefore not reinforced by roots. The gauge record at Rosedale (Figure
1) indicated that the average February daily baseflow stage was 08 m above gauge-zero, which we set for all
cross-sections.
Other growth habits of Swamp Paperbark also dictate root distribution. Our observations of Swamp
Paperbark stands along the Latrobe River indicated that they grow up and over the bank from the channel
(Figure 2). Typically, they cover the whole bank face from about the summer baseflow level to about 1 m
onto the floodplain. To reflect the distribution and strength of the roots under the stand, we set C to zero so
root reinforcement varied only with depth. Beyond the stand c
r
remained a function of both depth and
distance from the trees.
Pore-water pressure. There is much anecdotal and published evidence to suggest that bank failures are
associated with periods of prolonged rainfall followed by drawdown of river stage (e.g. Twidale, 1964). At
such times, the strength of bank material is minimized and its weight maximized. Positive pore-water
pressures may also be produced which further weaken riverbanks. The Rosedale gauge record documents 18
overbank floods where, on the falling limb of the hydrograph, the stage continued to fall for at least seven
days after it had dropped below bankfull. Decreases in stage following the floods ranged from 06 m to 26 m
in seven days.
For the purposes of worst-case stability analysis, we assumed that the maximum seven-day flood recession
(26 m) represented maximum channel drawdown. Moreover, to represent the most critical bank hydrology
conditions during drawdown, we adopted a conservative groundwater configuration whereby the entire
Figure 4. Coordinate systemto determine root reinforcement (c
r
). In area A, c
r
is calculated for both pairs of coordinates (C, D
1
and C, D
2
)
withthesmaller valueadopted. Neither D
2
nor D
3
intersect areaB, soc
r
is calculatedwithCset tothedistanceof theinflectionpoint fromthe
trunk while D is measured along the axis that originates at the inflection and bisects the shaded area
riverbank below the bankfull stage level remained saturated. Under this regime, positive pore-water pressures
are developed throughout the profile. We assumed (after Morgenstern, 1963) that there was no dissipation of
pore-water pressure in the saturated bank following drawdown.
To avoid overly detailed analysis of pore-water pressure, Bishop (1954) found that it was convenient to
express pore pressure as a function of the major principal stress. Although principal stress directions vary
along a potential slip surface, the vertical head of soil and water above any soil element is an adequate
approximation of the major principal stress. During force-equilibrium calculations, GWEDGEM determines
the water force on any potential slip surface by quadratic integration of control points along the slip surface.
The control points are interpolated froma pore pressure grid that we defined for points belowthe groundwater
surface (see Donald and Zhao, 1995b p. 6). We set all pore-water pressures in bank material above the
groundwater surface to zero. The free water weight in the channel is automatically transferred to hydrostatic
pressure acting on the bank.
Bank material. For our purposes, it was enough to describe the geotechnical properties of the bank material
in terms of its constituent particle-size fractions, bulk unit weight and shear strength. We collected
undisturbed samples from a range of soil depths at both field sites (Figure 1) and returned them to the
laboratory for analysis.
Particle-size analysis indicated that the material of both sites was a silty loam with little variation in
particle-size distribution with depth through either of the profiles (Abernethy, 1999). The median particle size
distribution of the samples was 21 per cent clay, 62 per cent silt, 16 per cent sand and 1 per cent gravel. The
average saturated bulk weight of the material,
s
, was 183 kN m
3
.
Slow (drained) direct shear tests of undisturbed saturated samples indicated that the effective strength
parameters of these sediments are c' = 15 kPa and ' = 16
. Owing to the lack of variation in the sediments we

tested, we treated the soil strength parameters as uniformly distributed throughout the bank profile
(Abernethy, 1999).
Bank geometry. We analysed the stability of 24 bank profiles which had been previously surveyed in 12
channel cross-sections between the gauge at Rosedale and the River Red Gum site (Figure 1). Channel
geometries described by the cross-sections included straight sections and left and right meander bends with a
range of bank angles and heights. The data were not specifically collected to assess bank erosion processes, so
unstable bank sections may be under-represented in the data set. We numbered each section downstream with
the left and right bank profiles denoted by an L or an R, respectively.
Modelling procedure
The following paragraphs describe the process of combining bank geometry with bank material and
hydrological properties, river stage data and root reinforcement to produce GWEDGEM assessments of bank
stability. We set bankfull stage to the lowest bankcrest of each cross-section and set baseflow at 08 m above
the lowest point in the bed. The location of points within the pore-water pressure grid is not constrained by the
program, so we ensured that there were sufficient data points to describe bank hydrology around the bank toe
and face (Figure 5).
Along with points that describe the bank profile and hydrology, GWEDGEM users are also required to
identify those coordinates that represent the bank-toe and the bank-crest. GWEDGEM then generates three
trial failure surfaces shallow, medium and deep covering the full range of possible critical failures; each
trial consists of three wedges. Using the trial failures as a starting point GWEDGEM automatically searches
for the location of the failure surface that returns the lowest safety factor. During this optimization process,
the trial failure mechanisms typically converge to about the same position within the profile. The three-wedge
failure mechanism with the lowest F
s
is subjected to further calculation and finer subdivision. Final failure
mechanisms are typically composed of nine wedges.
We applied the above optimization and refinement process to stability analyses of all surveyed bank
profiles with and without root reinforcement. In addition, we fixed the failure mechanism predicted under
non-reinforced conditions to compute a safety factor for the bank profile when that failure plane was directly
reinforced. For simulations of bank stability with root reinforcement, we positioned the trees in locations
typical of those observed near our field sites. In the following stability analyses, the River Red Gum trunk and
the upper extent of the Swamp Paperbark thicket are located 1 m from the bank-crest, on the floodplain
surface.
BANK STABILITY ANALYSIS
We assessed the safety of Profile 1L with no root reinforcement and maximum drawdown of channel stage
(Figure 6). The default three-wedge failure mechanism predicts that the bank profile is stable with F
s
= 182
(Figure 6a). Dividing the default three-wedge analysis into nine wedges improves the prediction, yielding
F
s
= 175 (Figure 6b).
Simulations with root reinforcement introduced to Profile 1L predict larger slump blocks with higher
safety factors than the bare case (Figure 7). Swamp Paperbark roots yield F
s
= 213, River Red Gum roots
improve the safety factor to 215. When expressed as a percentage of the bare F
s
, the increase in bank stability
due to Swamp Paperbark roots is 22 per cent, while the River Red Gum root reinforcement produced an
improvement of 23 per cent. Reinforcing failure plane `a' in Figure 7 with Swamp Paperbark and River Red
Gum roots improved bank stability by 34 per cent and 70 per cent, respectively.
Figure 5. Pore-water pressure grid as applied to Profile 1L (pore pressures are calculated for each point marked , see text)
Figure 6. Stability analysis of Profile 1L with no root reinforcement and stage set to 26 m below bankfull: (a) three-wedge analysis,
F
s
= 182; and (b) nine-wedge analysis, F
s
= 175
Stability of surveyed bank profiles
We analysed the stability of each of the 24 profiles in the same way as described for Profile 1L (Table I).
Cross-section dimensions do not vary greatly through the reach, but there was quite a range in bank geometry.
Bank angles ranged from 24
to 56
while bank heights ranged from 29 m to 55 m. Similarly, there was a

range of safety factors with F
s
under bare conditions ranging from 13 to 24. The mean F
s
was 17.
Not surprisingly, changes in stability were associated with changes in bank geometry. GWEDGEM tended
to predict lower safety factors for the higher and steeper banks (Table I). We confirmed this through simple
linear regression of bank geometry against factor of safety. The factor of safety decreased with either
increased bank height:
F
s
= 2 69 0 25H R
2
= 0 45 (7)
Figure 7. Comparison of bank stability (Profile 1L) with differing root reinforcement: (a) failure plane for bare bank, F
s
= 175; (b) failure
plane with bank reinforcement due to Swamp Paperbark roots, F
s
= 213; and (c) failure plane with bank reinforcement due to River Red
Gum roots, F
s
= 215. Reinforcing failure plane a (no optimization) with Swamp Paperbark yields F
s
= 226 and with River Red Gum
F
s
= 274. For ease of interpretation, only the failure planes are shown
Table I. Comparison of the stability of surveyed bank proles with and without root reinforcement*
Cross-section Left bank Right bank
Opt. Fixed Opt. Fixed
No. Width
(m)
Depth
(m)
)
H
(m)
Bare
F
s
PB
(%)
RG
(%)
PB
(%)
RG
(%)
)
H
(m)
Bare
F
s
PB
(%)
RG
(%)
PB
(%)
RG
(%)
1 315 42 38 39 175 22 23 34 70 36 36 187 14 23 23 48
2 336 42 47 34 178 78 86 97 109 23 33 198 22 35 39 55
3 272 46 40 40 162 11 11 27 37 29 55 166 13 29 20 42
4 325 42 31 36 182 11 12 15 15 49 31 152 16 18 28 36
5 340 47 35 40 178 65 44 88 116 56 45 128 20 28 29 54
6 300 48 34 31 201 72 79 98 136 50 40 172 18 35 96 119
7 277 42 41 54 149 15 18 21 33 55 36 154 97 110 132 175
8 242 43 45 33 202 11 28 17 35 37 31 183 17 13 31 60
9 364 44 53 50 125 15 22 57 63 27 29 240 40 51 62 79
10 300 42 35 41 170 8 10 24 28 31 36 198 13 38 24 48
11 298 44 47 49 131 9 12 12 16 44 44 158 66 91 84 118
12 290 44 39 38 152 16 20 25 28 48 37 149 20 39 30 60
*Bare F
s
represents the computed safety factor of the bank profile with no root reinforcement. The figures listed in the Swamp
Paperbark (PB) and River Red Gum (RG) columns represent the difference between the F
s
computed with the appropriate root
model and the bare F
s
expressed as a percentage of the bare F
s
(i.e. percentage increase). Values are presented for failure planes
optimized to the root reinforcement conditions and for reinforcement of the fixed non-reinforced failure plane.
or bank angle:
F
s
= 2 55 0 02 R
2
= 0 49 (8)
or a combination of height and angle
F
s
= 3 21 0 02 0 21H R
2
= 0 78: (9)
When we added root reinforcement to the profiles the association between bank geometry and stability
declined. For Swamp Paperbark:
F
s
= 4 39 0 01 0 44H R
2
= 0 35 (10)
and for River Red Gum:
F
s
= 4 61 0 01 0 46H R
2
= 0 34 (11)
Regardless of the reduced correlation between bank geometry and stability, adding root reinforcement
from either species increased the predicted F
s
of all bank profiles (Table I). When the failure plane was
optimized for Swamp Paperbark reinforcement, stability improved by 8 per cent to 97 per cent, with a mean
increase of 29 per cent. Without optimization, Swamp Paperbark roots improved the stability of the original
failure plane by 12 per cent to 132 per cent, with a mean of 46 per cent. The model produced similar, but
slightly greater, increases in F
s
with River Red Gum root reinforcement. Optimized failure planes were
predicted as 10 per cent to 110 per cent more stable, with a mean of 36 per cent. Reinforcing the failure plane
fixed at that derived under bare conditions increased the predicted F
s
by 15 per cent to 175 per cent, with a
mean of 66 per cent.
Hickin (1984) pointed out that root growth through the whole depth of floodplain is a very strong
reinforcing mechanism. The results presented here bear this out and partly explain the range in additional
stability due to root reinforcement. Dividing the profiles into groups based on whether or not the bank toe
remained below the summer baseflow allowed distinction between complete and partial reinforcement of the
bank profile. Such a distinction highlighted marked differences in the stabilizing influence of the tree roots.
Where the toe remained below the baseflow, and was not reinforced, the mean F
s
was 165 (N = 17).
Improvement to the stability of these profiles with the addition of roots was on average 15 per cent for the
Swamp Paperbark and 22 per cent for the River Red Gum. For profiles where the toe was not covered by the
summer baseflow, the mean F
s
was 183 (N = 7) and the average additional reinforcement was 62 per cent
from the Swamp Paperbark and 70 per cent from the River Red Gum.
While reinforcement of the bank toe explains some of the range in the safety factor values, it does not fully
account for the weakened correlation between bank geometry and safety factor after the introduction of roots
to the profile. Allowing c
r
to vary directly with finer-scale profile geometry produces a complex pattern of
root reinforcement. This pattern introduces variation in stability that is not explained by the gross measures of
bank geometry: height and angle as indicated by the regressions above. Certainly, this complicated
interaction between plants and riverbanks is borne out by even casual observation in the field.
Bank stability after basal scour
By definition, the bank profiles analysed above must have had safety factors greater than unity as they were
all standing at the time of survey. Consequently, analyses of these bank sections do not demonstrate the
stabilizing influence that tree roots impart to an otherwise unstable bank. Of the results presented in Table I,
Profile 9L has the lowest predicted safety factor and hence is the bank profile that is closest to its critical state
for the given conditions. Altering the surveyed bank profile allowed us to simulate lateral or vertical fluvial
erosion such that the non-reinforced bank stability (F
s
= 125) was reduced to critical (F
s
= 1). We then
investigated the reinforcing effects of the tree roots on this unstable bank profile.
Lateral scour. Profile 9L was surveyed on an outside bank of a right-hand meander bend. Simulating lateral
toe scour by simply moving the point representing the bank toe to the left causes the bank profile to steepen
(Figure 8). Removing 2 m of bank at the toe increased the bank angle from 53
to 70
and produced critical

bank stability. The height remained unchanged at 5 m.
Root networks respond to whatever conditions exist at the time of their growth, in this case the pre-scour
profile. However, our model framework precluded a description of c
r
distribution with values of C and D
other than those specifically associated with the bank profile under analysis. Hence, c
r
was somewhat
artificially distributed by the post-scour bank geometry. This caveat notwithstanding, the roots of both
species improved stability, as expected (Figure 8, Table II). This result accords well with our observations of
bank failures in the field where degraded vegetation cover is typically a prerequisite for deep-seated
rotational or translational failure. However, oversteepening is not the only process responsible for reducing
bank stability on the Latrobe River; undercutting leading to cantilever instability also produces bank failure.
While undercutting is beyond the scope of GWEDGEM, simulations of further lateral scour of the profile
(beyond that depicted in Figure 8) indicate that root reinforcement will stabilize the bank at any angle, up to
vertical, given the bank height of 5 m. While we have witnessed undercuts on well-vegetated banks in other
parts of the river, we are unsure of the extent of undercutting through the study reach. Flow obscured the
lower portions of the banks during each of our field inspections. In addition to undercutting, bed scour
adjacent to the bank may also cause bank destabilization owing to an increase in bank height. Reinfelds et al.
(1995) report that bed lowering, particularly downstream of meander cutoffs, has led to substantial bank
instability along the Latrobe River.
Vertical scour. To simulate bed scour, we lowered the level of the points representing the bank toe and the
riverbed adjacent to the bank. Bed scour of 13 m increased the height and angle of Profile 9L to 63 m and
59
and produced critical stability conditions in the bank (Figure 9, Table II). Reinforcing the altered bank
profile with Swamp Paperbark and River Red Gum roots improved bank stability by 43 per cent and 48 per
Figure 8. Profile 9Lafter 2 mof lateral toe scour. The broken line represents the old bank profile. Failure planes: (a) bare bank, F
s
= 100;
(b) bank reinforced with Swamp Paperbark roots, F
s
= 137; and (c) bank reinforced with River Red Gum roots, F
s
= 141
Table II. Summary of the effect of scour on the stability (F
s
) of bank prole 9L
Prior to scour Lateral scour Vertical scour
Opt. Fix. Opt. Fix. Opt. Fix.
Bare 125 100 100
Swamp Paperbark 144 196 137 184 148 155
River Red Gum 153 204 141 191 143 154
cent, respectively. The addition of root reinforcement to the bank section ensured that it remained stable even
with ongoing bed scour adjacent to the bank. With a Swamp Paperbark stand established on the bank face, a
further 26 m of scour, beyond the initial 13 m, was required to reduce the safety factor to unity and
destabilize the bank. In the case of a River Red Gum established on the bank top, a total of 32 m of bed scour
was required before unstable conditions ensued.
That we did not observe vegetated banks up to 89 m in the study reach requires some comment. One
explanation of the discrepancy might lie in our application of the summer baseflow. With no data to model the
effect of vertical scour on the baseflow stage, we simply allowed the summer baseflow to remain at 08 m
above the bed for all simulations. Actual conditions may provide for a higher baseflow in summer, which
might prevent the roots from penetrating bank portions near the toe. An alternative explanation is that, in
common with the lateral scour simulations above, undercutting might contribute to bank instability before
vertical scour can overheighten the banks.
An interesting result of the simulations described by Figure 9 and Table II was that the Swamp Paperbark
increased the safety factor more than the River Red Gum. When compared with the River Red Gum, the
Swamp Paperbark stand produced a greater value of c
r
around the lower portions of the bank. This increase in
reinforcement near the bank toe pushed the failure plane deeper into the bank profile. That Swamp Paperbark
stands can be established low on the bank, such that high root densities reinforce potential failure planes near
to the toe, bears out the local river management authority's faith in the species as a bank stabilizing agent.
Bank stability with changing tree position
The above River Red Gum analyses with the tree located 1 m away from the bank crest, while realistic and
convenient for comparative purposes, are limited. River Red Gums are foundall over the floodplain, sometimes
even growing on the bankface. The analyses shown in Figure 10 and Table III reflect the effect on bank stability
of a mature River Red Gum growing at various points on the bank and floodplain. The bank geometry adopted
for this analysis was Profile 9L with 13m of bed scour where F
s
= 1 under bare conditions.
With the introduction of the roots of a River Red Gum, all potential failure surfaces illustrated in Figure 10
(positions marked a to g) are deeper than the critical failure surface under bare conditions. Even a River Red
Gum some 15 m away from the bank crest is able to reinforce the bank sediments and stabilize the bank
(F
s
= 126). Clearly, however, the greatest improvement in F
s
occurred when we positioned the tree at about
where the predicted failure planes intersect the floodplain surface. The factor of safety returned by the model
for the River Red Gum in position c was markedly higher than the other simulations (F
s
= 161) and the
predicted failure surface was forced well into the floodplain. Modelling the effect of River Red Gums
established on the bankface also produced high safety factors owing to the increased root reinforcement at the
toe.
Figure 9. Profile 9L after 13 mof bed scour. The broken line represents the old bank profile. Failure planes: (a) bare bank, F
s
= 100; (b)
bank reinforced with Swamp Paperbark roots, F
s
= 148; and (c) bank reinforced with River Red Gum roots, F
s
= 143
DISCUSSION
While it may be possible to identify statistically averaged stable states, river morphology is ultimately
dependent upon the local processes of erosion and deposition. Predicting the magnitude and direction of
channel change brought about by short-term erosion processes, such as bank failure, superimposed on the
existing planform requires an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of bank recession. Assessment of
the channel boundary as influenced by vegetation provides further insight into those mechanisms. However, it
is only in exceptional cases that changes in channel form are observed directly, so physically based models
have increasingly provided geomorphologists a means of interpreting field research (Kirkby, 1997).
Here, modelling allowed us to incorporate explicitly root reinforcement within a framework that accounted
for the processes of bank failure and overcame the usual limitations of analysing natural riverbanks stability
(see Darby and Thorne, 1996). Accounting for the points raised by Darby and Thorne, the shape of predicted
failure planes appeared to conform to those observed in the field (Figure 11) and were not constrained to pass
through the bank toe. The predicted position of the failure plane depends on the weight, strength and
stratification (if applied) of the bank material and the geometry of the bank profile. Rather than ignoring the
influences of bank hydrology, characterization of the pore-water may be as good as time and cost allow.
Moreover, any failure plane that does not meet strict force and moment equilibrium and kinematic
admissibility criteria is rejected immediately. Thus, the final critical slip surface must be physically
acceptable before a safety factor is computed.
Future additions to the model will include other effects of vegetation that we have omitted here: surcharge
weight of trees on the bank, evapotranspiration and other plant alterations to bank hydrology, and the effect of
roots on tension cracks. Although the interaction between bank geometry and roots, alone, seems to explain
the scale and distribution of bank failures through the reach, only further work will reveal the extent of the
influence of the other factors. However, because our results reflect what we see in the field, it is possible that
Figure 10. Profile 9L after 13 m of bed scour, showing the effect of River Red Gum position on critical failure plane position
Table III. The effect of River Red Gum position on the stability (F
s
) of bank
prole 9L with 13 m of basal scour
Simulation
(Figure 10)
Tree position
(distance from crest) Safety factor
bare 100
a 15 m left 126
b 10 m left 143
c 5 m left 161
d 1 m left 143
e At crest 148
f 1 m right 148
g 2 m right 151
the effects that we have not incorporated are not as important as root reinforcement for bank stability along
the lower Latrobe River.
Regardless of the nature of the bank properties and the processes and mechanisms involved in bank retreat,
Thorne (1982) argues that the long-term rate of bank retreat at a section is fluvially controlled. That does not
mean that bank properties are irrelevant: they control the stable bank height and angle. Thorne links the
sedimentary processes operating exclusively on the banks and those operating in the channel, as a whole,
through the concept of basal endpoint control. It is important to consider the stability of the outer bank when
analysing the cross-sectional geometry and the migration rate of a river bend. Thorne (1991) contends that
many riverbanks fail before the outer bank scour depth reaches its theoretical maximum as determined by
bend flow hydraulics.
Reinfelds et al. (1995) showed that the high-magnitude floods of the 1920 and, 30s had a low geomorphic
effectiveness on the lower Latrobe River. In response to these floods, a series of meander cutoffs was
established along with an extensive programme of desnagging. Relatively minor floods during the 1970s
caused knick points to migrate upstream from the cutoffs, incising the bed and destabilizing the banks.
Craigie et al. (1991) document the extensive bank clearing that had occurred by this time.
The bed degradation that occurred through the lower reaches of the Latrobe River after the 1930s had two
impacts on the stability of the banks through the study reach. Firstly, deepening of the bed gave rise to
unstable bank sections as the devegetated bank height passed the critical height for failure. Secondly, slump
block survival times shortened owing to an increase of in-channel streampower. Larger flows were contained
within the degraded channel and flow resistance was reduced following snag removal (Reinfelds et al., 1995;
Abernethy and Rutherfurd, 1998).
The scenario described by Reinfelds et al. supports our assessment of the channel stability of the lower
Latrobe River. Unstable sections with degraded riparian zones will respond well to the introduction of
vegetation. However, some bank sections directly affected by meander cutoffs and localized erosion continue
to heighten and steepen. For vegetation to establish itself and produce the root networks capable of bank
reinforcement, harder engineering options are required at those sites. Indeed, many of the cutoff meander
bends are currently being reinstated, which is likely to slow and stabilize the bed degradation. With the bed so
stabilized, riparian revegetation through the reach will reinforce the banks. Revegetated bank sections will
then be able to resist mass failure even considering their present high and steep profiles (relative to historical
geometries).
The physical basis of the technique outlined here allowed a quantified assessment of the additional stability
that trees lend to riverbanks. In the usual sense of bank stabilization and protection works, project costs are
directly related to the safety margin required of the bank. Hemphill and Bramley (1989) maintain that a safety
factor marginally above unity (say 105 to 110) might be acceptable where the potential loss from bank
Figure 11. Comparison of `observed' and predicted mass failure of a degraded Latrobe River bank profile devoid of trees. The observed
failure plane and intact profile were surveyed in two separate transects some 3 m apart. We assume that the intact profile is a reasonable
representationof thefailedsectionbefore failure. Thepredictedfailure plane was theresult of aGWEDGEMsimulationusingthe`typical'
geotechnical and hydrological parameters described herein. As can be seen the predicted failure plane represents a reasonable
approximationof the observedfailure mechanism. The surveyformed part of a separate exercise tothe studydescribedhere andthe results
have not been included in the foregoing analysis
failure is small. In situations where extensive damage to property may result, Hemphill and Bramley argue
that a factor of safety as high as 140 or more may be necessary for an adequate level of protection. Clearly,
the addition of healthy mature vegetation to the banks assessed here provides high levels of stability.
The immediate implication of the above analyses is that otherwise unstable riverbanks might be reinforced
and stabilized with the introduction of mature woody vegetation. In terms of riparian management, our
assessment indicates a potential planting strategy for revegetation works designed to improve bank stability.
Combining Swamp Paperbark, planted low on the bank face, with River Red Gum, established on the
floodplain where predicted failure surfaces intersect the floodplain, will achieve very high levels of stability.
Moreover, this strategy is ecologically sound as it mimics the lateral sequence of species within natural
riparian forests in the region.
Riparian vegetation does not, however, produce a permanent and unchanging riverbank. The magnitude
and distribution of root reinforcement will change over time as the plants grow and die and as fluvial
processes continue to deform riverbeds and banks. Channel adjustment exerts an essential geomorphological
constraint on fluvial ecosystems that regulates riparian and aquatic habitat diversity and species richness
(Piegay et al., 1997). Compared to traditional engineering measures based on inert materials, vegetation is
most likely to achieve the conflicting management goals of bank stability for economic concerns and bank
diversity for ecological concerns.
CONCLUSION
Vegetation is an integral part of the riparian landscape and plays a major role in stabilizing riverbanks and
moderating erosion. However, traditional bank stability analyses rarely consider botanical factors. In the past,
the outcome of removing or introducing vegetation to a riverbank was forecast in terms of increasing or
decreasing stability but the magnitude of the effect was not precisely predicted. Here, we have explicitly
accounted for the strength and distribution of the roots of mature riparian trees. Adapting the physically based
slope stability model, GWEDGEM, to include the spatial distribution of root reinforcement allowed us to
quantify the influence of tree roots on the stability of bank sections surveyed along the Latrobe River.
Bank erosion on the lower Latrobe River is the result of a combination of lateral and vertical scour at the
bank toe followed by mass failure of the overlying bank portions. The presence of mature trees on the banks
increases their stability against mass failure by reinforcing the bank sediment with roots. The effect of the
roots is most apparent by analysing otherwise unstable bank sections. Roots prevent banks from failing due to
oversteepening from lateral toe scour. Where vertical scour occurs, vegetated banks can stand up to 39 m
higher than their bare counterparts. However, it is likely that some degree of undercutting leads to the
destabilization of vegetated bank sections.
Improvements in bank stability, achieved even with worst-case hydrological and geotechnical parameters,
were apparent over a range of bank geometries, and varied with tree position in relation to the bank. The
greatest improvements to stability were realized when the trees were located close to where potential failure
planes intersected the profile surface, either on the floodplain or on the bank face. Assessment of a channel
boundary as influenced by vegetation provides insight into the mechanisms that contribute to the magnitude
and spatial distribution of short-term channel change. The presence of vegetation growing on a riverbank has
the potential to affect both the rate and distribution of bank erosion. This in turn may influence the speed and
direction of bend migration, or hydraulic geometry, and so alter the pattern of channel evolution. Our
objective was to develop an explanation of the influence of vegetation on riverbank erosion processes by
identifying and studying the underlying causal mechanisms. By providing a means of interpreting field
research, our model provides a link between the study of process and the study of form, within a framework
that may be generally applied to riverbank profiles.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the study, the first author received an Australian Postgraduate Award and a CRCCH scholarship. Our
study was undertaken as part of the Australian National Riparian Zone Research Project, which is funded by
the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. We thank the Lake Wellington
Rivers Authority for provision of channel cross-section data, and Ting Zhao, Ian Donald and Chris Haberfield
for their assistance with geotechnical problems. Ting wrote the code that incorporated our root reinforcement
model into the GWEDGEM package. Comments by Ian Prosser and Chris Gippel improved a previous draft.
REFERENCES
Abam TKS. 1997. Aspects of alluvial river bank recession: some examples from the Niger delta. Environmental Geology 31(3/4): 211
220.
Abernethy B. 1999. On the Role of Woody Vegetation in Riverbank Stability. PhD Thesis. Monash University: Melbourne.
Abernethy B, Rutherfurd ID. 1998. Where along a river's length will vegetation most effectively stabilise stream banks?
Geomorphology 23(1): 5575.
Abernethy B, Rutherfurd ID. (in press) The distribution and strength of riparian tree roots in relation to riverbank reinforcement.
Hydrological Processes.
Andrews ED. 1984. Bed-material entrainment and hydraulic geometry of gravel bed rivers in Colorado. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 95: 371378.
Bird ECF, Bird JF, Finlayson BL, McArthur J, McKay L. 1979. Bank Erosion of the Latrobe River and its Lower Tributaries.
Environmental Studies Series, 267. Ministry for Conservation: Melbourne.
Bishop AW. 1954. The use pore-pressure coefficients in practice. Geotechnique 4: 148152.
Bo hm W. 1979. Methods of Studying Root Systems. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
Boland DJ, Booker MIH, Chippendale GM, Hall N, Hyland BPM, Johnston RD, Kleinig DA, Turner JD. 1989. Forest Trees of
Australia (4th edition). Nelson-CSIRO: Melbourne.
Costermans LF. 1989. Native Trees and Shrubs of South-Eastern Australia (revised edition). Weldon: Sydney.
Craigie and Associates, Condina, P. 1991. Latrobe/Thompson Rivers Management Study: Report on Existing Conditions, Problems
and Restoration. Mid Gippsland Rivers Management Board: Traralgon, Victoria.
Darby SE, Thorne CR. 1996. Development and testing of riverbank-stability analysis. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122(8): 443
454.
Dexter BD. 1978. Silviculture of the river red gum forests of the central Murray floodplain. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Victoria 90: 175191.
Donald IB, Zhao T. 1995a. GWEDGEM: A Computer Program for Slope Stability Analysis Based on the Generalised Wedge Method.
User's Manual. Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University: Melbourne.
Donald IB, Zhao T. 1995b. Stability analysis by general wedge methods. In The Ian Boyd Donald Symposium on Modern
Developments in Geomechanics, Monash University, Melbourne, Haberfield CM (ed.). Monash University; 128.
Duncan JM. 1992. State of the art: static stability and deformation analysis. In Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on the
Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments II, Berkeley, Seed RB, Boulanger RW (eds). American Society of Civil
Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 31; 227266.
Fredlund DG. 1987. Slope stability analysis incorporating the effect of soil suction. In Slope Stability, Anderson MG, Richards KS
(eds). Wiley: Chichester; 113144.
Fredlund DG, Krahn J. 1977. Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 14: 429439.
Gray DH, Leiser AT. 1982. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: New York.
Greenway DR. 1987. Vegetation and slope stability. In Slope Stability, Anderson MG, Richards KS (eds). Wiley: Chichester; 187
230.
Hemphill RW, Bramley ME. 1989. Protection of River and Canal Banks, a Guide to Selection and Design. CIRIA Water Engineering
Report. Butterworths: London.
Hey RD, Thorne CR. 1986. Stable channels with mobile gravel beds. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 112(8): 671689.
Hickin EJ. 1984. Vegetation and river channel dynamics. The Canadian Geographer 28(2): 111126.
Holliday I. 1996. A Field Guide to Australian Native Flowering Plants: Melaleucas. Lansdowne Publishing: Sydney.
Hubble T, Hull T. 1996. A model for bank collapse on the Nepean River, Camden Valley, NSW. Australian Geomechanics 29: 8098.
Jacobs MR. 1955. Growth Habits of the Eucalypts. Department of the Interior, Forestry and Timber Bureau: Canberra.
Janbu N. 1973. Slope stability computations. In Embankment Dam Engineering; Casagrande Volume, Hirschfeld RC, Poulos SJ (eds).
Wiley: New York; 4786.
Kirkby MJ. 1997. A role for theoretical models in geomorphology? In The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology: Proceedings of the
27th Binghamton Symposium in Geomorphology, Rhoads BL, Thorn CE (eds). Wiley: Chichester: 257272.
Morgenstern NR. 1963. Stability charts for earth slopes during rapid drawdown. Geotechnique 13(2): 121131.
Morgenstern NR, Price VE. 1965. The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotechnique 15: 7993.
O'Loughlin CL, Ziemer RR. 1982. The importance of root strength and deterioration rates upon edaphic stability in steepland forests.
In Ecology of Subalpine Zones, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Waring RH (ed.). Proceedings International Union of Forestry
Research Organisations Workshop; 7078.
Piegay H, Cuaz M, Javelle E, Mandier P. 1997. Bank erosion management based on geomorphological, ecological and economic
criteria on the Galaure River, France. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13(5): 433448.
Pitsch S. 1997. Comparison of programs and methods of slope stability analysis. http://wasss.entpe.fr/steph/engstef/enghom.htm [16
January 1998].
Pizzuto JE. 1984. Bank erodibility of shallow sandbed streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 9: 113124.
Reinfelds I, Rutherfurd I, Bishop P. 1995. History and effects of channelisation on the Latrobe River, Victoria. Australian
Geographical Studies 33(1): 6076.
Riestenberg MM. 1994. Anchoring of thin colluvium by roots of Sugar Maple and White Ash on hillslopes in Cincinnati. United States
Geological Survey Bulletin 2059-E: 125.
Sarma SK. 1979. Stability analysis of embankments and slopes. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 105(12):
15111524.
Sarma SK. 1987. A note on the stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique 37(1): 107111.
Schiechtl HM, Stern R. 1996. Ground bioengineering techniques for slope protection and erosion control (English edition translated by
L. Iaklitsch). Blackwell: Boston.
Shields FD, Gray DH. 1992. Effects of woody vegetation on sandy levee integrity. Water Resources Bulletin 28(6): 917931.
Spencer E. 1973. The thrust line criterion in embankment stability analysis. Geotechnique 23: 85100.
Thorne CR. 1982. Processes and mechanisms of riverbank erosion. In Gravel-Bed Rivers: Fluvial Processes, Engineering and
Management, Hey RD, Bathurst JC, Thorne CR (eds). Wiley: Chichester: 227271.
Thorne CR. 1990. Effects of vegetation on riverbank erosion and stability. In Vegetation and Erosion, Thornes JB (ed.). Wiley:
Chichester: 125143.
Thorne CR. 1991. Bank erosion and meander migration of the Red and Mississippi Rivers, USA. Hydrology for the Water Management
of Large River Basins: 20th General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, Vienna. International
Association of Hydrological Sciences; 301313.
Thorne CR, Osman AM. 1988. Riverbank stability analysis. II: application. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 114(2): 151172.
Twidale CR. 1964. Erosion of an alluvial bank at Birdwood, South Australia. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 8: 184211.
Waldron LJ. 1977. The shear resistance of root-permeated homogenous and stratified soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 41:
843849.
Waldron LJ, Dakessian S. 1981. Soil reinforcement by roots, calculation of increased soil shear resistance from root properties. Soil
Science 132(6): 427435.
Wu TH, Mckinnell III, Swanston DN. 1979. Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 16(1): 1933.
Ziemer RR. 1981. Roots and the stability of forested slopes. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Erosion and Sediment
Transport in Pacific Rim Steeplands, Christchurch, Davies TRH, Pearce AJ (eds). IAHS-AISH Publication No. 132; 343361.

The Effect of Riparian Tree Roots On The Mass-Stability of Riverbanks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of Riparian Tree Roots On The Mass-Stability of Riverbanks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECT OF RIPARIAN TREE ROOTS ON THE MASS-STABILITY

. Owing to the lack of variation in the sediments we

while bank heights ranged from 29 m to 55 m. Similarly, there was a

and produced critical

You might also like