Short and Long-term Grounding Zone Dynamics of Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica

Zhu, Yikai; Hogg, Anna E.; Hooper, Andrew; Wallis, Benjamin J.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849

Preprints

18 Mar 2025

| 18 Mar 2025

Short and Long-term Grounding Zone Dynamics of Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica

Yikai Zhu, Anna E. Hogg, Andrew Hooper, and Benjamin J. Wallis

Abstract. The detection of grounding line (GL) positions in Antarctica is crucial for investigating the stability and health of ice sheets and glaciers. In reality the GL position is not fixed and will migrate upstream or downstream in response to varying tidal states on an hourly to daily timescale, or in response to longer-term ice dynamic change. However, the magnitude of short and long-term GL migration is not well characterised in many parts of Antarctica. In this study, we employ the Differential Range Offset Tracking method to measure the tidal GL migration on the Amery Ice Shelf in East Antarctica. We delineate 32 GL positions for the year 2021, covering 1,172 km of coastline. The results show that GL migration in this region is not solely dictated by tide amplitude but is also significantly influenced by ice velocity and subglacial bed topography, providing new insights into the GL dynamics of the region. We also observe significant long-term GL retreat in the eastern part of the Amery Ice Shelf relative to the MEaSUREs Antarctic GL derived from 2000 SAR imagery, with the maximum retreat reaching up to 10 km. Our findings underscore the need for continuous, high-resolution GL monitoring around the whole Antarctic coastline, to improve predictive models of ice sheet responses to climate changes and their subsequent impact on global sea-level rise.

Received: 25 Feb 2025 – Discussion started: 18 Mar 2025

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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 7575 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 (7575 KB)

Supplement (2969 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

22 Sep 2025

Short and Long-term Grounding Zone Dynamics of Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica

Yikai Zhu, Anna E. Hogg, Andrew Hooper, and Benjamin J. Wallis

The Cryosphere, 19, 3971–3989, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3971-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3971-2025, 2025

Short summary

Yikai Zhu, Anna E. Hogg, Andrew Hooper, and Benjamin J. Wallis

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-849', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Apr 2025
**General Comments**
This manuscript presents a comprehensive assessment of grounding zone (GZ) dynamics across the Amery Ice Shelf (AmIS) using the Differential Range Offset Tracking (DROT) method. The authors produce a spatially extensive dataset of 32 grounding line (GL) positions over a 1,172 km stretch of coastline during 2021, allowing for the characterization of both short-term tidal GL migration and localized long-term retreat. A notable strength of the study lies in its systematic comparison of DROT-derived GLs with independent datasets, including contemporaneous DDInSAR measurements and long-standing GL products (e.g., MEaSUREs, Synthesized GL), establishing the method’s reliability and its applicability in coherence-limited regions. The use of DROT across such a large region represents a valuable technical advancement and offers significant potential for extending GL monitoring coverage elsewhere in Antarctica.
However, while the study is methodologically robust and offers a valuable GL dataset, its interpretation of GL migration modes and grounding zone width correlations shows limited novelty in light of recent work. In particular, the identification of linear, threshold, and asymmetric migration modes largely replicates the classification framework introduced by Freer et al. (2023), and the reported correlations between GZ width and glaciological parameters (e.g., bed slope, ice velocity) parallel earlier insights from Chen et al. (2023). Consequently, the manuscript’s broader scientific contribution to understanding the controls on GL behavior and GZ morphology is somewhat incremental rather than conceptually new. Nonetheless, this work provides a high-quality observational foundation and demonstrates the utility of DROT for grounding line science.
**Specific Comments**
L35–40: Consider elaborating on the specific advantages of the DROT method in this context and providing a brief rationale for its selection over other grounding line detection techniques. This would help clarify the methodological motivation at an early stage in the manuscript.

L220–222: It would be helpful to clarify the basis on which the GL migration along profile 4 is interpreted as permanent. Specifically, how does Figure 2d/Figure 1c support the conclusion that the observed inland migration exceeds short-term tidal variability?

In the phase legend of Figure 3a, it is recommended to use 180° instead of 3.14.

For Figures 3b–c, it is recommended to display the grounding lines derived from both methods simultaneously within the same panels, if feasible. This would enable a more direct and intuitive visual comparison between the results.

Section 3.2 – Comparison with Other Grounding Line Measurements: It is recommended that the authors consider incorporating a comparison with the dataset available at https://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0778/versions/1. This product, part of the MEaSUREs program, provides a continent-wide map of short-term grounding line migration zones derived from InSAR during 2018–2020. Given its closer temporal proximity to the 2021 DROT results presented in this study, it would serve as a valuable reference for contextual validation and potentially enhance the robustness of the comparative analysis.

L304: The manuscript states a typical offset of 1.5 km between DROT- and DDInSAR-derived grounding lines. Could the authors clarify whether this value represents an average across specific regions? Additionally, the observed differences in this study appear smaller—what factors might account for this discrepancy, and how spatially consistent are these deviations across the Amery Ice Shelf?

L355–359: The interpretation of a positive correlation between grounding line migration distance and the absolute double-differential tide range would benefit from further clarification. Does a lower absolute double-differential tide range necessarily imply smaller ice surface deformation? For instance, if the first and second SAR acquisitions occur at high tides and the third and fourth at low tides, substantial ice deformation may occur, yet the computed absolute double-differential tide range could remain small.

L375–377: Figure 2e in Chen et al. (2023) similarly demonstrates that the grounding line position of the Lambert and Mellor Glaciers oscillates between two discrete states over timescales of several months. Also, given that the temporal sampling in the present study is sparser than that of Chen et al., it is possible that some short-term transitions or episodic changes may not have been fully captured.

Figure 5b: The synchronized grounding line migration observed for the two glaciers suggests a common driving mechanism. Could this be attributed to tidal forcing, or do the authors propose that subglacial hydrological processes—such as simultaneous subglacial lake drainage or basal melting—could exert a temporally comparable influence on both glaciers? Further discussion on the plausibility of shared controls would enhance the interpretation.

L455–456: Is this the reason behind the classification of this island as part of the grounding zone in Figure 1c?

L570–571: It would be helpful to specify how the along-profile length over which the slopes are calculated was defined. What criteria were used to determine the extent of the landward and seaward segments used in the slope analysis?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yikai Zhu, 19 Jun 2025
  
  A detailed response is provided in the Supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-849', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2025
Summary and general comments

The presented work shows applications of the Differential Range Offset Tracking (DROT) technique to derive Grounding Line (GL) and monitor its short-term migration on the Amery Ice Shelf (AmIS). The same group of authors have a more comprehensive methodology paper published previously: Wallis et al.: Change in grounding line location on the Antarctic Peninsula measured using a tidal motion offset correlation method, The Cryosphere, 18, 4723–4742, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4723-2024, where the position of the GL is automatically located by using a threshold applied to the DROT displacement fields.
In the current paper a detailed description of the methodology is given focussing on the DROT. The inland limit of the tidal flexure is this time delineated manually in each of the DROT images which correspond to different tide levels and thus the width of the Grounding Zone (GZ) is obtained. The results are presented in dedicated subsections dedicated to (3.1) GZ width and short-term migration, (3.2) Comparison with other GLs (3.3) short term GL migration patterns (3.4) case studies along the AmIS GL.
While the methodology presented here is not new the strengths of the paper lie in the application on a particular large region (AmIS) confirming the GL migration patterns of (Freer et al, 2023) and assessing the GZ width. This parameter should come with the GL position in order to detect long-term migration of the GL and currently there is no method established so far for it. I find the discussion regarding the factors affecting the GZ width very similar to (Chen et al, 2023, Figure 3), a study focussed on the GL of the main glaciers draining on AmIS and not on the entire ice shelf. A citation in Section 4.3 and a comparison to these findings would be valuable.
The present paper can be shortened, some detailed parts (e.g. described in the previous paper) can be moved to Supplement. Instead graphs in the Supplement (S3 – S5) which are discussed in the main paper should appear here. The novelties of the manuscript, the application of DROT method to >1100 km of AmIS boundaries, can thus be highlighted and its originality emphasized.

Specific comments, minor comments & typos

Line 23: The Grounding Line is a product of the GCOS ECV Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves and not an ECV by itself.
https://gcos.wmo.int/site/global-climate-observing-system-gcos/essential-climate-variables/ice-sheets-and-ice-shelves
Line 43: add “atmospheric pressure”
Lines 117, 118 “Sentinel-1A” and “Sentinel-1B”
Lines 147 – 156 The description of the IBE correction is identical to Chen et al, 2023 Section 2. This can be shortened to one sentence with citation.
Line 174 – 175: by using point H you can derive the width of the flexure zone, not the width of the GZ. The width of the GZ as far as I see in Fig 2 and explained in Section 3.1 is the range of the displacement gradient where it begins to exceed zero.
Line 195: The GZ of MEaSUREs- Programme https://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0778/versions/1 should be mentioned here or in Section 3.2 to refer specifically to AmIS.
Line 201 and Figure 2e Profile 5 seems to have a narrow GZ rather than a wide one (like profiles 14 and 15).
Line 205 Figure 1c labelling the pinning points a to k may be confused with the labels of the subplots in Figures 2 and 4 (and Supplementary S3 – S5). Maybe use brackets for the subplots e.g. (a), (b), etc.
Line 246 (caption of Figure 3) Please be more precise what concerns the “reference lines”. Are these the GLs from DDInSAR?
Line 258 correct citation (Depoorter et al, 2013b)
Section 3.2 is very long. A comparison between DROT and DInSAR was already shown in (Wallis et al, 2024). Starting with line 257 the comparison with the two published datasets (text and Table 2) may be moved to the Supplement or removed. As already mentioned in the paper these datasets do not have the same time stamp as the DROT GLs since they are based on at least 2 decades older data. The discussion on the bias between DDInSAR and DROT GL position should focus on the 2021 datasets. As mentioned above I suggest also to add here the comparison to the MEaSUREs GZ on AmIS.

Line 291 Swap ocean and land. “landward GL” … refer to the GLs closest to the land.
Line 344 -345 Figure 4 and Figure S3 are almost identical. I suggest to add all profiles (those with no clear mode as well) to Figure 4 in the main text where you discuss all patterns (and delete Figure S3 in the supplement). Figure 4 and Figure S3: how is the “0” of the Y-axis defined?
Line 355 Figure S4; Figure 4l R²=0.83 while in Figure S4q R²=0.84; I suggest to mention that the profiles 7,8, and 17 were selected due to their different migration pattern.
Line 371: … it then transits downstream

Line 665 correct reference for Freer et al, 2023
Freer, B. I. D., Marsh, O. J., Hogg, A. E., Fricker, H. A., and Padman, L.: Modes of Antarctic tidal grounding line migration revealed by Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) laser altimetry, The Cryosphere, 17, 4079–4101, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-4079-2023, 2023.
Supplement
Figure S1 (b): at high tide the GL moves landward, therefore (Fmax, Gmax) correspond to low tide
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yikai Zhu, 19 Jun 2025
  
  A detailed response is provided in the Supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-849', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Apr 2025
**General Comments**
This manuscript presents a comprehensive assessment of grounding zone (GZ) dynamics across the Amery Ice Shelf (AmIS) using the Differential Range Offset Tracking (DROT) method. The authors produce a spatially extensive dataset of 32 grounding line (GL) positions over a 1,172 km stretch of coastline during 2021, allowing for the characterization of both short-term tidal GL migration and localized long-term retreat. A notable strength of the study lies in its systematic comparison of DROT-derived GLs with independent datasets, including contemporaneous DDInSAR measurements and long-standing GL products (e.g., MEaSUREs, Synthesized GL), establishing the method’s reliability and its applicability in coherence-limited regions. The use of DROT across such a large region represents a valuable technical advancement and offers significant potential for extending GL monitoring coverage elsewhere in Antarctica.
However, while the study is methodologically robust and offers a valuable GL dataset, its interpretation of GL migration modes and grounding zone width correlations shows limited novelty in light of recent work. In particular, the identification of linear, threshold, and asymmetric migration modes largely replicates the classification framework introduced by Freer et al. (2023), and the reported correlations between GZ width and glaciological parameters (e.g., bed slope, ice velocity) parallel earlier insights from Chen et al. (2023). Consequently, the manuscript’s broader scientific contribution to understanding the controls on GL behavior and GZ morphology is somewhat incremental rather than conceptually new. Nonetheless, this work provides a high-quality observational foundation and demonstrates the utility of DROT for grounding line science.
**Specific Comments**
L35–40: Consider elaborating on the specific advantages of the DROT method in this context and providing a brief rationale for its selection over other grounding line detection techniques. This would help clarify the methodological motivation at an early stage in the manuscript.

L220–222: It would be helpful to clarify the basis on which the GL migration along profile 4 is interpreted as permanent. Specifically, how does Figure 2d/Figure 1c support the conclusion that the observed inland migration exceeds short-term tidal variability?

In the phase legend of Figure 3a, it is recommended to use 180° instead of 3.14.

For Figures 3b–c, it is recommended to display the grounding lines derived from both methods simultaneously within the same panels, if feasible. This would enable a more direct and intuitive visual comparison between the results.

Section 3.2 – Comparison with Other Grounding Line Measurements: It is recommended that the authors consider incorporating a comparison with the dataset available at https://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0778/versions/1. This product, part of the MEaSUREs program, provides a continent-wide map of short-term grounding line migration zones derived from InSAR during 2018–2020. Given its closer temporal proximity to the 2021 DROT results presented in this study, it would serve as a valuable reference for contextual validation and potentially enhance the robustness of the comparative analysis.

L304: The manuscript states a typical offset of 1.5 km between DROT- and DDInSAR-derived grounding lines. Could the authors clarify whether this value represents an average across specific regions? Additionally, the observed differences in this study appear smaller—what factors might account for this discrepancy, and how spatially consistent are these deviations across the Amery Ice Shelf?

L355–359: The interpretation of a positive correlation between grounding line migration distance and the absolute double-differential tide range would benefit from further clarification. Does a lower absolute double-differential tide range necessarily imply smaller ice surface deformation? For instance, if the first and second SAR acquisitions occur at high tides and the third and fourth at low tides, substantial ice deformation may occur, yet the computed absolute double-differential tide range could remain small.

L375–377: Figure 2e in Chen et al. (2023) similarly demonstrates that the grounding line position of the Lambert and Mellor Glaciers oscillates between two discrete states over timescales of several months. Also, given that the temporal sampling in the present study is sparser than that of Chen et al., it is possible that some short-term transitions or episodic changes may not have been fully captured.

Figure 5b: The synchronized grounding line migration observed for the two glaciers suggests a common driving mechanism. Could this be attributed to tidal forcing, or do the authors propose that subglacial hydrological processes—such as simultaneous subglacial lake drainage or basal melting—could exert a temporally comparable influence on both glaciers? Further discussion on the plausibility of shared controls would enhance the interpretation.

L455–456: Is this the reason behind the classification of this island as part of the grounding zone in Figure 1c?

L570–571: It would be helpful to specify how the along-profile length over which the slopes are calculated was defined. What criteria were used to determine the extent of the landward and seaward segments used in the slope analysis?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yikai Zhu, 19 Jun 2025
  
  A detailed response is provided in the Supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-849', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 May 2025
Summary and general comments

The presented work shows applications of the Differential Range Offset Tracking (DROT) technique to derive Grounding Line (GL) and monitor its short-term migration on the Amery Ice Shelf (AmIS). The same group of authors have a more comprehensive methodology paper published previously: Wallis et al.: Change in grounding line location on the Antarctic Peninsula measured using a tidal motion offset correlation method, The Cryosphere, 18, 4723–4742, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4723-2024, where the position of the GL is automatically located by using a threshold applied to the DROT displacement fields.
In the current paper a detailed description of the methodology is given focussing on the DROT. The inland limit of the tidal flexure is this time delineated manually in each of the DROT images which correspond to different tide levels and thus the width of the Grounding Zone (GZ) is obtained. The results are presented in dedicated subsections dedicated to (3.1) GZ width and short-term migration, (3.2) Comparison with other GLs (3.3) short term GL migration patterns (3.4) case studies along the AmIS GL.
While the methodology presented here is not new the strengths of the paper lie in the application on a particular large region (AmIS) confirming the GL migration patterns of (Freer et al, 2023) and assessing the GZ width. This parameter should come with the GL position in order to detect long-term migration of the GL and currently there is no method established so far for it. I find the discussion regarding the factors affecting the GZ width very similar to (Chen et al, 2023, Figure 3), a study focussed on the GL of the main glaciers draining on AmIS and not on the entire ice shelf. A citation in Section 4.3 and a comparison to these findings would be valuable.
The present paper can be shortened, some detailed parts (e.g. described in the previous paper) can be moved to Supplement. Instead graphs in the Supplement (S3 – S5) which are discussed in the main paper should appear here. The novelties of the manuscript, the application of DROT method to >1100 km of AmIS boundaries, can thus be highlighted and its originality emphasized.

Specific comments, minor comments & typos

Line 23: The Grounding Line is a product of the GCOS ECV Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves and not an ECV by itself.
https://gcos.wmo.int/site/global-climate-observing-system-gcos/essential-climate-variables/ice-sheets-and-ice-shelves
Line 43: add “atmospheric pressure”
Lines 117, 118 “Sentinel-1A” and “Sentinel-1B”
Lines 147 – 156 The description of the IBE correction is identical to Chen et al, 2023 Section 2. This can be shortened to one sentence with citation.
Line 174 – 175: by using point H you can derive the width of the flexure zone, not the width of the GZ. The width of the GZ as far as I see in Fig 2 and explained in Section 3.1 is the range of the displacement gradient where it begins to exceed zero.
Line 195: The GZ of MEaSUREs- Programme https://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0778/versions/1 should be mentioned here or in Section 3.2 to refer specifically to AmIS.
Line 201 and Figure 2e Profile 5 seems to have a narrow GZ rather than a wide one (like profiles 14 and 15).
Line 205 Figure 1c labelling the pinning points a to k may be confused with the labels of the subplots in Figures 2 and 4 (and Supplementary S3 – S5). Maybe use brackets for the subplots e.g. (a), (b), etc.
Line 246 (caption of Figure 3) Please be more precise what concerns the “reference lines”. Are these the GLs from DDInSAR?
Line 258 correct citation (Depoorter et al, 2013b)
Section 3.2 is very long. A comparison between DROT and DInSAR was already shown in (Wallis et al, 2024). Starting with line 257 the comparison with the two published datasets (text and Table 2) may be moved to the Supplement or removed. As already mentioned in the paper these datasets do not have the same time stamp as the DROT GLs since they are based on at least 2 decades older data. The discussion on the bias between DDInSAR and DROT GL position should focus on the 2021 datasets. As mentioned above I suggest also to add here the comparison to the MEaSUREs GZ on AmIS.

Line 291 Swap ocean and land. “landward GL” … refer to the GLs closest to the land.
Line 344 -345 Figure 4 and Figure S3 are almost identical. I suggest to add all profiles (those with no clear mode as well) to Figure 4 in the main text where you discuss all patterns (and delete Figure S3 in the supplement). Figure 4 and Figure S3: how is the “0” of the Y-axis defined?
Line 355 Figure S4; Figure 4l R²=0.83 while in Figure S4q R²=0.84; I suggest to mention that the profiles 7,8, and 17 were selected due to their different migration pattern.
Line 371: … it then transits downstream

Line 665 correct reference for Freer et al, 2023
Freer, B. I. D., Marsh, O. J., Hogg, A. E., Fricker, H. A., and Padman, L.: Modes of Antarctic tidal grounding line migration revealed by Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) laser altimetry, The Cryosphere, 17, 4079–4101, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-4079-2023, 2023.
Supplement
Figure S1 (b): at high tide the GL moves landward, therefore (Fmax, Gmax) correspond to low tide
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yikai Zhu, 19 Jun 2025
  
  A detailed response is provided in the Supplement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-AC2

Peer review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (24 Jun 2025) by Benjamin Smith

AR by Yikai Zhu on behalf of the Authors (25 Jun 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (15 Jul 2025) by Benjamin Smith

Editor’s review of revised manuscript: Zhu et al, 2025.

I thank the authors for their extensive revisions to the manuscript in response to the referees’ comments. I read over the manuscript myself to confirm that the referees’ comments had been addressed, which they were. In the process, I found some minor problems that I would like to see addressed before publication.

Throughout: The word “amplitude” is used to as if it meant “tidal displacement.” The two are different- the amplitude is the peak displacement of a periodic signal relative to an equilibrium point- so the tidal amplitude represents the maximum of the tidal displacement relative to some standard value and is always positive. The manuscript should use “tidal displacement” almost everywhere the term “tidal amplitude” is used.

Specific comments:

16: please provide a citation for the MeaSUREs dataset

53: mischaracterized can be a single word (no hyphen is appropriate)

63 “are likely to” is probably an overstatement- “may” or “might” is more appropriate

95: specify “East Antarctic coastline”—the peninsula extends much farther north

96: should be “low rates of basal melt”

159: “the identical satellite pass” is not clear. “a satellite pass with approximately identical geometry” would be better, particularly if an approximate value were provided for how identical the geometry needs to be.

Figure 1. The graphic in figure 1 (and, less clearly, some of the text in 3.4.3) suggests that the entirety of Gillock island experiences tidal displacement. The center of the island has a surface height that is well above flotation, which makes it difficult to see how this could be so. Likewise, panel 1(f) seems to show little or no displacement over the top of the island. What am I missing here?

218-224: This paragraph belongs in the next section.

223: The MAGv2 dataset has not been defined. Is this the same as the MeaSURES grounding line defined in the next section?

242: “is shown to be precise” It would be better to define precise here: for example “is shown to be precise to less than 0.5 km”

Table 1. The expression “mean absolute” of quantity x often means “mean(|x|)” and is used as a measure of the spread of a distribution. I think in this case, it just means mean(x). Am I correct? If so, please remove the term “absolute”. I would suggest using “mean horizontal separation” or (maybe better) “mean seaward separation”

266: Please explain what is meant by “the recall reached 0.84”

271-273: A quantity on the order of 200-400 m with an uncertainty of ~700 m should have only one significant figure, but two are sometimes permitted. Please change to 460±700 m and -260±760 m.

274: “with boundaries shifted in opposite directions compared to MAGZv1” – This is not very clear- I’d either delete it, or restate that the landward boundary was shifted landward and the seaward boundary was shifted seaward.

280: Please provide units for a “fraction of a range pixel” and “sub-wavelength” for Sentinel-1.

283: See my prior comment on “mean absolute offset”

297 : Please rewrite with the study name in parentheses (e.g. “we adopt the categorization established in a previous study (Freer et al, 2023)).

380: no hyphen between active and lakes

Hide

AR by Yikai Zhu on behalf of the Authors (24 Jul 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (08 Aug 2025) by Benjamin Smith

AR by Yikai Zhu on behalf of the Authors (11 Aug 2025) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

22 Sep 2025

Short and Long-term Grounding Zone Dynamics of Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica

Yikai Zhu, Anna E. Hogg, Andrew Hooper, and Benjamin J. Wallis

The Cryosphere, 19, 3971–3989, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3971-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3971-2025, 2025

Short summary

Yikai Zhu, Anna E. Hogg, Andrew Hooper, and Benjamin J. Wallis

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-849-supplement

Data sets

Additonal code and data for grounding line analysis presented in this article "Short and Long-term Grounding Zone Dynamics of Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica" Yikai Zhu et al. https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14912749

Yikai Zhu, Anna E. Hogg, Andrew Hooper, and Benjamin J. Wallis

Viewed

Total article views: 782 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
620	137	25	782	35	20	31

HTML: 620
PDF: 137
XML: 25
Total: 782
Supplement: 35
BibTeX: 20
EndNote: 31

Views and downloads (calculated since 18 Mar 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2025	60	14	3	77
Apr 2025	54	20	3	77
May 2025	60	12	4	76
Jun 2025	62	43	8	113
Jul 2025	41	15	1	57
Aug 2025	127	22	1	150
Sep 2025	216	11	5	232

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 18 Mar 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2025	60	14	3	77
Apr 2025	54	20	3	77
May 2025	60	12	4	76
Jun 2025	62	43	8	113
Jul 2025	41	15	1	57
Aug 2025	127	22	1	150
Sep 2025	216	11	5	232

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 799 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 799 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 22 Sep 2025

Download

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

Preprint (7575 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

This study investigates the long- and short-term changes in the grounding line of the Amery Ice Shelf in East Antarctica, using satellite observations and a method called Differential Range Offset Tracking (DROT). Our findings show how the grounding line behaves in response to tides and other environmental factors, with implications for understanding ice shelf stability.


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