Riukojietna, a small low-altitude ice cap that may have persisted through the Holocene: Evidence from combining cosmogenic multi-nuclide dating and lacustrine sediment records
Abstract. Riukojietna, a small, low-altitude, low-gradient plateau ice cap in northern Sweden, has been retreating rapidly over at least the last century. Its low surface gradient implies that it should be quite sensitive to, and therefore a potentially valuable indicator of, climate change since regional deglaciation at 9.8 ka. Here, we assess its former extent and activity by combining cosmogenic nuclide measurements in bedrock (in situ 14C, 10Be, and 26Al) that constrain ice-free and ice-buried conditions with indirect evidence of glacial activity from proglacial lake sediment records, complemented by historical ice thickness reconstructions. These data are the basis for subsequent forward modeling of measured cosmogenic nuclide concentrations to constrain the Holocene history of Riukojietna.
The ice cap has an outlet glacier tongue that drains to the northeast, with a bouldery moraine deposit further down valley constraining its extent at the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA, ca. 1910 CE). Five cosmogenic nuclide samples were collected: two from bedrock on the plateau adjacent to the ice cap, two from a bedrock knob protruding from the outlet glacier tongue (exposed in 2011), and one from an outcrop adjacent to the LIA moraine at the outlet of the most proximal of a series of four proglacial lakes. The latter sample yielded concentrations of 14C, 10Be, and 26Al consistent with continuous exposure since 8.1 ± 0.1 ka (weighted mean). Nuclide measurements in the other four samples indicate complex exposure/burial histories. Lake cores from Pajep Luoktejaure, the third of the four down-valley proglacial lakes, indicate up to three periods of glacigenic sediment deposition since deglaciation, separated by gyttja, with radiocarbon age constraints from bulk sediment and plant macrofossils.
Modeled in situ 14C inventories for the two plateau samples are consistent with early Holocene ice cover, followed by exposure between 8.1 ± 0.1 ka and the start of Riukojietna neoglacial expansion 1.8 ± 0.1 cal ka BP, yet 10Be and 26Al concentrations are underestimated, indicating significant pre-Last Glacial Maximum exposure not considered in the modeling. Modeled in situ 14C concentrations of the samples from the emerging bedrock knob with this ice-cover history and a subglacial erosion rate of 0.05 mm yr-1 are consistent with the measured values, while 10Be and 26Al concentrations again underestimate the measured values. Observed glacigenic laminated sediments in Pajep Luoktejaure between ca. 5.4–5.0 ka may indicate a brief readvance over the sampled cosmogenic nuclide sites, but agreement between modeled and measured in situ 14C values deteriorates slightly with that ice-cover interval. We use these results to infer that Riukojietna persisted during the Holocene Thermal Maximum (ca. 8–5 ka), in contrast to earlier suggestions that Scandinavian glaciers vanished during the Holocene, as a result of increased precipitation due to atmospheric circulation changes. The glacier has been in a retracted state similar or smaller than today during the late Holocene, as climate grew colder and drier. This approach combining short- and long-lived cosmogenic nuclides with lake sediments can thus provide new constraints on high-latitude Holocene glacial and paleoclimate history.
Dear editor and authors
This manuscript reports new cosmogenic multi-nuclide data from proglacial bedrock and sediment record data from a proglacial lake at a small ice cap in northern Sweden, used to reconstruct the local Holocene glacial history and to interpret the underlying paleoclimatic conditions. The study and data are very useful for the understanding of the Holocene glacier and climate evolution in Scandinavian high latitudes, especially due to the combination of different geochronological and geomorphic/paleoenvironmental approaches, which allow for a more complete scenario than the application of one of the approaches alone. The manuscript is very well written, structured and illustrated. I appreciated reading it and recommend its publication in Climate of the Past. I suggest a few minor issues be addressed though.
My main comments relate to the interpretation of the cosmogenic nuclide data:
Altogether, the fit between the modelled and measured nuclide concentrations and the overall consistency between the complementary records are remarkably good. However, several uncertainties seem to be underestimated or have been ignored, which could in some cases explain the observed slight misfit between modelled and measured nuclide concentrations (or in other cases worsen it). I therefore suggest to add them to the discussion.
First. One of the key pieces of information for the interpretation of the exposure-burial history of the ice cap is the timing of glacier retreat from Lake 1063 (calculated as 8.1±0.1 ka from the exposure ages of the three nuclides), but its uncertainty is likely underestimated and should be better discussed.
Second. The muogenic contribution to total 14C production is still not well constrained, but it is substantially higher than for 10Be and 26Al. Therefore, 30 m of ice cover might not be sufficient to shield a surface completely from 14C production (Lines 62-63, 309). According to model results in other studies, 14C production is still ~4% of that at the surface at 30 m beneath the ice (Hippe, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.07.020). The effect is probably still small in this setting, but the related uncertainty could be worth being mentioned in the discussion.
10Be and 26Al ages are indistinguishable within uncertainties for all five bedrock samples. This is stated in line 325, followed by disregard of the 26Al in the following interpretations (except that both 10Be and 26Al indicate inheritance, line 509). However, it would be interesting to explore and explain the implications of this apparent age consistency for the long-term history of the ice cap: in lines 409-410 it is stated that that the combined information from the 14C-10Be concentrations and the deglaciation age (~10 ka) can only be explained through pre-LGM exposure. But when did this pre-exposure occur at the earliest? It should be possible to infer this from the fact that 26Al has not yet notably decayed compared to 10Be.
I suggest to shorten and simplify the abstract, which is currently very long and contains a lot of details.
Minor suggestions per line:
I hope these comments are useful.
Best regards,
Irene Schimmelpfennig