the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Subglacial and subaerial fluvial sediment transport capacity respond differently to water discharge variations
Abstract. Sediment transport capacity in both subaerial and subglacial channels depends on the shear stress exerted across the channel bottom, which varies with water velocity and channel width. In subaerial channels, water discharge variations are accommodated by flow depth and width changes, along with water velocity. However, in subglacial channels, water is pressurized by the ice above, and they grow in response to frictional heating of water flowing through them. As a result, water discharge changes mainly result in velocity variations, as the channel geometry evolves slowly (over days). Here, we present formulations of sediment transport capacity in different channel types and apply subglacial and subaerial hydraulics models to hydrographs from an Alpine glacier and the Greenland Ice. Numerical experiments show that the changing channel size results in sediment transport capacity peaking before the maximum water discharge. This hysteresis in channel size causes a highly variable relationship between sediment and water discharge in a transport-limited subglacial system. The results also indicate that high subglacial sediment transport capacities can occur across a wide range of water discharges. A second set of numerical experiments shows that subglacial sediment transport is highly non-linear with respect to water discharge, creating more variability in sediment transport capacity. Yet, results and formulations of subglacial sediment transport capacity show that its variability can approach that of subaerial systems when subglacial channel size is in equilibrium with water discharge. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of sediment discharge from glaciers with different hydro-climatic forcings. We also discuss the impact of different assumptions of channel behavior on sediment transport capacity. These findings can improve the interpretation of sediment discharge records in glacierized catchments.
- Preprint
(5538 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1572 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2580', Bryn Hubbard, 13 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Dec 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ian Delaney, 07 Feb 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ian Delaney, 07 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Dec 2024
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2580', Chris R. Stokes, 18 Dec 2024
This manuscript has received mixed reviews, but the reviewers have made some very constructive comments. Hence, I'd like to give the authors an opportunity to respond, especially if they feel they can address some of the broader comments about the novelty and significance of the work (Reviewer 1) and Reviewer 2's scepticism in relation to the model set-up.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2580-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Ian Delaney, 07 Feb 2025
Dear Editor,
We thank you for handling this manuscript and coordinating the reviews. Both reviews were very helpful in improving the manuscript, and we have worked to address the comments as best as possible.
Following the feedback of reviewer 1, we have revised the first objective of the manuscript to describe better the conditions under which covariance between sediment transport capacity and water discharge may occur. To further develop this point, we conducted additional experiments using a series of smoothed hydrographs to better quantify the conditions that lead to covariance. Additionally, we will reorganize and revise the text, particularly in the ``Results'' section in response to their comments.
At several points in the review, the reviewer noted that a particular point had already been established. If this reflects a substantial oversight of the literature on our part, we thank the reviewer for bringing it to our attention. However, we would be grateful if the reviewer could provide specific references in these instances to help us fully address their concerns.
Regarding the second reviewer, we believe that their specific comments about the model have been addressed by generalizing the equations in question. We acknowledge their critique concerning the accumulation of water flow along the glacier’s length. However, we do not see a rationale suggesting that these findings would not hold for shorter channels or within a more complex (i.e., spatially distributed) model. To further emphasize these concerns, we have moved the ``Experiment Limitations'' discussion to a separate section following the ``Results'' section.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your assistance with this manuscript and hope that you find our responses satisfactory.
Best regards,
Ian Delaney on behalf of all authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2580-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Ian Delaney, 07 Feb 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
285 | 61 | 24 | 370 | 28 | 7 | 10 |
- HTML: 285
- PDF: 61
- XML: 24
- Total: 370
- Supplement: 28
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1