the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Spatio-temporal evolution of glacial lakes in the Tibetan Plateau over the past 30 years
Abstract. As the Third Pole of the Earth and the Water Tower of Asia, Tibetan Plateau (TP) nurtures large numbers of glacial lakes, which are sensitive to global climate change. These lakes modulate the freshwater ecosystem in the region, but concurrently pose severe threats to the valley population by means of sudden glacial lake outbursts and consequent floods (GLOFs). Lack of high-resolution multi-temporal inventory of glacial lakes in TP hampers a better understanding and prediction of the future trend and risk of glacial lakes. Here, we created a multi-temporal inventory of glacial lakes in TP using 30 years record of 42833 satellite images (1990–2019), and discussed their characteristics and spatio-temporal evolution over the years. Results showed that their number and area had increased by 3285 and 258.82 km2 in the last 3 decades, respectively. We noticed that different regions of TP exhibited varying change rates in glacial lake size, most regions show a trend of expansion and increase in glacial lakes, while some regions show a trend of decreasing such as the western Pamir and the eastern Hindu Kush. The mapping uncertainty is about 17.5 %, lower than other available datasets, thus making our inventory reliable for the spatio-temporal evolution analysis of glacial lakes in TP. Our lake inventory data are freely available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5574289 (Dou et al., 2021), it can help to study climate change-glacier-glacial lake-GLOF interactions in the Third Pole and serve input to various hydro-climatic studies.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(2709 KB)
-
Supplement
(1634 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(2709 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1634 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-586', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2022
I had the pleasure to revise the paper of Dou et al.. The authors have done a tremendous job in mapping glacial lakes in TP. Unfortunately, I think the paper needs substantial improvements.
I found that this paper was initially submitted of ESSD journal https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2021-354/, where it received, in my opinion, two good revisions. The reviewers mainly pointed out a lack of the novelty of the paper considering the existence of other two inventories in the region. The authors revised the manuscript, which was submitted here for TC.
However, I think the new version of the manuscript does not increase the novelty of the paper, as it can be observed just reading  the abstract, which does not point out any new finding.
Moreover the paper lacks of these major aspects:
- Statistical analysis related to the observed changes (area and number of lakes for different categories). Is the decreasing observed in Pamir significant? Significance should be established with an ANOVA (probably non-parametric). See e.g., doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02735.
- No climatic discussion. Why should readers be interest in differences between e.g., Western Himalaya and Qilian if any reason is hypothesized?
- Unconnected lakes are treated here without considering how they are fed. Surely in this way they do not provide any information on drivers of change. You should digitalize the relevant basins.
- The paper presents a not clear structure. Apparently, It seems to focus on the multitemporal analysis, but afterward the discussion is mainly centered on methodological differences between inventories. With this kind of structure the reader is confused. I suggest to revise the paper with this order: a) present your inventory and differences with the other two cadasters b) present the changes occurred in the last three decades c) provide a climatic analysis (reanalysis?) d) discus findings.
Â
Medium
- You presented three temporal thresholds but you discussed just two.
- Figure 11 What about the scatter plot between Chen et al., 2021 and Wang et al., 2020? Are you sure that your inventory fits better with the other two inventories than how much the other two fit between them? If all dataset fit well, what does this mean?
Minor
- Avoid decimals for surfaces
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-586-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-586', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2022
- RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-586', Anonymous Referee #3, 19 Oct 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-586', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2022
I had the pleasure to revise the paper of Dou et al.. The authors have done a tremendous job in mapping glacial lakes in TP. Unfortunately, I think the paper needs substantial improvements.
I found that this paper was initially submitted of ESSD journal https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2021-354/, where it received, in my opinion, two good revisions. The reviewers mainly pointed out a lack of the novelty of the paper considering the existence of other two inventories in the region. The authors revised the manuscript, which was submitted here for TC.
However, I think the new version of the manuscript does not increase the novelty of the paper, as it can be observed just reading  the abstract, which does not point out any new finding.
Moreover the paper lacks of these major aspects:
- Statistical analysis related to the observed changes (area and number of lakes for different categories). Is the decreasing observed in Pamir significant? Significance should be established with an ANOVA (probably non-parametric). See e.g., doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02735.
- No climatic discussion. Why should readers be interest in differences between e.g., Western Himalaya and Qilian if any reason is hypothesized?
- Unconnected lakes are treated here without considering how they are fed. Surely in this way they do not provide any information on drivers of change. You should digitalize the relevant basins.
- The paper presents a not clear structure. Apparently, It seems to focus on the multitemporal analysis, but afterward the discussion is mainly centered on methodological differences between inventories. With this kind of structure the reader is confused. I suggest to revise the paper with this order: a) present your inventory and differences with the other two cadasters b) present the changes occurred in the last three decades c) provide a climatic analysis (reanalysis?) d) discus findings.
Â
Medium
- You presented three temporal thresholds but you discussed just two.
- Figure 11 What about the scatter plot between Chen et al., 2021 and Wang et al., 2020? Are you sure that your inventory fits better with the other two inventories than how much the other two fit between them? If all dataset fit well, what does this mean?
Minor
- Avoid decimals for surfaces
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-586-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-586', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2022
- RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-586', Anonymous Referee #3, 19 Oct 2022
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
446 | 261 | 32 | 739 | 94 | 30 | 22 |
- HTML: 446
- PDF: 261
- XML: 32
- Total: 739
- Supplement: 94
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Xiangyang Dou
Ali P. Yunus
Junlin Xiong
Ran Tang
Xin Wang
Qiang Xu
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(2709 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1634 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote