the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Arctic supraglacial lake derived bathymetry combining ICESat-2 and spectral stratification of satellite imagery
Abstract. Arctic supraglacial lakes volume changes serve as critical indicators of global temperature fluctuations. Accurate lake depth measurements are essential for reliable volume estimation, yet traditional bathymetry methods (e.g., airborne LiDAR and shipborne sonar) face significant challenges and high costs in the harsh Arctic environment. This study introduces a novel approach using ICESat-2 (Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2) and Sentinel-2 data to derive supraglacial lake bathymetry. By considering the varying reflectance characteristics across different spectral bands in the water column, we conduct a satellite-derived bathymetry (SDB) method based on spectral stratification using the Otsu algorithm (maximum between-class variance method). Integrating the spectral stratification method with the classical log-transformed linear regression model (Lyzenga model), we perform accurate bathymetric inversion on multispectral satellite imagery. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, we apply it to four representative lakes on the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), using ArcticDEM (Arctic Digital Elevation Model) as reference data. Experimental results demonstrate improved accuracy compared to the classical Lyzenga model, with reductions in root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) by up to 13.0 % and 14.0 %, decreasing from 0.54 m to 0.47 m and from 0.43 m to 0.37 m, respectively. The enhanced accuracy and scalability of our approach improve the ability to monitor large-scale volume changes in Arctic supraglacial lakes, providing valuable insights into their response to climate change.
- Preprint
(6749 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-364', Jian Yang, 28 Apr 2025
reply
Traditional bathymetric methods, such as airborne LiDAR and shipborne sonar, face significant difficulties and limitations when acquiring bathymetry data for Arctic supraglacial lakes. Using remote sensing as a non-contact method to obtain bathymetric information of Arctic supraglacial lakes is emerging as a promising approach and is gaining increasing attention. This paper combines ICESat-2 data and Sentinel-2 multispectral imagery, and applies a spectral stratification strategy to derive the bathymetry, achieving a high accuracy water depth of four representative lakes. Generally, this paper is well-written and has an easy-to-follow structure. However, there are still several points in the paper that need attention.
Major issues:
1. The paper proposes a spectral stratification method combined with the Lyzenga model, but the mechanism and rationale for combining near-infrared, red, and green bands into two layers (green and blue) are not fully explained. It is recommended to add a brief explanation to enhance the clarity of the methodology.2. There is a time difference of two to four months between Sentinel-2 images and ArcticDEM validation data. Although the paper mentions that lakebed materials are relatively stable, it is suggested to strengthen the explanation and explicitly acknowledge the potential uncertainty this brings.
3. The implementation details of NDWI are missing: the Methods section mentions using NDWI for water-land separation but does not specify the exact Sentinel-2 band numbers (e.g., B3 for Green and B8 for NIR), which may affect the reproducibility.
4. The validation focuses on RMSE and MAE, but lacks a more detailed visualization of residual distribution (e.g., error scatter or residual histograms). It is suggested to add one simple figure or a few lines of text to further illustrate the validation quality.
5. In the Discussion section, although the challenges and limitations are mentioned, the dynamic changes of supraglacial lakes are described relatively generally. It is suggested to slightly expand the discussion on how data acquisition timing affects inversion accuracy.
Minor issues:
1. Minor grammatical and typographical errors exist in the manuscript. For example, “Figure. 1” should be “Figure 1” without a period2 In Section 3.1.2, the font of the section number "3.1.2" should be standardized to Times New Roman.
3. In line 283, results such as 9.46 106m3 should have a space between the number and the unit.
4. The date format in Table 1 should be clearly indicated as dd/mm/yyyy to avoid ambiguity.
5. The terms "spectral stratified model" and "spectral stratification model" in the text should be unified into a single expression.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-364-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Chao Qi, 06 Jun 2025
reply
Thank you very much for your comments and valuable suggestions on the manuscript. We have revised the original manuscript accordingly and provided responses to your questions, which are marked in blue font.
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Chao Qi, 06 Jun 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
219 | 71 | 13 | 303 | 11 | 19 |
- HTML: 219
- PDF: 71
- XML: 13
- Total: 303
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1