Surface dynamics and history of the calving cycle of the Astrolabe glacier (Antarctica) derived from optical imagery

Provost, Floriane; Zigone, Dimitri; Le Meur, Emmanuel; Malet, Jean-Philippe; Hibert, Clément

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736

Preprints

21 Jun 2023

| 21 Jun 2023

Surface dynamics and history of the calving cycle of the Astrolabe glacier (Antarctica) derived from optical imagery

Floriane Provost, Dimitri Zigone, Emmanuel Le Meur, Jean-Philippe Malet, and Clément Hibert

Abstract. The recent calving of the Astrolabe glacier (Terre Adélie, East Antarctica) in November 2021 presents an opportunity to better understand the processes leading to ice fracturing. Optical satellite imagery is used to retrieve the calving cycle of the glacier since 2000 by mapping the ice front location. A recent archive of high resolution optical images from Sentinel-2 is used to measure the ice motion and the ice strain rates for the period 2017–2021 in order to document fractures and rift evolution. These observations are compared with sea ice extent and concentration measurements. We found that a significant change in the sea ice melting periodicity at the vicinity of the Astrolabe glacier occurred in the last decade (2011–2021) with respect to previous observations (1979–2011). After 2011, the occurrence of consecutive years of high sea-ice concentration at the vicinity of the glacier seems to have favored the ice tongue spatial extension. This lead to an unprecedentedly observed extension of the ice tongue until November 2021. The analysis of strain rate time series revealed that the glacier dislocated suddenly in June 2021 in the middle of the winter before releasing an iceberg of around 20 km² in November 2021 at the onset of sea ice melting season. These observations suggest that although the presence of sea ice favors glacier extension, its buttressing effect may not be sufficient to prevent fracture opening.

Received: 13 Apr 2023 – Discussion started: 21 Jun 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 5097 KB)

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 (5097 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

04 Jul 2024

Surface dynamics and history of the calving cycle of Astrolabe Glacier (Adélie Coast, Antarctica) derived from satellite imagery

Floriane Provost, Dimitri Zigone, Emmanuel Le Meur, Jean-Philippe Malet, and Clément Hibert

The Cryosphere, 18, 3067–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3067-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3067-2024, 2024

Short summary

Floriane Provost, Dimitri Zigone, Emmanuel Le Meur, Jean-Philippe Malet, and Clément Hibert

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-736', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Jul 2023

This manuscript reports on the recent calving dynamics of Astrolabe Glacier, a small glacier in Terre Adélie Land, East Antarctic. The manuscript reports of an anomalous advance of the ice tongue which the authors link to strong landfast sea-ice conditions, but they also highlight that fractures can develop during the winter. Sea-ice buttressing is a potenitally important but understudied topic and the detailed inter-annual observations presented in this manuscript have the potential to be useful for the wider community. However, I think major revisions are required here before publication can be considered. My concerns are detailed in the below comments:
Major comments
“Unprecedented advance”: The manuscript states in a few locations that there was an unprecedented advance of the ice tongue up to November 2021. This may well still prove to be correct, but I cannot be certain of this because the study does not show the full time series of available satellite imagery. The manuscript looks in detail between 2000-2022, but what about the earlier satellite imagery? I am pretty sure there is available imagery going back to the 1970s e.g. 1997 radarsat mosaic, ~1992 ERS data, Landsat4/5 late 1980s, Landsat 1 early 1970s, maybe even the ARGON mosaic from 1963 (Kim et al., 2007) or even aerial photography from the 1940s. I have not checked for each of those satellites, but there is certainly a cloud-free Landsat-1 image from the early 1970s. I appreciate that there are gaps between these images, but they are still important to include to help determine if this really is an unprecedented advance. The ice-front extent from these images should be added to Figure 5a.

Sea-ice concentrations: As I understand, the authors extract mean sea ice concentrations from a 4,000km box surrounding the glacier, they infer periods of multi-year landfast sea-ice conditions form this analysis. I am not sure this is the case. The dataset the authors use is not the best for determining Landfast sea-ice conditions because the pixels are course and they do not extend all the way to the coastline. Indeed, a quick look at the MODIS imagery shows that actually the glacier is sea-ice free for large portions of nearly every summer, including the period of ice tongue advance. So the claim that multi-year fast ice has forced the advance of the ice tongue is incorrect. It appears that there is no MYFI at any stage over the period 2011-2021. I think a useful figure for any revised manuscript could be a multi-year panel showing a MODIS image showing the sea-ice conditions at the sea-ice minima (roughly March) every year from 2000 (or at least the period of anomalous advance 2011-2022), this would enable the reader to better visualise the sea-ice conditions. (see MODIS imagery on NASA Worldview website; link below).
This is important, the other studies mentioned in the manuscript (Miles et al., 2017 – Porpoise Bay, Gomes-Fell et al., 2020 – Victoria Land and Christie et al., 2022 – Antarctic Peninsula and other studies) link the advance of outlet glaciers to persistent multi-year fast ice, and when the fast ice finally breaks away the ice shelves/tongue calve instantly. A different process is clearly operating here and the differences between the studies mentioned above and the processes operating here should be discussed in any revised version. The increased sea-ice concentrations in the 4,000 km box are clear in the summer post 2011 and Figure 5b is convincing, but the mechanism that the authors hypothesize is driving the changes to the iec tongue needs to be much more clear.
It is also essential that the authors detail the sea-ice concentrations in the methods section of the paper, it has been completely missed out. Including where you have actually extracted the data i.e. show the 4,000 km box on a figure.
Glacier acceleration and ice break off: 2021: In general I was a little confused in this section, are you refereeing to an acceleration of the entire glacier? Or is this just a local acceleration on the ice tongue near the ice-front?

Title: I feel it could be made more impactful if it included something related to sea-ice, the process that the authors hypothesize is driving change here. Very few glaciologists would recognize Astrolabe Glacier and I fear most would simply skip over the manuscript based on the current lengthy title. I think the title needs to include something relating to sea-ice to entice a much wider readership. Perhaps something along the lines of: ‘Anomalous advance of the Astrolabe Glacier Tongue driven by more persistent sea-ice conditions 2011-2021’. (Or something similar)

Cause of shift in sea-ice conditions: The shift in sea-ice conditions appears is around 2011. This more or less coincides with the calving of the Mertz Glacier tongue just round the corner from Astrolabe. The calving of the Mertz Glacier fundamentally changed the local sea-ice conditions (see Tamura et al., 2012; Campagne et al., 2015 and several others). Feel free to ignore, but maybe worth briefly investigating and would make an interesting discussion point.

Figures
Figure 1: There is no satellite image of the entire glacier at any point in the manuscript. This is an essential requirement and It would be make sense for this to be in figure 1. I would recommend replacing the DEM with a Landsat or Sentinel-2 image. You could also add all the mapped ice-fronts to this figure.
Figure 5: I think panel (a) is a nice figure, but you could consider extending the ice-front position change back to the 1970s. It is difficult to judge panel (c) because I cannot really distinguish any changes from the color scheme, please consider amending this.
New figure suggestion: A multi panel figure showing a MODIS image of the glacier every sea-ice minima (roughly e.g. Late Feb to March)

Minor comments
Numerous incidents of Figures or references not bracketed
Line 19-23: Not sure, I buy this argument. Most of the ice shelves in West Antarctica are actually quite small. There have also now been at least a dozen of East Antarctic focussed studies on individual glaciers. Please revise.
Line 32-44: I think it would be nice to explicitly define Landfast sea-ice here and how it differs to sea-ice, some readers of The Cryosphere will not know this. Then clearly go through the mechanisms in which Landfast sea-ice can promote ice shelf advance/delay calving/stabilize ice tongues, but also how sea-ice on the open ocean can be important (e.g. buffering ocean swell) using examples from the literature. This will help set up the paper. A recent review paper on Landfast sea-ice and the references within could be a useful start here: (see Fraser et al., 2023; ‘Antarctic Landfast Sea Ice: A Review of Its Physics, Biogeochemistry and Ecology’).
Line 43-45: This is an excellent question.
Line 49 – “Landfast sea-ice melting” is awkward because the sea-ice can be melting but still present. Perhaps “sea-ice free conditions” or similar is better. Please revise throughout manuscript.
Line 58: What is wrong with radar images during this time period?
Line 103: “ice tongue surface” – this figure does not show changes to the ice tongue surface.
Line 187: “Figure ?”
Line 209: is there any bathymetry data available to confirm this? Are there any pinning points?
Line 216: There is little to no MYFI here.
Line 223-240: There is some discussion of sea-ice trends from 1979-2016, but what about 2016-2023? There has been an exceptional decline in sea-ice, particularly this year. As a reader, I am interested what the results from this study might mean for a future with considerably less sea-ice?
Line 229-231: Please investigate the availability of imagery; I believe that there are imagery dating back to the early 1970s for the vast majority of East Antarctica that has been used in other studies.
Line 235: “while before 2010, 1 to 2 images per year at most are available during summer”. This is not correct. MODIS allows a daily viewing of this glacier since 2000, the resolution is sufficient enough to see at least the major calving events.

MODIS link: https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=1524288.6381649177,-2038092.853452241,1794076.1394911779,-1918924.853452241&p=antarctic&t=2019-03-16-T07%3A45%3A59Z

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Floriane Provost, 13 Nov 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-736/egusphere-2023-736-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-736', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Aug 2023

This manuscript adds to the literature on an important topic in glaciology: controls on glacier calving. Specifically, the authors construct a time-series of ice-front change and related variables (ice-flow velocity, strain rates, and sea-ice conditions) for Astrolabe Glacier in East Antarctica to better understand the causes of several calving events during the record. The general approach is useful, and the questions addressed are interesting. I think there is a fundamental issue with the analysis related to the treatment of sea ice that is important to address, and the paper could use some editing and polishing.
Major comment: Treatment of sea ice
The paper links the calving behaviour of Astrolabe Glacier to sea-ice forcing, which is presented fairly generally in the abstract. However, most of the rest of the paper refers to this analysis as addressing “landfast sea-ice forcing.” Land-fast sea ice is a specific sea-ice configuration that is attached to land, which may mean that it provides more buttressing potential than freely floating sea ice. There are indeed several papers, cited in this manuscript for comparison, that attempt to address the role of land-fast sea ice in calving and glacier behaviour. However, this study only quantifies sea ice, not land-fast sea ice. Looking at sea-ice extent and concentration is not equivalent to assessing the presence of land-fast sea ice, and it means that the analysis cannot be as directly compared to studies that assess land-fast sea ice. Instead, the differences between the studies and the implications for differing mechanisms should be explored in more detail.
I also have trouble seeing the connection between proposed physical mechanisms for ice-tongue stabilization and the analyses performed, particularly in regard to sea-ice extent. The area over which sea-ice extent is assessed is listed as being 4000 square kilometers, but the area chosen is never shown or justified. It is unclear to me how the authors determined the area over which sea-ice extent should matter to the behaviour of the ice tongue. Sea-ice concentration is taken from a pixel in a sea-ice product that covers the ice tongue, but this area is also not shown in the paper, and it is not clear whether it is centered on the ice tongue or whether all areas in the pixel are likely to affect the ice tongue. These decisions should be clearly justified and the areas shown in the paper.
Still, the fact that there is some correlation between these variables and ice-tongue behaviour is likely to be interesting. However, that correlation is not quantified. The authors claim that it is well-correlated, and there does seem to be some evidence of that in Figure 5, but it is very difficult to interpret the data from the very small panels in the figure. It would be helpful to perform the correlations, perhaps between sea-ice extent and the trend in ice-front position, for example, to better quantify the relationship.
Finally, the term “melting” appears to be used incorrectly in regard to sea ice. It seems to be used synonymously with a decrease in sea-ice concentration or extent. While this can be due to melting, these variables may also change due to sea-ice advection. Since sea-ice melting does not appear to be assessed in the study, it would be better to use a more general term.
Other comments:
The manuscript is generally fairly clearly written, but there are typos and grammar issues throughout the manuscript that should be addressed. For example, hyphens between compound nouns acting as adjectives are used inconsistently, and there are many spots where verb tenses don’t match the noun form. In line 8, “lead” should be “led.” I am also accustomed to the term “transverse” rather than “transversal” being used for strain rates, but that may just be a convention I’m not familiar with.
Section 2.1.2: It would be helpful to have some indication of estimated error in the velocity correlations
Section 3.2: It would be helpful to have some more explanation in this section. I think that the GNSS measurements were averaged over the whole year to match the satellite-derived measurements, but that wouldn’t be possible with the bamboo stakes, if I’ve understood the methods correctly. It doesn’t necessarily make sense to compare a small time slice, taken to be ground-truth, to measurements averaged over a longer period of time, but perhaps that’s what the comments on lack of seasonal variation are trying to address. It’s also not always reasonable to compare point measurements to those averaged over a large spatial area. Finally, I can’t quite figure out what the last two sentences in this section are trying to say. I suspect all the analyses discussed in this section are reasonable, but I can’t quite figure that out based on what is written.
Lines 158-169 says: “It can be noted that compressional strain rates are measured from 2017 to 2020 at the terminus of the glacier tongue with strain rate larger than 0.001 day−1 while it is
not observed anymore in 2021.” Strain rates are usually positive in extension, so compressional strain rates could not, by definition, be larger than 0. Is this an absolute value, or is there a different convention being used here?
Figures:
There are several spots where figures are not referenced correctly. E.g. in section 2.1.1, it seems like the references to Fig. 1 should refer to Fig. 2, and in section 3.4, Fig. ?? should be corrected to the figure number.
Figure 2: It would be helpful if the y-axes were the same in panels e-g to facilitate comparison between panels.
Figure 4: I don’t find Fig. 4a very helpful, because the panels are too small to clearly see what is discussed in the text. Consider showing just a few panels that are necessary to the analysis, and shifting the rest of the panels in larger form to supplementary information. I think Fig. 4b is a very clever way to display the information.
In general, it would be helpful to have more labels in the figures that correspond to what is discussed in the text. For example, the discussion talks about the “main rift” and refers us to Fig. 3 on line 194. I can make some guesses based on Figure 3 about what the main rift is, but I would rather have a label or two that helps me know exactly what the authors are referring to. It would be helpful to have those labels in Figure 4, as well.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Floriane Provost, 14 Nov 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-736/egusphere-2023-736-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-736', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Jul 2023

This manuscript reports on the recent calving dynamics of Astrolabe Glacier, a small glacier in Terre Adélie Land, East Antarctic. The manuscript reports of an anomalous advance of the ice tongue which the authors link to strong landfast sea-ice conditions, but they also highlight that fractures can develop during the winter. Sea-ice buttressing is a potenitally important but understudied topic and the detailed inter-annual observations presented in this manuscript have the potential to be useful for the wider community. However, I think major revisions are required here before publication can be considered. My concerns are detailed in the below comments:
Major comments
“Unprecedented advance”: The manuscript states in a few locations that there was an unprecedented advance of the ice tongue up to November 2021. This may well still prove to be correct, but I cannot be certain of this because the study does not show the full time series of available satellite imagery. The manuscript looks in detail between 2000-2022, but what about the earlier satellite imagery? I am pretty sure there is available imagery going back to the 1970s e.g. 1997 radarsat mosaic, ~1992 ERS data, Landsat4/5 late 1980s, Landsat 1 early 1970s, maybe even the ARGON mosaic from 1963 (Kim et al., 2007) or even aerial photography from the 1940s. I have not checked for each of those satellites, but there is certainly a cloud-free Landsat-1 image from the early 1970s. I appreciate that there are gaps between these images, but they are still important to include to help determine if this really is an unprecedented advance. The ice-front extent from these images should be added to Figure 5a.

Sea-ice concentrations: As I understand, the authors extract mean sea ice concentrations from a 4,000km box surrounding the glacier, they infer periods of multi-year landfast sea-ice conditions form this analysis. I am not sure this is the case. The dataset the authors use is not the best for determining Landfast sea-ice conditions because the pixels are course and they do not extend all the way to the coastline. Indeed, a quick look at the MODIS imagery shows that actually the glacier is sea-ice free for large portions of nearly every summer, including the period of ice tongue advance. So the claim that multi-year fast ice has forced the advance of the ice tongue is incorrect. It appears that there is no MYFI at any stage over the period 2011-2021. I think a useful figure for any revised manuscript could be a multi-year panel showing a MODIS image showing the sea-ice conditions at the sea-ice minima (roughly March) every year from 2000 (or at least the period of anomalous advance 2011-2022), this would enable the reader to better visualise the sea-ice conditions. (see MODIS imagery on NASA Worldview website; link below).
This is important, the other studies mentioned in the manuscript (Miles et al., 2017 – Porpoise Bay, Gomes-Fell et al., 2020 – Victoria Land and Christie et al., 2022 – Antarctic Peninsula and other studies) link the advance of outlet glaciers to persistent multi-year fast ice, and when the fast ice finally breaks away the ice shelves/tongue calve instantly. A different process is clearly operating here and the differences between the studies mentioned above and the processes operating here should be discussed in any revised version. The increased sea-ice concentrations in the 4,000 km box are clear in the summer post 2011 and Figure 5b is convincing, but the mechanism that the authors hypothesize is driving the changes to the iec tongue needs to be much more clear.
It is also essential that the authors detail the sea-ice concentrations in the methods section of the paper, it has been completely missed out. Including where you have actually extracted the data i.e. show the 4,000 km box on a figure.
Glacier acceleration and ice break off: 2021: In general I was a little confused in this section, are you refereeing to an acceleration of the entire glacier? Or is this just a local acceleration on the ice tongue near the ice-front?

Title: I feel it could be made more impactful if it included something related to sea-ice, the process that the authors hypothesize is driving change here. Very few glaciologists would recognize Astrolabe Glacier and I fear most would simply skip over the manuscript based on the current lengthy title. I think the title needs to include something relating to sea-ice to entice a much wider readership. Perhaps something along the lines of: ‘Anomalous advance of the Astrolabe Glacier Tongue driven by more persistent sea-ice conditions 2011-2021’. (Or something similar)

Cause of shift in sea-ice conditions: The shift in sea-ice conditions appears is around 2011. This more or less coincides with the calving of the Mertz Glacier tongue just round the corner from Astrolabe. The calving of the Mertz Glacier fundamentally changed the local sea-ice conditions (see Tamura et al., 2012; Campagne et al., 2015 and several others). Feel free to ignore, but maybe worth briefly investigating and would make an interesting discussion point.

Figures
Figure 1: There is no satellite image of the entire glacier at any point in the manuscript. This is an essential requirement and It would be make sense for this to be in figure 1. I would recommend replacing the DEM with a Landsat or Sentinel-2 image. You could also add all the mapped ice-fronts to this figure.
Figure 5: I think panel (a) is a nice figure, but you could consider extending the ice-front position change back to the 1970s. It is difficult to judge panel (c) because I cannot really distinguish any changes from the color scheme, please consider amending this.
New figure suggestion: A multi panel figure showing a MODIS image of the glacier every sea-ice minima (roughly e.g. Late Feb to March)

Minor comments
Numerous incidents of Figures or references not bracketed
Line 19-23: Not sure, I buy this argument. Most of the ice shelves in West Antarctica are actually quite small. There have also now been at least a dozen of East Antarctic focussed studies on individual glaciers. Please revise.
Line 32-44: I think it would be nice to explicitly define Landfast sea-ice here and how it differs to sea-ice, some readers of The Cryosphere will not know this. Then clearly go through the mechanisms in which Landfast sea-ice can promote ice shelf advance/delay calving/stabilize ice tongues, but also how sea-ice on the open ocean can be important (e.g. buffering ocean swell) using examples from the literature. This will help set up the paper. A recent review paper on Landfast sea-ice and the references within could be a useful start here: (see Fraser et al., 2023; ‘Antarctic Landfast Sea Ice: A Review of Its Physics, Biogeochemistry and Ecology’).
Line 43-45: This is an excellent question.
Line 49 – “Landfast sea-ice melting” is awkward because the sea-ice can be melting but still present. Perhaps “sea-ice free conditions” or similar is better. Please revise throughout manuscript.
Line 58: What is wrong with radar images during this time period?
Line 103: “ice tongue surface” – this figure does not show changes to the ice tongue surface.
Line 187: “Figure ?”
Line 209: is there any bathymetry data available to confirm this? Are there any pinning points?
Line 216: There is little to no MYFI here.
Line 223-240: There is some discussion of sea-ice trends from 1979-2016, but what about 2016-2023? There has been an exceptional decline in sea-ice, particularly this year. As a reader, I am interested what the results from this study might mean for a future with considerably less sea-ice?
Line 229-231: Please investigate the availability of imagery; I believe that there are imagery dating back to the early 1970s for the vast majority of East Antarctica that has been used in other studies.
Line 235: “while before 2010, 1 to 2 images per year at most are available during summer”. This is not correct. MODIS allows a daily viewing of this glacier since 2000, the resolution is sufficient enough to see at least the major calving events.

MODIS link: https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=1524288.6381649177,-2038092.853452241,1794076.1394911779,-1918924.853452241&p=antarctic&t=2019-03-16-T07%3A45%3A59Z

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Floriane Provost, 13 Nov 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-736/egusphere-2023-736-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-736', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Aug 2023

This manuscript adds to the literature on an important topic in glaciology: controls on glacier calving. Specifically, the authors construct a time-series of ice-front change and related variables (ice-flow velocity, strain rates, and sea-ice conditions) for Astrolabe Glacier in East Antarctica to better understand the causes of several calving events during the record. The general approach is useful, and the questions addressed are interesting. I think there is a fundamental issue with the analysis related to the treatment of sea ice that is important to address, and the paper could use some editing and polishing.
Major comment: Treatment of sea ice
The paper links the calving behaviour of Astrolabe Glacier to sea-ice forcing, which is presented fairly generally in the abstract. However, most of the rest of the paper refers to this analysis as addressing “landfast sea-ice forcing.” Land-fast sea ice is a specific sea-ice configuration that is attached to land, which may mean that it provides more buttressing potential than freely floating sea ice. There are indeed several papers, cited in this manuscript for comparison, that attempt to address the role of land-fast sea ice in calving and glacier behaviour. However, this study only quantifies sea ice, not land-fast sea ice. Looking at sea-ice extent and concentration is not equivalent to assessing the presence of land-fast sea ice, and it means that the analysis cannot be as directly compared to studies that assess land-fast sea ice. Instead, the differences between the studies and the implications for differing mechanisms should be explored in more detail.
I also have trouble seeing the connection between proposed physical mechanisms for ice-tongue stabilization and the analyses performed, particularly in regard to sea-ice extent. The area over which sea-ice extent is assessed is listed as being 4000 square kilometers, but the area chosen is never shown or justified. It is unclear to me how the authors determined the area over which sea-ice extent should matter to the behaviour of the ice tongue. Sea-ice concentration is taken from a pixel in a sea-ice product that covers the ice tongue, but this area is also not shown in the paper, and it is not clear whether it is centered on the ice tongue or whether all areas in the pixel are likely to affect the ice tongue. These decisions should be clearly justified and the areas shown in the paper.
Still, the fact that there is some correlation between these variables and ice-tongue behaviour is likely to be interesting. However, that correlation is not quantified. The authors claim that it is well-correlated, and there does seem to be some evidence of that in Figure 5, but it is very difficult to interpret the data from the very small panels in the figure. It would be helpful to perform the correlations, perhaps between sea-ice extent and the trend in ice-front position, for example, to better quantify the relationship.
Finally, the term “melting” appears to be used incorrectly in regard to sea ice. It seems to be used synonymously with a decrease in sea-ice concentration or extent. While this can be due to melting, these variables may also change due to sea-ice advection. Since sea-ice melting does not appear to be assessed in the study, it would be better to use a more general term.
Other comments:
The manuscript is generally fairly clearly written, but there are typos and grammar issues throughout the manuscript that should be addressed. For example, hyphens between compound nouns acting as adjectives are used inconsistently, and there are many spots where verb tenses don’t match the noun form. In line 8, “lead” should be “led.” I am also accustomed to the term “transverse” rather than “transversal” being used for strain rates, but that may just be a convention I’m not familiar with.
Section 2.1.2: It would be helpful to have some indication of estimated error in the velocity correlations
Section 3.2: It would be helpful to have some more explanation in this section. I think that the GNSS measurements were averaged over the whole year to match the satellite-derived measurements, but that wouldn’t be possible with the bamboo stakes, if I’ve understood the methods correctly. It doesn’t necessarily make sense to compare a small time slice, taken to be ground-truth, to measurements averaged over a longer period of time, but perhaps that’s what the comments on lack of seasonal variation are trying to address. It’s also not always reasonable to compare point measurements to those averaged over a large spatial area. Finally, I can’t quite figure out what the last two sentences in this section are trying to say. I suspect all the analyses discussed in this section are reasonable, but I can’t quite figure that out based on what is written.
Lines 158-169 says: “It can be noted that compressional strain rates are measured from 2017 to 2020 at the terminus of the glacier tongue with strain rate larger than 0.001 day−1 while it is
not observed anymore in 2021.” Strain rates are usually positive in extension, so compressional strain rates could not, by definition, be larger than 0. Is this an absolute value, or is there a different convention being used here?
Figures:
There are several spots where figures are not referenced correctly. E.g. in section 2.1.1, it seems like the references to Fig. 1 should refer to Fig. 2, and in section 3.4, Fig. ?? should be corrected to the figure number.
Figure 2: It would be helpful if the y-axes were the same in panels e-g to facilitate comparison between panels.
Figure 4: I don’t find Fig. 4a very helpful, because the panels are too small to clearly see what is discussed in the text. Consider showing just a few panels that are necessary to the analysis, and shifting the rest of the panels in larger form to supplementary information. I think Fig. 4b is a very clever way to display the information.
In general, it would be helpful to have more labels in the figures that correspond to what is discussed in the text. For example, the discussion talks about the “main rift” and refers us to Fig. 3 on line 194. I can make some guesses based on Figure 3 about what the main rift is, but I would rather have a label or two that helps me know exactly what the authors are referring to. It would be helpful to have those labels in Figure 4, as well.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Floriane Provost, 14 Nov 2023
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-736/egusphere-2023-736-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-736-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (22 Nov 2023) by Chris R. Stokes

AR by Floriane Provost on behalf of the Authors (12 Jan 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (19 Jan 2024) by Chris R. Stokes

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Feb 2024) by Chris R. Stokes

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (23 Mar 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Thanks to the authors for a thorough response to my revision suggestions; I think the manuscript has improved a lot. I’ve made a few more suggestions below, including a couple of incorrect statements that will need to be corrected before publication, as well as a few more suggestions to improve readability.

Use of sea ice vs. fast ice: To be honest, I’m still not completely convinced by the arguments in the review response about why the sea-ice patterns can be regarded as the same as fast-ice patterns. There are only a few years available for correlation and they’re not all strong. That being said, I think the modifications to the text take care of this issue; it’s fair to refer to these as being sea-ice changes. It might be helpful to include some of the info from the review response in the discussion suggesting that fast-ice patterns are similar to the measured sea-ice patterns, but that future work would benefit from better fast-ice data availability.

Use of airborne imagery: I think this is a good addition to the paper, and that the other reviewer was correct that using the full span of available historical data is required for some of the claims in the paper. However, I don’t think the use of this has been adequately explained. First, any statement that lists 1947 as the first date must acknowledge the use of airborne imagery (e.g. Lines 4-5: Add “…airborne and satellite imagery,” as the 1947 imagery is not from satellites. Also true in line 54). Second, the use of these data needs a bit more info in the methods. Most available historical air photos are not currently accurately georeferenced, which makes it more challenging to delineate terminus positions. The methods just mention using the “sketch of the photography,” and just the resulting ice front is shown in the figure. More info about how that sketch was made and how the georeferencing was done should be included.

Grammar: There are still quite a few issues with grammar in many spots in the paper. In Line 14, the hyphen was correct before the edit: “sea-level rise” should be hyphenated, as should all pairs of nouns acting as compound adjectives before another noun. Other examples include “ice-tongue fracturing” and “sea-ice extent” in the abstract and elsewhere. “Sea-ice-free” should have two hyphens. Many examples are hyphenated correctly in the document, but it is not consistent. Note that hyphens aren’t necessary when the two nouns are not modifying another noun. For example, “sea ice” used on its own does not need to be hyphenated, but it does when it modifies “extent.” While not always necessary, I think this would improve the readability of the paper. Some other minor grammar points:
• Lines 20-24: Format citations correctly and revise grammar; does not currently make sense
• Line 44: Adjust to “i.e. sea ice fastened to the glacier/to the coastline”
• Line 51: Should be a period rather than a question mark
• Line 133: “velocity” is singular; should use “velocity is” rather than “velocity are,” or conversely use “velocities are”
• Line 260: “traducing” is not the correct word here
• Lines 268-269: Put citations in parentheses
Note that I have not marked everything that should be corrected.

Message: I really like the last sentence of the introduction, but those ideas don’t come through quite as clearly in the abstract. Consider revising the abstract, perhaps by using this sentence.

Other comments:

Lines 67-68: I believe Landsat 4 ceased transmissions in 1993, and therefore could not be the source of a 1999 image

Line 72: Landsat-8 did not launch until 2013

Figure 2a: I realize that I can reference Figure 1 to see the glacier outline, but it would be useful to have that mapped here.

Line 125: Reference Figure 1c here for the profile positions

145-146: “in 2017 and 2018, the limit between stable ice and the flowing ice tongue is retrieved in the wrong position with the GDM-OPT-ICE products.” I think you’re saying that the GDM-OPT-ICE results show velocities in the wrong direction near the western shear margin. That looks to be true in all years, not just 2017 and 2018. It would help to clarify this

Edit the caption of figure 5. I think the second sentence is explaining panel b but is not labeled that way, and the arrows showing the main rift and secondary fractures are shown in c and d, not b and c

Line 176: Add “with absolute value of the strain rate” larger than… for clarity

Figure 6 caption: The 25 km x 25 km pixel is in a dotted yellow line in Figure 1, not blue

Lines 259-261: “…lead to severe modifications of the sea ice production and location, traducing regional changes in the oceanic and atmospheric currents (Campagne et al., 2015). This event is likely at the origin of the transition of the sea ice seasonal cycle at the Astrolabe glacier.” It would be helpful if this section was more specific, for the benefit of a reader not deeply familiar with the Mertz ice tongue calving. Can you explain a bit more about what the modifications were, and why this is likely the origin of the transition of the sea ice cycle?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 Mar 2024) by Chris R. Stokes

AR by Floriane Provost on behalf of the Authors (18 Apr 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (26 Apr 2024) by Chris R. Stokes

AR by Floriane Provost on behalf of the Authors (06 May 2024) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

04 Jul 2024

Surface dynamics and history of the calving cycle of Astrolabe Glacier (Adélie Coast, Antarctica) derived from satellite imagery

Floriane Provost, Dimitri Zigone, Emmanuel Le Meur, Jean-Philippe Malet, and Clément Hibert

The Cryosphere, 18, 3067–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3067-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3067-2024, 2024

Short summary

Floriane Provost, Dimitri Zigone, Emmanuel Le Meur, Jean-Philippe Malet, and Clément Hibert

Viewed

Total article views: 587 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
399	147	41	587	25	27

HTML: 399
PDF: 147
XML: 41
Total: 587
BibTeX: 25
EndNote: 27

Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Jun 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2023	69	29	4	102
Jul 2023	66	30	6	102
Aug 2023	54	12	2	68
Sep 2023	21	6	2	29
Oct 2023	20	8	2	30
Nov 2023	16	9	4	29
Dec 2023	13	9	4	26
Jan 2024	19	3	2	24
Feb 2024	17	12	1	30
Mar 2024	19	10	4	33
Apr 2024	20	3	5	28
May 2024	13	8	1	22
Jun 2024	50	8	4	62
Jul 2024	2	0	2
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Jun 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2023	69	29	4	102
Jul 2023	66	30	6	102
Aug 2023	54	12	2	68
Sep 2023	21	6	2	29
Oct 2023	20	8	2	30
Nov 2023	16	9	4	29
Dec 2023	13	9	4	26
Jan 2024	19	3	2	24
Feb 2024	17	12	1	30
Mar 2024	19	10	4	33
Apr 2024	20	3	5	28
May 2024	13	8	1	22
Jun 2024	50	8	4	62
Jul 2024	2	0	2
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 566 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 566 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 18 Sep 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (5097 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

The recent calving of the Astrolabe glacier in November 2021 presents an opportunity to better understand the processes leading to ice fracturing. Optical satellite imagery is used to retrieve the calving cycle of the glacier ice tongue and to measure the ice velocity and strain rates in order to document fracture evolution. We observed that the presence of sea ice for consecutive years has favored the glacier extension but failed to inhibit the growth of fractures that accelerated in June 2021.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0