| Literature DB >> 32728305 |
Lawrence Vulis1, Alejandro Tejedor1,2, Jon Schwenk3, Anastasia Piliouras3, Joel Rowland3, Efi Foufoula-Georgiou1,4.
Abstract
The abundant lakes dotting arctic deltas are hotspots of methane emissions and biogeochemical activity, but seasonal variability in lake extents introduces uncertainty in estimates of lacustrine carbon emissions, typically performed at annual or longer time scales. To characterize variability in lake extents, we analyzed summertime lake area loss (i.e., shrinkage) on two deltas over the past 20 years, using Landsat-derived water masks. We find that monthly shrinkage rates have a pronounced structured variability around the channel network with the shrinkage rate systematically decreasing farther away from the channels. This pattern of shrinkage is predominantly attributed to a deeper active layer enhancing near-surface connectivity and storage and greater vegetation density closer to the channels leading to increased evapotranspiration rates. This shrinkage signal, easily extracted from remote sensing observations, may offer the means to constrain estimates of lacustrine methane emissions and to develop process-based estimates of depth to permafrost on arctic deltas. ©2020. The Authors.Entities:
Keywords: arctic deltas, permafrost, remote sensing, lakes, arctic hydrology
Year: 2020 PMID: 32728305 PMCID: PMC7380309 DOI: 10.1029/2019GL086710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geophys Res Lett ISSN: 0094-8276 Impact factor: 4.720
Figure 1.Study areas and illustration of seasonal lake area shrinkage. (a) A map of the near-surface permafrost probability from Pastick et al. (2015) and the locations of the Colville and Yukon deltas. (b) A Landsat 8 scene (falsely colored in R-Surface Water Infrared, G-Near Infrared, B-Green) taken on 6 July 2014 over the Yukon Delta, with the study zone outlined in blue. (c) The same over the Colville Delta on 12 August 2014. (d) The classified June 2008 water mask from the Global Surface Water (GSW) data set, with land in gray, channels in light blue, lakes in white, and no data in dark gray. (e) The lake area shrinkage from June to July 2008 is depicted with water that drained or evaporated marked in red, water that remained water in dark blue, and land shown in black.
Figure 2.Summertime lake shrinkage as a function of the distance to the nearest channel. (a, c) Shrinkage rate, estimated by the monthly fraction of water area loss S as a function of d, for 26 summers, each curve marked by the date of snow disappearance on the Yukon (a) and the Colville (c) with the weighted average shrinkage rate curve shown in a black dotted line. (b, d) The results of the lake shoreline shrinkage from an object-based analysis are shown for 2014 on the Yukon (b) and for 2014 on the Colville (d), with the pixel-based estimate shown in light blue as comparison. The inset in (b) highlights the first three Internal Perimeters (IPs) of a sample lake in black, red, and blue, with the remaining water shown in light blue.
Figure 3.Higher resolution figure attached as PDF.Examining physical mechanisms for increased lake shrinkage closer to the delta channel network. (a, d) Comparison of the 2014 water area shrinkage rates of all lakes disconnected from the channel network as inferred from the Landsat images at 30-m resolution (same as in Figures 2a and 2b) and a subset of lakes disconnected from the channels as inferred from high resolution (0.6 m) to rule out that subpixel surface connectivity not seen in Landsat cannot explain the observed structured shrinkage patterns. (b, e) Average surface temperature of water pixels in internal perimeter IP2 (a proxy for lake depth) is independent of distance from the channel network indicating that lake depth is not the primary cause for the observed higher shrinkage rates closer to the channels. (c, f) Mean NDVI of June land pixels spikes and decreases on the Yukon (c), and steadily increases on the Colville indicating presence of barren sandbars next to the channels (f). (g) Schematic illustrating that the enhanced shrinkage, S, closer to the DCN is predominantly caused by increased near-surface storage and flow, a result of increased heat content near the channel, and modulated by higher evapotranspiration rates due to denser vegetation content on the Yukon.