the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
On the hydrological significance of rock glaciers: A case study from Murtèl rock glacier (Engadine, eastern Swiss Alps) using below-ground energy-flux measurements, ground-ice melt observations and hydrological measurements
Abstract. Intact rock glaciers, a permafrost landform common in high-mountain regions, are often conceptualized as (frozen) water reserves. In a warming climate with slowly degrading permafrost, the large below-ground ice volumes might suggest a buffering effect on summer streamflow that due to the climate resiliency of rock glaciers only increases with rapidly receding glaciers. In this case study, we assess the role and functioning of the active Murtèl rock glacier in the hydrological cycle of its small (17 ha) periglacial and unglacierized watershed located in the Upper Engadine (eastern Swiss Alps). Our unprecedentedly comprehensive hydro-meteorological measurements include below-ground heat flux measurements in the 3–5 m thick coarse-blocky active layer (AL), direct observations of the seasonal evolution of the ground-ice table, and discharge and isotopic signature of the outflow at the rock-glacier front. The detailed active-layer energy and water/ice balance quantifies precipitation, evaporation, snow melt, ground ice melt, and catchment surface outflow. Murtèl rock glacier stores and releases water and ice over three different time scales with varying magnitudes and residence times: (1) Liquid water storage on short-term (sub-monthly) scale is small in the permafrost-underlain coarse-debris catchment, as shown by the ‘flashy’ hydrograph during the thaw season with rapidly varying discharge and little sustained surface baseflow (<3 L min-1) in the dry summer months. (2) Seasonal ground ice accumulation and melt in the coarse-blocky AL is substantial: Independent direct ground-ice observations and an AL energy budget suggests AL ice melt rates of 1−4 mm w.e. day-1, amounting to 150−300 mm w.e. over the thaw season. In the comparatively cool–wet year 2021, ground ice melt represented ca. 13 % of the annual precipitation and outflow, but ca. 28 % in the hot–dry year 2022. The superimposed AL ice is sourced by refreezing snowmelt in spring (annually replenished), protracts the snowmelt into late summer (intermediate-term storage), and cannot increase the total yearly runoff. (3) Meltwater release from the ‘old’ permafrost ice due to climate-induced permafrost degradation is ≤50 mm yr-1 or ~ 5−10 times smaller than the AL meltwater contribution and in the order of a few % of the overall water/ice fluxes (long-term storage). Our case study suggests that a hydrologically relevant ice turnover occurs in the active layer in addition to meltwater released from slow degradation of the ice-rich permafrost. The seasonal ice turnover in the AL acts as a coupled thermal and hydrological buffer that to some degree protects the underlying ice-rich rock-glacier core by converting the ground heat flux to meltwater during the thaw season. More measurements of the seasonal ground-ice turnover should tell how generalisable our single-site findings are.
- Preprint
(18836 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-844', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 May 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-844/egusphere-2024-844-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Dominik Amschwand, 12 Jul 2024
Dear Hongkai Gao, dear referees
We wish to thank both reviewers for their thorough and constructive reviews. We respond to their raised points in the attached PDF document that we hope addresses their concerns. Thank
you for your consideration and we look forward to receiving your direction regarding the next steps of review.Dominik Amschwand on behalf of all co-authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Dominik Amschwand, 12 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-844', Ryan Webb, 20 May 2024
The Manuscript titled “On the hydrological significance of rock glaciers: A case study from Murtèl rock glacier (Engadine, eastern Swiss Alps) using below-ground energy-flux measurements, ground-ice melt observations and hydrological measurements” provides an overview of the large dataset being collected at the rock glacier. The authors provide interpretation of 2 years of data to provide insights towards the processes controlling the storage and release of water. This paper is certainly of interest to the mountain hydrology community. But, there does not seem to be anything new that is being learned (which is OK). The authors do a great job of relating the work to the broader body of knowledge. However, the title and framing of the article seem a little misleading to me. I thought that it was going to be a broad overview of the hydrologic relevance that forms a new conceptual model for rock glacier hydrology. Instead, this is a solid case study for a single rock glacier and a robust dataset. And that’s OK, I think this would make a great data paper or single case study, but it just needs to be framed like that (start with a change to the title). I think that rock glacier hydrology reviews already exist (with some cited in the current manuscript) and I don’t see anything “new” in this one. Some additional reviews that further support the conclusions of the current manuscript that are not cited:
Kenner R, Pruessner L, Beutel J, Limpach P, Phillips M. How rock glacier hydrology, deformation velocities and ground temperatures interact: Examples from the Swiss Alps. Permafrost and Periglac Process. 2020; 31: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2023
Bearzot, N. Colombo, E. Cremonese, U. Morra di Cella, E. Drigo, M. Caschetto, S. Basiricò, G.B. Crosta, P. Frattini, M. Freppaz, P. Pogliotti, F. Salerno, A. Brunier, M. Rossini, Hydrological, thermal and chemical influence of an intact rock glacier discharge on mountain stream water, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 876, 2023, doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162777.
These comments are meant to be constructive. I would like to emphasize that I really like this manuscript, and with a little different packaging it will be an excellent paper. I just don’t think it fits what the authors were originally going for.
One other point is that it is difficult for a conceptual model to be derived from only these two years of data. I think this is a great start, but something should be mentioned about the need for more years of data to better constrain the conclusions made here to ensure these 2 years were not anomalous for the weather conditions observed.
Minor points listed by line number:
15: this 13% of annual precipitation and outflow is odd to me. Could you separate precip. And outflow somehow? Maybe “ ~13% of annual precipitation becomes refrozen and ground ice that melts to become outflow”… or something similar.
19: The 50 mm is not 10 times smaller than the 150-300 mm values mentioned earlier. Am I mis-reading this?
111-119: This paragraph seems to be more fit in the study site description.
Section 2.2 seems a bit too long and could be shortened.
211-213: This doesn't seem like a complete sentence, let along a stand-alone paragraph.
234: “CHECK!!” Please proof the manuscript for typos and missing references.
342: Why are you only analyzing 2 years? Much of these instruments have been in place since 2009 correct? Why not a longer analysis? Perhaps listing what years some of these instruments were installed could clarify this.
Fig. 4 & 5: what are the horizontal dashed lines in Discharge and Temp.?
369: The 8 gaugings seemed to happen mostly in the lower discharges. I would recommend trying to get some higher flows as well to better constrain the stage-Q relation.
384: “is” should be “are”
531-532: this last sentence seems odd and out of place.
596-597: similar comment before about being more clear for the “outflow and precipitation”
603-604: OK, makes sense. But, how much of the core is melting? I know this is really difficult to obtain, but some estimate could really help for any aquifer recharge or groundwater resources estimate to complete the hydrologic relevance of the paper.
616-617: This all makes complete sense, but I think you should also discuss the future need to determine the subsurface pathways for these sources.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-844-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Dominik Amschwand, 12 Jul 2024
Dear Hongkai Gao, dear referees
We wish to thank both reviewers for their thorough and constructive reviews. We respond to their raised points in the attached PDF document that we hope addresses their concerns. Thank
you for your consideration and we look forward to receiving your direction regarding the next steps of review.Dominik Amschwand on behalf of all co-authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1 and RC2', Dominik Amschwand, 12 Jul 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
354 | 137 | 29 | 520 | 17 | 27 |
- HTML: 354
- PDF: 137
- XML: 29
- Total: 520
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1