All other landslides are observed in anthropogenic environments with the majority of landslides (i.e. 70%)

in the matorral and 17% of the landslides in short rotation pine plantations. In contrast, in the Panza subcatchment, 34% of the total number of landslides is located in a (semi-)natural environment (i.e. 13% in páramo and 21% in natural dense forest) while 48% of the landslides is observed in agricultural land. In Llavircay, Lonafarnib order a quarter of the total landslides are observed in natural environments. The multi-temporal landslide inventories include raw data that are derived from different remote sensing data. To ensure that the data source has no effect on the landslide frequency–area distribution, landslide inventories of

different data sources were compared. Only the (semi-)natural environments were selected for this analysis, to avoid confounding with land use effects. We observe no significant difference in landslide area between the inventory derived from aerial photographs and the one derived from very high resolution remote sensing data (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 523, p-value = 0.247). Moreover, the landslide frequency–area distributions are independent of the source of the landslide inventory data (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: D = 0.206, p-value = 0.380). As selleck chemical the landslide inventory is not biased by the data source, we used the total landslide inventories to analyse the landslide frequency–area distribution. The number of landslide occurrences in the two sites in the Pangor catchment was too low to calculate the probability density functions. Therefore, the landslide inventories from both sites (Virgen Yacu and Panza) were combined to get a complete landslide inventory that is large enough to capture the complexity of land cover dynamics present in the Pangor catchment. However, Llavircay and Pangor (including Virgen Yacu and Panza) are analysed distinctively as to detect potential variations resulting from different climatic regimes. Fig. 5 gives the landslide frequency–area distribution for

the landslide inventories Idoxuridine of the Llavircay and Pangor site. It also shows that the double Pareto distribution of Stark and Hovius (2001) and the Inverse Gamma distribution of Malamud et al. (2004) provide similar results. The probability density for medium and large landslides obeys a negative power law trend. The power law tail exponent (ρ + 1) is equal for the double Pareto distribution and for the Inverse Gamma distribution, respectively 2.28 and 2.43 in Pangor and 2 and 2.18 in Llavircay ( Table 3). The model parameter values are obtained by maximum likelihood estimation, but they are similar to those obtained by alternative fitting techniques such as Kernel Density or Histogram Density estimation. Besides, the model parameter values that we obtain here for the tropical Andes are very similar to previously published parameter estimates ( Malamud et al., 2004 and Van Den Eeckhaut et al., 2007).