the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Substantial accumulation rates on a glacier avalanche cone from time-lapse photogrammetry and field measurements
Abstract. Avalanches are critical contributors to the mass balance and spatial accumulation patterns of mountain glaciers. While gravitational snow redistribution models predict high localized accumulation, these predictions lack field validation due to the difficulty of monitoring highly dynamic avalanche cones. Here, we present two years of high-resolution monitoring of a large avalanche cone in the accumulation area of Argentière Glacier (French Alps). To capture these dynamics, we employed a multi-sensor approach: Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) surveys and a time-lapse photogrammetry array consisting of 7 low-cost cameras deployed ~1 km away from the cone. Point clouds and Digital Elevations Models were produced at a two-week resolution using Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry. Methodological validation shows that while side-looking time-lapse photogrammetry captures the overall elevation changes, it tends to underestimate them compared to UAV data, with biases up to 1.8 m and precisions of 2–6 m. Despite these uncertainties, our results reveal extreme spatial variability in accumulation. The top of the cone is the most active zone, exhibiting elevation changes of ~30 m annually corresponding to a local annual mass balance reaching 23 +/- 4 m w.e. in 2023 and 16 +/- 4 m w.e. in 2024. We identify a topographical threshold for snow storage: the upper cone fills early in the season until reaching a critical slope of ~35°, after which subsequent avalanches bypass the cone’s apex to deposit mass at the cone’s base. From May onwards, mass redistribution is further modulated by the development of surface channels. Our findings demonstrate that time-lapse photogrammetry is a viable tool for monitoring dynamic glacier surfaces and provide rare empirical evidence of the dominant role avalanches play in the local glacier mass budget.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of The Cryosphere.
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.- Preprint
(2152 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1121 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Apr 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-786', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Mar 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 176 | 92 | 10 | 278 | 24 | 11 | 9 |
- HTML: 176
- PDF: 92
- XML: 10
- Total: 278
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comment:
This paper focuses on advancing methodological approaches to quantifying the contribution of avalanche to mass accumulation at an alpine glacier. It details a comprehensive field programme in challenging terrain, comparing elevation change (via Structure-from-Motion) derived from UAV survey with those derived from time-lapse photography. The authors find that the remote camera data underestimates elevation change on an avalanche cone when compared to UAV derived data. However, remote camera data provide a time-series of change not possible with mission-based UAV data.
The authors describe a robust approach to determining elevation change and convert that change to surface mass balance by accounting for submergence velocity (dynamics and compaction). Field data (e.g. snow density, ablation stakes) are utilised to improve the mass balance estimates, and checks were made between submergence velocity estimates and snow pit/density stratigraphy. The papers discussion is well organised progression logically from discussion of the methods and their limitations through to the process of avalanche accumulation – all sections are well cited.
This is an excellent contribution, providing a robust workflow to improving estimates of avalanche contribution to surface mass balance and at the same time adding to knowledge about how important this secondary accumulation source can be.
Specific/Technical Comments (minor):
In relation to Figure S5, the intra-day repeatability tests, which compare DEMs generated within 48-hr windows, the authors state they expect no change to have occurred. Can the authors confirm these dates are away from any precipitation events and/or radiative heating? As either of these meteorological conditions could stimulate sluffing/deposition onto the avalanche cone, especially during the Nov accumulation time period. It is somewhat difficult to assess the precipitation data shown in Figure 9 against that time-slices in S5.
Figure 5: On the pdf this appears to be missing a title horizontal axis title
Section 4.3.3: Order of content. The time chronology seems a little jumbled in this section making it difficult to follow. Can the authors present the data time sequentially, describing the total precipitation and number of avalanche events for the 2023-24 period and then the 2024-25 period so it is easier for the reader to assess the overall weather/snow conditions between the two field seasons?