Dating of paleolandslides in western Finnish Lapland

Abstract The dating of landslide‐buried organic materials potentially indicates non‐stationary seismicity in northern Finland attributable to the release of lithospheric stresses during and after retreat of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet. The landslide age data reveals three episodes of increased slope...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Main Authors: Ojala, Antti E.K., Markovaara‐Koivisto, Mira, Middleton, Maarit, Ruskeeniemi, Timo, Mattila, Jussi, Sutinen, Raimo
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.4408
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fesp.4408
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/esp.4408
Description
Summary:Abstract The dating of landslide‐buried organic materials potentially indicates non‐stationary seismicity in northern Finland attributable to the release of lithospheric stresses during and after retreat of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet. The landslide age data reveals three episodes of increased slope instability and formation of landslides, from 9000 to 11 000 cal BP, from 5000 to 6000 cal BP, and from 1000 to 3000 cal BP. While a seismogenic origin cannot be unequivocally established, we interpret that at least the early Holocene episode reflects increased seismic activity in northern Finland in association with late‐glacial and postglacial faulting. The foci of slope instabilities changes through time, implying that different segments of the postglacial fault systems were active at different times during the Holocene. We also show that the correlation of landslide ages with the surface roughness and backwall slope is complicated. The morphology of landslide scarps is significantly affected by thickness of glacial sediments, liquefaction during landslide formation, and accumulation of peat upon landslide scars and deposits, and thus, the time‐dependent erosional smoothing of the surfaces should be considered as descriptive and non‐qualitative. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.