the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Hydrological Response of Andean Catchments to Recent Glacier Mass Loss
Abstract. The impacts of the accelerated glacier retreat in recent decades on runoff changes are still unknown in most Andean catchments, thereby increasing uncertainties in estimating and managing water availability. Here, we used a monthly time step to simulate glacier evolution and related runoff changes for 36 % of the glacierized surface area of the Andes (11,282 km2 in 786 catchments, 11° N–55° S) using the Open Global Glacier Model (OGGM) and a corrected and evaluated version of the TerraClimate dataset between 2000 and 2019. The glacier mass balance and volume were calibrated glacier-by-glacier. The simulation results were evaluated with in situ data in three documented catchments and 15 glaciers. Our results show that the glacier volume (−8.3 %) and surface area (−2.2 %) are reduced in 93 % of the catchments between the periods 2000–2009 and 2010–2019. This glacier loss is associated with changes in climate conditions (precipitation = −9 %; temperature = +0.4 ± 0.1 °C) inducing an increase in the mean annual glacier melt of 12 % (86.5 m3/s) and a decrease in the mean annual rainfall on glaciers of −2 % (−7.6 m3/s). We find a regional pattern in the melt factors showing decreasing values from the Tropical Andes toward the Wet Andes. A negative mass balance trend is estimated in the three documented catchments (glacierized surface area > 8 %), showing the largest mean glacier contribution during the transition season (September–November) in La Paz (Bolivia) (45 %) followed by Baker (Chile) (43 %) and Maipo (Chile) (36 %) during the summer season (January–March). In addition, our evaluation in the monitored glaciers indicates an underestimation of the mean simulated mass balance by 185 mm w.e. yr−1 and a high mean correlation (r = 0.7). We conclude that the large increases in the simulated glacier melt in the Dry Andes (36 %) and the Tropical Andes (24 %) have helped to improve our knowledge of the hydro-glaciological characteristics at a much wider scale than previous studies, which focused more on a few select catchments in the Andes.
-
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
(1762 KB)
-
Supplement
(2027 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1762 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2027 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-888', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jun 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexis Caro, 03 Dec 2023
Dear reviewer, below we are sending our responses to your comments and proposed changes to the article submitted for review as a PDF file. We have paid close attention to your comments regarding the novelty of this article and the impact that these results will have on the community of scientists and stakeholders in the Andean countries.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexis Caro, 03 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-888', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Oct 2023
This study examines the hydrological response of glaciers in 786 catchments across the Andes in the period 2000-2019 by integrating meteorological data and OGGM. Similar to the comment of the Referee #1, I wonder what is the research gap / justification / novelty of this study considering the availability of observations of glacier mass balance across the Andes (especially the study published by Dussaillant et al. (2019) in NATGEO for the 2000 – 2018 period)? Talking about the hydrological response and referring to Huss and Hock (2018) NCC paper, I would expect bit more elaboration of the peak water timing in different zones of the Andes. Or is the main goal the calibration and performance evaluation of the OGGM model? If so, the study should be re-framed and re-structured in my opinion.
- - -
L19-20: what is the meaning of these %?
L36: but the shrinkage did not start in late 1970s, please reformulate
L73-75: please consider deleting
L88: surprisingly, there are no meteorological stations included for 11°N to 9°S where there are different climatological conditions compared to the rest of the study region; please comment on how this gap can impact your analysis especially in the IT zone
L137: 12 of these 15 glaciers are located between 29°S and 39°S while only two glaciers are considered for 11°N to 29°S; please comment on how this gap can impact your analysis
L133-134: you may consider referring to your Fig. 2 already here
L147: median might be more interesting than mean
L158: please list these studies and summarize the main conclusions
L173: glacier entity vs. glacier?
L202: what are the basic properties of the NASADEM?
Fig. 1: please check the completeness of your workflow (e.g. the 3 catchments studies in detail); please also consider linking individual components of your workflow to the sections of the manuscript;
L223: to what elevation are these numbers referring to?
L245: please consider displaying a metric quantifying the fit between observed and corrected data in Tab. S2
Fig. 2: please consider incorporating also relative changes in this figure
Fig. 3: maybe a boxplot everyone can read without additional explanation could work here?
L318-320: the comparison of absolute numbers (m3/s) doesn’t tell a lot and the comparison is meaningless since these regions don’t have comparable glacier coverage; please check here and in other parts of the manuscript that the number you refer to can be compared across the zones / regions
L333: since there is no catchment studied north from La Paz, I wonder why not to use Peruvian Río Santa catchment for which similar data are available and you refer to it in introduction?
L365-377: this part is more about the climate (changes) and doesn’t correspond with the section title; please consider moving
Tab. 3: please show and compare simulated and observed values
L418-419: please delete
L453: please make sure that these studies appear in the list of references
L459-460: what is the p-value of these correlations?
L491-495: the main findings of these studies should be summarized in the Introduction and should help you to highlight research gap you are trying to bridge with your study (see my general comment)
L497-504: why not to present these findings in results section?
L512-524: please consider moving to methodology
L534-537: into the OGGM description section?
L547: these highlighted points are neither novel nor surprising considering available in situ and remote sensing-based observations of glacier mass balance across the Andes
- - -
To sum up, I’m convinced this study would benefit from (rather major) revisions regarding its structure, justification and framing in the context of the existing studies.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-888-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexis Caro, 03 Dec 2023
Dear reviewer, below we are sending our responses to your comments and proposed changes to the article submitted for review as a PDF file. We have paid close attention to your comments regarding the novelty of this article and the impact that these results will have on the community of scientists and stakeholders in the Andean countries.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexis Caro, 03 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-888', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jun 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexis Caro, 03 Dec 2023
Dear reviewer, below we are sending our responses to your comments and proposed changes to the article submitted for review as a PDF file. We have paid close attention to your comments regarding the novelty of this article and the impact that these results will have on the community of scientists and stakeholders in the Andean countries.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexis Caro, 03 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-888', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Oct 2023
This study examines the hydrological response of glaciers in 786 catchments across the Andes in the period 2000-2019 by integrating meteorological data and OGGM. Similar to the comment of the Referee #1, I wonder what is the research gap / justification / novelty of this study considering the availability of observations of glacier mass balance across the Andes (especially the study published by Dussaillant et al. (2019) in NATGEO for the 2000 – 2018 period)? Talking about the hydrological response and referring to Huss and Hock (2018) NCC paper, I would expect bit more elaboration of the peak water timing in different zones of the Andes. Or is the main goal the calibration and performance evaluation of the OGGM model? If so, the study should be re-framed and re-structured in my opinion.
- - -
L19-20: what is the meaning of these %?
L36: but the shrinkage did not start in late 1970s, please reformulate
L73-75: please consider deleting
L88: surprisingly, there are no meteorological stations included for 11°N to 9°S where there are different climatological conditions compared to the rest of the study region; please comment on how this gap can impact your analysis especially in the IT zone
L137: 12 of these 15 glaciers are located between 29°S and 39°S while only two glaciers are considered for 11°N to 29°S; please comment on how this gap can impact your analysis
L133-134: you may consider referring to your Fig. 2 already here
L147: median might be more interesting than mean
L158: please list these studies and summarize the main conclusions
L173: glacier entity vs. glacier?
L202: what are the basic properties of the NASADEM?
Fig. 1: please check the completeness of your workflow (e.g. the 3 catchments studies in detail); please also consider linking individual components of your workflow to the sections of the manuscript;
L223: to what elevation are these numbers referring to?
L245: please consider displaying a metric quantifying the fit between observed and corrected data in Tab. S2
Fig. 2: please consider incorporating also relative changes in this figure
Fig. 3: maybe a boxplot everyone can read without additional explanation could work here?
L318-320: the comparison of absolute numbers (m3/s) doesn’t tell a lot and the comparison is meaningless since these regions don’t have comparable glacier coverage; please check here and in other parts of the manuscript that the number you refer to can be compared across the zones / regions
L333: since there is no catchment studied north from La Paz, I wonder why not to use Peruvian Río Santa catchment for which similar data are available and you refer to it in introduction?
L365-377: this part is more about the climate (changes) and doesn’t correspond with the section title; please consider moving
Tab. 3: please show and compare simulated and observed values
L418-419: please delete
L453: please make sure that these studies appear in the list of references
L459-460: what is the p-value of these correlations?
L491-495: the main findings of these studies should be summarized in the Introduction and should help you to highlight research gap you are trying to bridge with your study (see my general comment)
L497-504: why not to present these findings in results section?
L512-524: please consider moving to methodology
L534-537: into the OGGM description section?
L547: these highlighted points are neither novel nor surprising considering available in situ and remote sensing-based observations of glacier mass balance across the Andes
- - -
To sum up, I’m convinced this study would benefit from (rather major) revisions regarding its structure, justification and framing in the context of the existing studies.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-888-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexis Caro, 03 Dec 2023
Dear reviewer, below we are sending our responses to your comments and proposed changes to the article submitted for review as a PDF file. We have paid close attention to your comments regarding the novelty of this article and the impact that these results will have on the community of scientists and stakeholders in the Andean countries.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexis Caro, 03 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Hydrological Response of Andean Catchments to Recent Glacier Mass Loss (data) Alexis Caro https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7890462
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,098 | 441 | 36 | 1,575 | 108 | 32 | 30 |
- HTML: 1,098
- PDF: 441
- XML: 36
- Total: 1,575
- Supplement: 108
- BibTeX: 32
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Alexis Caro
Thomas Condom
Antoine Rabatel
Nicolas Champollion
Nicolás García
Freddy Saavedra
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1762 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2027 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper