the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Soil Liquefaction Hazards and Ecological Impacts in Coastal Wetlands of the Pisco River, Peru
Abstract. Coastal wetlands located in seismic regions can be highly vulnerable to soil liquefaction, a phenomenon where saturated, loosely compacted soils temporarily lose strength during earthquakes. This study investigates the relationship between soil liquefaction and the dynamics of coastal wetlands along the left bank of the Pisco River in Peru, a region affected by the 2007 Pisco earthquake. Through geotechnical field tests, satellite image analysis, and local interviews, we identified that wetlands and their adjacent areas – often with shallow groundwater and sandy soils – present high susceptibility to liquefaction. Affected wetlands showed both negative impacts, such as ground subsidence and vegetation loss, and in some cases, post-seismic ecological recovery due to groundwater rise. The results confirm that even degraded or filled wetlands retain subsurface characteristics prone to liquefaction, extending risk zones up to approximately 200 meters beyond current water boundaries. These findings highlight the dual role of wetlands as both vulnerable ecosystems and natural indicators of geotechnical risk. Future research should focus on integrating wetland conservation into seismic risk management and land-use planning. Recognizing the geotechnical memory of these ecosystems is key to avoiding infrastructure damage and promoting more resilient coastal development in earthquake-prone areas.
- Preprint
(1678 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(399 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5792', Raji Pushpalatha, 26 May 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alejandra G. Martínez, 15 Jun 2026
We thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive assessment of our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the multidisciplinary approach adopted in this study, and we also acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns regarding clarity, structure, and the depth of the scientific discussion.
In response to these comments, we carefully revised the manuscript to improve its structure, strengthen the discussion of the results, and clarify the presentation of the methods and findings. These revisions have enhanced the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript while preserving its central contribution: highlighting the interactions between seismic processes, wetland ecology, and disaster risk management in a highly seismic coastal environment. Our detailed responses to each specific comment are provided in the document attached.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alejandra G. Martínez, 15 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5792', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Aug 2026
The manuscript addresses a relevant and potentially novel topic. The integration of geotechnical susceptibility, wetland dynamics, remote sensing, and local knowledge is a clear strength
My main points of review are:
- The multidisciplinary approach is valuable, but the integration among the three datasets needs to be more rigorous. The study combines DPL-based liquefaction assessment, vegetation-index time series, and interviews, but the manuscript mainly presents these as parallel lines of evidence. A clearer analytical framework is needed to demonstrate how the geotechnical, ecological, and social results corroborate one another.
- The remote-sensing methodology needs more detail. The manuscript should specify image-selection criteria, cloud masking, seasonal consistency, atmospheric correction, the number of images used each year, treatment of missing data, spatial averaging procedures, and the exact definition of each wetland and its 100 m buffer.
- The liquefaction assessment requires clearer validation and uncertainty analysis. The study uses DPL measurements correlated to equivalent SPT values and then applies an SPT-based simplified procedure. The validity of the DPL–SPT conversion, the selected correlation, and the uncertainty propagated into the factor-of-safety estimates should be explained. The classification of a site as susceptibe to liquefaction when FS<1 is not appropriate since the factor of safety is related to a single soil layer and not the whole soil column. It is suggested to use LPI or LSN to demonstrate the likely to liquefaction of a site.
- The statement that the hazard extends approximately 200 m beyond wetland boundaries needs stronger support. It is unclear whether this distance is consistently observed across all sites, derived from a formal spatial analysis, or inferred visually from the maps. The manuscript should provide quantitative evidence and uncertainty for the proposed “influence zone.”
- The manuscript sometimes confuses liquefaction susceptibility, liquefaction potential, and observed liquefaction. These concepts should be distinguished carefully. In addition, the terms vulnerability and risk are totally related to manmade emvironment. In case of natural environment the terms susceptibility or likely to and hazard / potential should be used.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5792-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,441 | 710 | 104 | 2,255 | 205 | 350 | 483 |
- HTML: 1,441
- PDF: 710
- XML: 104
- Total: 2,255
- Supplement: 205
- BibTeX: 350
- EndNote: 483
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript addresses an interesting and important topic by linking soil liquefaction hazards with wetland ecology in a seismically active region. The integration of geotechnical analysis, satellite observations, and local interviews is valuable and gives a multidisciplinary perspective. The paper is generally well organized and contains useful field-based observations. However, several sections require improvement in clarity, structure, and scientific discussion before publication.
Specific Comments: