the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Semi-Automatic Iterative Method for Freeze-Thaw Landslide Identification in the Permafrost Region of the Qilian Mountains
Abstract. In permafrost regions, freeze-thaw landslides (FTLs) are a typical geological hazard that poses significant threats to environments and infrastructure at local to regional scales. However, traditional visual interpretation and also new deep learning methods still have limitations in their ability to detect and recognize FTLs at high precision, especially for hidden and small FTLs. Here we propose a semi-automatic iterative recognition method that combines InSAR surface deformation, multi-source images, and topographic factors to achieve a more accurate FTLs dataset for the Qilian Mountain permafrost region. The methodology involves four key steps: (1) acquiring surface deformation data from SBAS-InSAR with a deformation rate threshold of ≥50 mm·a⁻¹; (2) statistically analyzing topographic factors based on an existing FTLs inventory to determine initial threshold ranges; (3) extracting overlapping mask regions of these factors; and (4) verifying FTL boundaries through visual interpretation of multi-source remote sensing images and iteratively optimizing the sample database until deformation rates stabilize. Results indicate that after five iterations, 98 new FTLs were identified, primarily consisting of hidden and small-scale FTLs. The method achieved a true positive rate of 93.3 %, indicating high accuracy. In addition, we found that areas with larger absolute values of deformation rate and higher seasonal deformations are more prone to FTLs. The application of this method demonstrates highly accurate and efficient FTL identification, providing a new technical approach for monitoring and assessing the FTLs.
- Preprint
(13057 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 Sep 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2726', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Jul 2025
reply
General comment
This manuscript presents a novel semi-automatic iterative method for identifying freeze-thaw landslides (FTLs) in permafrost regions, particularly focusing on the Qilian Mountains. The method uses derivative data extracted from InSAR data and other multi-modal data, including ERA5, DEM, and optical RS imagery. The validation data set has 167 FTLs and 17 RTSs. They found 98 new FTLs in the study region. Essentially, this is a threshold-based, manual and iterative screening process to discover new FTLs. Although the method has novelty and succeeded in the study region, it remains questionable if this method could be easily adopted to other regions due to highly heterogeneous permafrost environments.
Specific comment
The biggest concern of this method is the ability to generalise to other regions. As the authors has claimed in the Limitation section, the thresholding values for Elevation, Slope, Aspect and Deformation rate are analysed and determined manually for each iteration with subjectivity, which means for almost every environmentally-distinct region, the manual tuning of these thresholds needs to be done again, and even in different years in the same region, these values won’t be guaranteed to be stable. This method worked in a tiny region, as it has been tested in the manuscript; however, compared to the entire Tibetan permafrost or Arctic permafrost, the region is way too small. It will be very questionable to apply this method to a vast region without extensive manual analysis of the values and thresholds.
Secondly, this iterative, threshold-based method is very similar to the process of a decision tree-based machine learning model. One could train an ML model using the same variables (Elevation, slope, aspect, deformation rate) with some FTL ground truths. The model will have the exact same input-output as your methods. The downside of the ML method is that it requires at least a few hundred/thousand ground truth FTLs for training, but the resulting ML model will have much better generalisability than manual thresholding. I would strongly recommend comparing your proposed method with a properly trained ML model on a significantly larger area to see the difference in performance and geospatial extrapolation ability.
Another concern is the iterative nature of this method, and manual verification makes it very labour-intensive. It requires further assessment to understand the cost-effectiveness of this method.
Line140: 2x7(unit?) window
Line 169 specify how you ‘statistically analyzing’ the factors, and how you determine the thresholds
Eq(1) and Eq (2) unit of the variables are not specified, and which of these are dimensionless quantities?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2726-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
259 | 21 | 11 | 291 | 10 | 15 |
- HTML: 259
- PDF: 21
- XML: 11
- Total: 291
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1