the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Nov 2022
Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on glacial ice flow and subglacial processes
Abstract. Topographic highs (“bumps”) across glaciated landscapes have the potential to temporarily slow glacial ice flow or, conversely, increase ice flow through strain heating and subglacial meltwater production. Isolated bumps of variable size across the deglaciated landscape of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet (CIS) of Washington state present an opportunity to assess the influence of topographic highs on ice-bed interactions and ice flow organization. This work utilizes semi-automatic mapping techniques of subglacial bedforms to characterize the morphology of streamlined subglacial bedforms including elongation, surface relief, and orientation – all of which provide insight into subglacial processes during post-Last Glacial Maximum deglaciation of the landscape. We identify a bump-size threshold of ~ 4.5 km3 in which bumps larger than this size will consistently and significantly disrupt both ice-flow organization and subglacial sedimentary processes – fundamental to the genesis of streamlined subglacial bedforms. Additionally, sedimentary processes are most mature downstream of bumps as reflected by enhanced bedform elongation and reduced surface relief, likely due to increased availability and production of subglacial sediment and meltwater. While isolated topography is found to play a role in disrupting ice flow, not all bumps have the same degree of impact. The variable influence of isolated topographic bumps on ice flow in this system has significance for outlet glaciers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) due to general topographic similarities.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2773 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2773 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1220', Anna L.C. Hughes, 23 Jan 2023
Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on glacial ice flow and subglacial processes
McKenzie et al. Submission to The CyrosphereGeneral comments:
This paper presents a morphometric analysis of a dataset of subglacial bedforms of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet to assess the influence of isolated changes in subglacial topographic relief on ice flow. The bedform dataset, was generated by semi-automatic mapping from Digital Elevation Models, the methods of which are summarised here and presented by the authors in cited papers published elsewhere. For this study nine sites within Puget Lowland were selected that capture isolated topographic highs of variable area and height in both crystalline and volcanic bedrock, with between 125 and 1013 bedforms at each site examined. The authors classify bedforms within 100 feet of each bump as being upstream, downstream or on top of each bump and use this to examine variations in the morphometry of bedforms, focussing on their elongation ratio and surface relief. Despite the relatively small sample size this dataset and analysis provides new data on the potential role of subglacial topography on landform morphometry.The authors explain the morphometry by invoking explanations related to changes in lithology and thus sediment availability, as well as subglacial pressure and meltwater changes. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that bump volume appears to control the downstream bedform orientation, with bump volumes of 4.5 km3 or less showing a persistent downstream legacy on bedform orientation (and thus ice flow organisation). Though this threshold is defined by only two sites with bumps >4.5 km3. Further studies from a greater range of glaciated environments and ice flow settings are needed to explore this finding further.
I found this short paper to be well written. The description of the analysis and results are comprehensive and clear. Figures are high quality, although see comments below.
Specific comments:
Methods: The vertical and horizontal resoltuion of the DEMs used as the basis for bedform mapping needs to be added.
Figure 1: The colour choices in this figure for both the background elevation data and the mapping mean that there is little contrast between the two, and the mapping is hard to see (especially the green bedforms appearing on the lowest topography. I suggest modifying the colour schemes to improve this. The elevation scale for each of the panels in A) also varies. In order to compare across sites it would be preferable to use a single colour scale for elevation in each panel. There should also be a space between the value and the unit in the labels. The study area panel is very dark. For those unfamiliar with the region there should be inclusion of a small inset to show the wider context of the location within the area covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The area comparisons in (B) is a very useful figure, but would be easier to follow if the lines connecting the labels to the graduated circles were thinner, and the colours of the text boxes were the same as the circles, especially as this same colour scheme is continued throughout the other figures to identify each site. It is unclear what the volume values are pertaining to in the labels. Is this of the area, the bump, or the bedforms?
Figure 2: Include in the legend the site codes as used in Fig 1 as well as the names, or add site names to the labelling in Figure 1A.
I would recommend acceptance of the paper with corrections as specified under specific comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
REVIEW 1
Thank you for your comments and time spent assessing this work. All of your specific comments and suggestions are addressed in the following text.
Specific comments:
Methods: The vertical and horizontal resolution of the DEMs used as the basis for bedform mapping needs to be added.
This information will be added in the revised manuscript.
Figure 1: The colour choices in this figure for both the background elevation data and the mapping mean that there is little contrast between the two, and the mapping is hard to see (especially the green bedforms appearing on the lowest topography. I suggest modifying the colour schemes to improve this. The elevation scale for each of the panels in A) also varies. In order to compare across sites it would be preferable to use a single colour scale for elevation in each panel. There should also be a space between the value and the unit in the labels. The study area panel is very dark. For those unfamiliar with the region there should be inclusion of a small inset to show the wider context of the location within the area covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The area comparisons in (B) is a very useful figure, but would be easier to follow if the lines connecting the labels to the graduated circles were thinner, and the colours of the text boxes were the same as the circles, especially as this same colour scheme is continued throughout the other figures to identify each site. It is unclear what the volume values are pertaining to in the labels. Is this of the area, the bump, or the bedforms?
The color of the bedforms will be modified in the final version of the figures, however, due to the large scale elevation differences between the bump sites themselves, one elevation scale will not be able to show any elevation variation across the smaller bump sizes. In order to see variability in elevation across each site, the individual elevation ranges are needed. A space will be added between the elevation values and units in the labels. The study area panel will be updated to be lighter in color and an inset of Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation with the Puget Lowland highlighted will be added. Fig 1B will be updated by reducing the size of the lines connecting the labels to the circles and the color of the text boxes will be made to match the circles. Clarification and an additional figure representing volume of the bumps will be added to this figure (also addressing a comment from Anders Damsgaard).
Figure 2: Include in the legend the site codes as used in Fig 1 as well as the names, or add site names to the labelling in Figure 1A.
The site codes used in Fig 1 will be added to the legend in Fig 2.
I would recommend acceptance of the paper with corrections as specified under specific comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1220', Anders Damsgaard, 01 Feb 2023
In this manuscript, the authors analyze over 3,000 landforms left behind after the Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington state. Among other insights on the dynamics around subglacial bumps, the authors find that large bumps, with a volume greater than 4.5 km³, cause a significant change in bedform geometry and, consequently, the ice flow itself. The results are novel and are highly useful for developing ice-flow models that include basal landform evolution and the differential response of hard and soft beds.
The manuscript is exceptionally well written, and I do not have many suggestions for changes. I suggest publication after the following points have been considered:
- L27-29: "Conversely, ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."
I agree with the logic that increased strain heating leads to bed weakening downstream of the bump through elevated basal water pressure and decreased effective stress. However, despite the basal weakening, the bump may not cause faster ice flow, as friction from the bump is transferred through the ice column by longitudinal stresses. The listed references, Payne and Dongelmans (1997) and Cuffey and Paterson (2010), are too general to support that specific hypothesis. I am unaware of recent observations of faster-than-usual ice flow downstream of sticky spots or bumps. Do you have observations or modeling references that could support the ice speed increase? Otherwise, I suggest that the hypothesis is reframed so that the observed changes in bedforms downstream of bumps are due to elevated basal water pressure and reduced basal friction, not basal ice speed. - Figure 1B: The concentric circles in panel B are hard for me to tie to the statistics listed in the accompanying boxes. I would much prefer 2D plots containing the same information, which in my opinion, would make it easier to spot trends and variability.
- Figure 4AB: Is it possible to remove the gray background in panels A and B? It makes it hard for me to discern the color differences between lines on my monitor.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
REVIEW 2
Thank you for these comments. Your consideration of our logic in downstream ice-flow velocity is very helpful and will strengthen this work. All of your comments have been addressed in the following text.
The manuscript is exceptionally well written, and I do not have many suggestions for changes. I suggest publication after the following points have been considered:
L27-29: Conversely,ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."
I agree with the logic that increased strain heating leads to bed weakening downstream of the bump through elevated basal water pressure and decreased effective stress. However, despite the basal weakening, the bump may not cause faster ice flow, as friction from the bump is transferred through the ice column by longitudinal stresses. The listed references, Payne and Dongelmans (1997) and Cuffey and Paterson (2010), are too general to support that specific hypothesis. I am unaware of recent observations of faster-than-usual ice flow downstream of sticky spots or bumps. Do you have observations or modeling references that could support the ice speed increase? Otherwise, I suggest that the hypothesis is reframed so that the observed changes in bedforms downstream of bumps are due to elevated basal water pressure and reduced basal friction, not basal ice speed.Thank you for sharing this perspective – the consideration for basal water pressure and reduced basal friction in synthesizing longer bedforms will be added to the revised manuscript. Referencing ice speed increase downstream of bumps was identified as a result of the bedform morphology due to the role of ice speed in developing bedform elongation. However, you’re right that observations or modeling references do not find this same result, suggesting the role of basal water pressure and reduced basal friction are likely the factors contributing to this downstream increase in bedform elongation.
Figure 1B: The concentric circles in panel B are hard for me to tie to the statistics listed in the accompanying boxes. I would much prefer 2D plots containing the same information, which in my opinion, would make it easier to spot trends and variability.
An additional 2D plot representing bump volume will be added to complement the concentric circles representing bump surface area to help illustrate this point.
Figure 4AB: Is it possible to remove the gray background in panels A and B? It makes it hard for me to discern the color differences between lines on my monitor.
This adjustment will be made to the final version of Fig 4.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-AC2
- L27-29: "Conversely, ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1220', Anna L.C. Hughes, 23 Jan 2023
Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on glacial ice flow and subglacial processes
McKenzie et al. Submission to The CyrosphereGeneral comments:
This paper presents a morphometric analysis of a dataset of subglacial bedforms of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet to assess the influence of isolated changes in subglacial topographic relief on ice flow. The bedform dataset, was generated by semi-automatic mapping from Digital Elevation Models, the methods of which are summarised here and presented by the authors in cited papers published elsewhere. For this study nine sites within Puget Lowland were selected that capture isolated topographic highs of variable area and height in both crystalline and volcanic bedrock, with between 125 and 1013 bedforms at each site examined. The authors classify bedforms within 100 feet of each bump as being upstream, downstream or on top of each bump and use this to examine variations in the morphometry of bedforms, focussing on their elongation ratio and surface relief. Despite the relatively small sample size this dataset and analysis provides new data on the potential role of subglacial topography on landform morphometry.The authors explain the morphometry by invoking explanations related to changes in lithology and thus sediment availability, as well as subglacial pressure and meltwater changes. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that bump volume appears to control the downstream bedform orientation, with bump volumes of 4.5 km3 or less showing a persistent downstream legacy on bedform orientation (and thus ice flow organisation). Though this threshold is defined by only two sites with bumps >4.5 km3. Further studies from a greater range of glaciated environments and ice flow settings are needed to explore this finding further.
I found this short paper to be well written. The description of the analysis and results are comprehensive and clear. Figures are high quality, although see comments below.
Specific comments:
Methods: The vertical and horizontal resoltuion of the DEMs used as the basis for bedform mapping needs to be added.
Figure 1: The colour choices in this figure for both the background elevation data and the mapping mean that there is little contrast between the two, and the mapping is hard to see (especially the green bedforms appearing on the lowest topography. I suggest modifying the colour schemes to improve this. The elevation scale for each of the panels in A) also varies. In order to compare across sites it would be preferable to use a single colour scale for elevation in each panel. There should also be a space between the value and the unit in the labels. The study area panel is very dark. For those unfamiliar with the region there should be inclusion of a small inset to show the wider context of the location within the area covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The area comparisons in (B) is a very useful figure, but would be easier to follow if the lines connecting the labels to the graduated circles were thinner, and the colours of the text boxes were the same as the circles, especially as this same colour scheme is continued throughout the other figures to identify each site. It is unclear what the volume values are pertaining to in the labels. Is this of the area, the bump, or the bedforms?
Figure 2: Include in the legend the site codes as used in Fig 1 as well as the names, or add site names to the labelling in Figure 1A.
I would recommend acceptance of the paper with corrections as specified under specific comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
REVIEW 1
Thank you for your comments and time spent assessing this work. All of your specific comments and suggestions are addressed in the following text.
Specific comments:
Methods: The vertical and horizontal resolution of the DEMs used as the basis for bedform mapping needs to be added.
This information will be added in the revised manuscript.
Figure 1: The colour choices in this figure for both the background elevation data and the mapping mean that there is little contrast between the two, and the mapping is hard to see (especially the green bedforms appearing on the lowest topography. I suggest modifying the colour schemes to improve this. The elevation scale for each of the panels in A) also varies. In order to compare across sites it would be preferable to use a single colour scale for elevation in each panel. There should also be a space between the value and the unit in the labels. The study area panel is very dark. For those unfamiliar with the region there should be inclusion of a small inset to show the wider context of the location within the area covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The area comparisons in (B) is a very useful figure, but would be easier to follow if the lines connecting the labels to the graduated circles were thinner, and the colours of the text boxes were the same as the circles, especially as this same colour scheme is continued throughout the other figures to identify each site. It is unclear what the volume values are pertaining to in the labels. Is this of the area, the bump, or the bedforms?
The color of the bedforms will be modified in the final version of the figures, however, due to the large scale elevation differences between the bump sites themselves, one elevation scale will not be able to show any elevation variation across the smaller bump sizes. In order to see variability in elevation across each site, the individual elevation ranges are needed. A space will be added between the elevation values and units in the labels. The study area panel will be updated to be lighter in color and an inset of Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation with the Puget Lowland highlighted will be added. Fig 1B will be updated by reducing the size of the lines connecting the labels to the circles and the color of the text boxes will be made to match the circles. Clarification and an additional figure representing volume of the bumps will be added to this figure (also addressing a comment from Anders Damsgaard).
Figure 2: Include in the legend the site codes as used in Fig 1 as well as the names, or add site names to the labelling in Figure 1A.
The site codes used in Fig 1 will be added to the legend in Fig 2.
I would recommend acceptance of the paper with corrections as specified under specific comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1220', Anders Damsgaard, 01 Feb 2023
In this manuscript, the authors analyze over 3,000 landforms left behind after the Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington state. Among other insights on the dynamics around subglacial bumps, the authors find that large bumps, with a volume greater than 4.5 km³, cause a significant change in bedform geometry and, consequently, the ice flow itself. The results are novel and are highly useful for developing ice-flow models that include basal landform evolution and the differential response of hard and soft beds.
The manuscript is exceptionally well written, and I do not have many suggestions for changes. I suggest publication after the following points have been considered:
- L27-29: "Conversely, ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."
I agree with the logic that increased strain heating leads to bed weakening downstream of the bump through elevated basal water pressure and decreased effective stress. However, despite the basal weakening, the bump may not cause faster ice flow, as friction from the bump is transferred through the ice column by longitudinal stresses. The listed references, Payne and Dongelmans (1997) and Cuffey and Paterson (2010), are too general to support that specific hypothesis. I am unaware of recent observations of faster-than-usual ice flow downstream of sticky spots or bumps. Do you have observations or modeling references that could support the ice speed increase? Otherwise, I suggest that the hypothesis is reframed so that the observed changes in bedforms downstream of bumps are due to elevated basal water pressure and reduced basal friction, not basal ice speed. - Figure 1B: The concentric circles in panel B are hard for me to tie to the statistics listed in the accompanying boxes. I would much prefer 2D plots containing the same information, which in my opinion, would make it easier to spot trends and variability.
- Figure 4AB: Is it possible to remove the gray background in panels A and B? It makes it hard for me to discern the color differences between lines on my monitor.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
REVIEW 2
Thank you for these comments. Your consideration of our logic in downstream ice-flow velocity is very helpful and will strengthen this work. All of your comments have been addressed in the following text.
The manuscript is exceptionally well written, and I do not have many suggestions for changes. I suggest publication after the following points have been considered:
L27-29: Conversely,ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."
I agree with the logic that increased strain heating leads to bed weakening downstream of the bump through elevated basal water pressure and decreased effective stress. However, despite the basal weakening, the bump may not cause faster ice flow, as friction from the bump is transferred through the ice column by longitudinal stresses. The listed references, Payne and Dongelmans (1997) and Cuffey and Paterson (2010), are too general to support that specific hypothesis. I am unaware of recent observations of faster-than-usual ice flow downstream of sticky spots or bumps. Do you have observations or modeling references that could support the ice speed increase? Otherwise, I suggest that the hypothesis is reframed so that the observed changes in bedforms downstream of bumps are due to elevated basal water pressure and reduced basal friction, not basal ice speed.Thank you for sharing this perspective – the consideration for basal water pressure and reduced basal friction in synthesizing longer bedforms will be added to the revised manuscript. Referencing ice speed increase downstream of bumps was identified as a result of the bedform morphology due to the role of ice speed in developing bedform elongation. However, you’re right that observations or modeling references do not find this same result, suggesting the role of basal water pressure and reduced basal friction are likely the factors contributing to this downstream increase in bedform elongation.
Figure 1B: The concentric circles in panel B are hard for me to tie to the statistics listed in the accompanying boxes. I would much prefer 2D plots containing the same information, which in my opinion, would make it easier to spot trends and variability.
An additional 2D plot representing bump volume will be added to complement the concentric circles representing bump surface area to help illustrate this point.
Figure 4AB: Is it possible to remove the gray background in panels A and B? It makes it hard for me to discern the color differences between lines on my monitor.
This adjustment will be made to the final version of Fig 4.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-AC2
- L27-29: "Conversely, ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Streamlined subglacial bedforms across isolated topographic highs in the Puget Lowland, Washington state McKenzie, M. A., Simkins, L. M., Slawson, J. S., and Wang, S. https://issues.pangaea.de/browse/PDI-33324
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 432 | 146 | 15 | 593 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 432
- PDF: 146
- XML: 15
- Total: 593
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 287 | 47 |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 58 | 9 |
| Germany | 3 | 26 | 4 |
| China | 4 | 25 | 4 |
| Canada | 5 | 21 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 287
Lauren M. Simkins
Jacob S. Slawson
Emma J. MacKie
Shujie Wang
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2773 KB) - Metadata XML