Sea to Summit Patagonia 

Summary

The glaciers of Patagonia are some of the most temperate, fastest, and most erosive glaciers on Earth and Pio XI Glacier makes no exception. In contrast to the general trend for glaciers of the Southern Patagonia Icefield (Figure 1, Top), this calving glacier has experienced a large cumulative frontal advance since 1945, which led to the damming of Lake Greve. To date, a conclusive explanation for the behaviour of Glacier Pio XI (Figure 1­, Bottom) remains to be found. 

In an effort to better understand this anomalous advancing behaviour, the potential link to climate change and the implications for hazard generation, the Sea to Summit Patagonia Project (SSPP) will venture into the interior of the Patagonian Southern Ice Field to:  

a)     Bring new insights pertaining to the underlying factors that determine the transport of mass down-glacier and the fluctuations of frontal positions of Pio XI Glacier; 

b)     Assess the present risk of glacial lake outburst floods at Lake Greve. 

Central to this are the following secondary objectives: 

• Assess the spatial characteristics (and changes) of Pio XI Glacier such as the supraglacial hydrology, and surface topography.

  • This will involve an aerial photogrammetric survey (via a drone DJI Mavic or Wingtra) to map the geometry and hypsometry of the glacier as well as georeferencing activities to map and geotag the position of the snout of the glacier. Furthermore, repeat photography will be employed to qualitatively assess the frontal geometric changes since the last field visit. 

  • The output from this work will be a digital terrain model (orthomosaic) that can be used to assess the complex interaction between ice dynamics, ice calving and mass-balance components (among others).

• Measure the surface ice flow velocity[1] of Pio XI glacier to confirm whether it is surge type glacier or not.

  • This will be achieved using a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Real Time Kinematic Survey as employed during the Karakoram Anomaly Project in Pakistan in 2015.

• Measure the geometry of the Pio Xi ice dam at Lake Greve to determine the risk of catastrophic flooding.

  • This will be achieved using a second terrestrial photogrammetric survey, and geomorphic mapping techniques as explained in McKillop and Clague (2000); Huggel, (2004); Carter (2007).

The Sea to Summit Patagonia Project along with the Karakoram Anomaly Project is part of an ongoing global initiative to improve understanding pertaining to climate change impacts and hazardous glacial phenomena in high topography and mid-high latitude environments. 

Knowledge of ice velocity is essential to identify areas of rapid ice discharge, define the origin of ice and the limits of glacier catchments, calculate ice discharge into lakes or the ocean, and compare the results with surface mass balance to estimate the icefield mass balance, or study ice flow dynamics in relation to climate change. Until recently, only partial coverage of ice motion of the Patagonian Icefields has been available [Naruse et al., 1992; Michel and Rignot, 1999; Skvarca et al., 2003; Rivera et al., 2007; Stuefer et al., 2007; Ciappa et al., 2010; Sugiyama et al., 2011; Rivera et al., 2012a; Willis et al., 2012a; Muto and Furuya, 2013; Sakakibara et al., 2013; Sakakibara and Sugiyama, 2014].

Project Description

Logistical Plan

Due to the remoteness of the field site, the SSPP team will embark on a scientific voyage (Figure 2) crossing varying terrain such as sea and land and combining different means of locomotion such as boat, foot and skis, testing physical endurance, tolerance to adversity, navigation in difficult terrain and problem-solving skills. The expedition will be a first in the area in terms of scope and if successful, it will bring important insights about glacioclimatic interactions, calving dynamics, Holocene climate change and the role of topography in controlling glacier behaviour. 

In terms of logistics, the plan will be as follows: 1) domestic flight to Puerto Montt followed by a 2) ferry ride to Puerto Eden and then 3) a boat hire to Pio XI Glacier (red lines). Next, the team will ski across the icefield (blue line) until O’Higgins lake where they will take a boat to O’Higgins settlement (red line). The last leg of the journey will be a vehicle/bus drive back to Puerto Montt (yellow line). We have a contingency logistical plan which comprises access to the icefield via Coyhaique instead of Puerto Montt. 

Project Opportunity and Innovation

The need for a conclusive explanation for the behaviour of Glacier Pio XI

Remarkably little is known about the Patagonian icefields. They remain "amongst the least known of the world's glaciers" (Grove, 1988:263), despite the fact that the South Patagonian Icefield is one of the major ice masses of the world. The tantalising fragments of information that do exist suggest that there is a rich glaciological source to be mined in Patagonia yielding insights into glacioclimatic interactions, calving dynamics, Holocene climate change and the role of topography in controlling glacier behaviour (Warren and Sugden, 1993). 

The Patagonian icefields are the largest mid-latitude ice masses and yet few glaciological data exist for them. Neither full mass-balance studies nor empirical or numerical modelling investigations of glacier dynamics have yet been published. The presence of the Andes lying athwart the westerlies makes for a dynamic glacial system with steep balance gradients and west- east equilibrium-line altitude gradients. The overall trend during the 20th century has been glacier retreat. However, whereas most eastern outlets retreated consistently from the beginning of the century, recession on the west began later, has been interrupted by readvances, and most recently has accelerated markedly, reaching higher mean rates of retreat than those on the east (Rivera et al., 1997, Rivera and Cassasa, 1999).

This contrast may result from a predominantly precipitation-controlled mass-balance regime in the west and a dominant temperature control in the east. Superimposed on these contrasts is the anomalous behaviour of certain calving glaciers, the oscillations of which contrast in magnitude and timing with each other and with non-calving glaciers, and which in many cases do not relate directly to climate change (Wilson et al., 2016). Two large calving outlets are at or near their Neoglacial maxima. One of them, Pio XI, (48.26°S, 73.68°W; 1234 km2)1, the largest outlet glacier of the Southern Patagonian Icefield (12 363 km2from 48.5°S to 51.5°S), has experienced a large cumulative frontal advance since 1945 (Figure 3 and 4). To date, a conclusive explanation for the behaviour of Glacier Pio XI remains to be found (ibid).

Citing the large frontal fluctuations and the periodic occurrence of distinctive medial moraine folding, Rivera and others (1997), suggest the Glacier Pio XI is a surge-type glacier, however much uncertainty exits around the trigger mechanisms for this behaviour. Furthermore, Wilson et al., (2016), suggested that the transport of mass down-glacier and the fluctuations of frontal positions are influenced by a complex interaction between ice dynamics, ice calving and mass-balance components (among others). Differentiating between the mass balance and surge dynamic components of Glacier Pio XI’s behaviour remains difficult. This is because understanding of these two variables is limited by the lack of elevation data further up-glacier in the accumulation zones. Observations of ice thinning in these upper regions, would further confirm the influence of dynamically acquired thickening in lower regions. Further monitoring of these components, together with long-term acquisition of local climate data, is thus essential for the understanding of future behaviour.

This project will address these knowledge gaps in part ­as described above. We will link our field measurements to satellite derived velocities that are now possible (with the accessibility of imagery on high temporal resolution like Planet and Sentinel) and thus integrate new technological advances into very new field data. This in turn will enable us to upscale the field findings to the whole Pio XI area. 

The need for monitoring of glacial lake outburst flood risk

With regard to possible hazards, the likelihood of future outburst events is highest in Southern Patagonia, which contains the largest number of moraine- and ice-dammed lakes (Figure 3, Wilson et al., 2018). It has been noted that if in a longer time period, the equilibrium line altitude of Pio Xi Glacier rises above a critical hypsometric threshold, accumulation area would change. This in turn would lead to thinning and the front of the glacier would start to retreat. When this happens, a sudden outburst flood of Greve Lake might occur. The possible retreat of the glacier and associated glacial flood of Greve Lake should be analysed in future investigations (Rivera and Casassa, 1999). 

Continued glacial lake monitoring is recommended for the entire Patagonian Andes, particularly in light of the GLOF risks posed toward the future development in agriculture, tourism, hydropower and mining in these mountainous areas. This project will explore the likelihood of occurrence of GLOF at Lake Greve. 

Predicting response to climate change 

The Chilean and Argentinean Andes contain ~29,356 km2 of glacier ice (~93% of the total glacier area in South America) (RGI Consortium, 2017). Given ongoing climate change, the glaciers of the Patagonian icefields are important predictors of what we expect to occur in the coming decades in other glaciated, high-latitude regions, such as the Antarctic Peninsula and the Canadian Arctic, which are experiencing some of the most rapid warming on the planet.

To improve resilience of human life and assets to glacial hazards by advancing understanding of the mechanisms that have triggered GLOFs in Chile and Argentina

The Patagonian glacierised environments are increasingly being used for mining purposes, hydropower installations and for tourist activities, bringing people closer to glacial hazards (Dussaillant et al., 2010). Overall, Iribarren Anacona et al. (2015b) estimated that at least 31 glacial lakes have failed in Chile and Argentina since the eighteenth century, producing over 100 GLOF events. Importantly, this study notes that the number of GLOF events in Chile and Argentina has increased over the past three decades, highlighting the need for further investigation of the cryospheric, climatic and geomorphic processes driving this trend. Despite this situation, monitoring of glacial lake development and evolution in Chile and Argentina has been limited, with past investigations only covering relatively small regions of Patagonia (e.g. Loriaux and Casassa (2013), Iribarren Anacona et al. (2014) and Paul and Mölg (2014). Due to their sporadic nature, little is known about the specific mechanisms that have triggered GLOFs in Chile and Argentina. 

Summary of observations from earlier studies and activities 

Frontal fluctuations for Glacier Pio XI have been analysed by LLiboutry (1956, 1965), Mercer (1964), Iwata (1983), Aniya et. al (1992), Rivera (1992), Warren & Sugden (1993), Warren & Rivera (1994), Rivera et al., (1997a y b), Warren et al., (1997), Rivera & Casassa, (1999), Rivera et al., (2000) among others. 

To summarise, between 1830 and 1928 the single snout of Pio XI advanced across the Greve Valley (where the northern and southern termini are located today) resulting in the formation of Lago Greve (Greve Lake) (Agostini, 1945). Following this advance, the glacier experienced a prolonged period of retreat up to 1945 (3–5 km), opening the Greve valley once more (Lliboutry, 1956). A second period of advance subsequently occurred between 1945 and 1962 leading to the reformation of Greve Lake and the splitting of frontal margins into the northern (calving into the freshwater Greve Lake) and southern termini (calving into the tidewater Eyre Fjord) (Rivera, 1992). For the northern terminus, this advance continued un-abated into the mid 1990s, increasing in magnitude from ∼1993. The southern terminus also continued to advance up until 1981, reaching what then represented a Neoglacial maximum (Warren and others, 1997). After reaching this maximum, the southern terminus went through a period of fluctuation, experiencing a large retreat up to 1989, before advancing in the early 1990s (reaching a new maximum in 1993) and then retreating once again in the mid- to late-1990s. Both the southern and northern termini began a general advancing phase once more between 2000 and 2006, respectively (Sakakibara and Sugiyama, 2014).

Rivera and others (1997) attribute this frontal behaviour to the following glacier surge triggers: (1) enhanced subglacial water pressure – modulated by internal ice mechanisms, fjord/proglacial lake depth, and meltwater input, among others (Sugiyama and others, 2011); (2) fluctuations in geothermal activity; (3) enhanced precipitation accumulation – Glacier Pio XI has an estimated accumulation area ratio of ∼0.8 (Rivera and Casassa, 1999; De Angelis, 2014); and (4) proglacial sedimentation. However, in the absence of further investigation, these factors, including others, are difficult to assess, hence why the importance of this study. 

Bibliography  

Agostini, A. de (1945): Andes Patagónicos. Buenos Aires Argentina, 445p.

Aniya,M., Naruse,R., Shizukuishi, M., Skvarca,P & Casassa,G. (1992): Monitoring recent glacier variations in the Southern Patagonia Icefield, utilizing remote sensing data.International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 29(B7), 87 - 94.

Aniya, M., Sato, H., Naruse, R., Skvarca, P. & Casassa, G., (1996): The Use of Satellite and Airborne Imagery to Inventory Outlet Glacier of the Southern Patagonia Icefield, South America. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 62: 1361-1369.

Antarctic Glaciers. 2018. Surging Glaciers. Available from: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/glacier-flow-2/surging-glaciers/#SECTION_. Accessed on 30.11.2018. 

Barrow, C. (2004). Risk Assessment and Crisis Management Plan.  RGS Expeditions Handbook. pp. 106-116. 

Carter TR, Jones RN, Lu X, Bhadwal S, Conde C, Mearns LO, O’Neill BC, Rounsevell MDA, Zurek MB. 2007. New assessment methods and the characterisation of future conditions. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE, editors. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–171.

Dussaillant, A., Benito, G., Buytaert, W., Carling, P., Meier, C., Espinoza, F., 2010. Repeated glacial lake outburst floods in Patagonia; an increasing hazard? Nat. Hazards 54 (2), 469–481.

Garreaud, R. D., M. Vuille, R. Compagnucci, and J. Marengo (2009), Present-day South American climate, Palaeogeogr. Paleoclimate. Palaeoecol., 281(3–4), 180–195, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.10.032.

Glaciologia. 2018. Glaciar Pio XI. Available from: http://www.glaciologia.cl/web/glaciologia_en/glacier.php?idGlaciar=98&. Accessed on 30.11.2018. 

Grove, J. M., 1988: The Little Ice Age. London: Methuen. 498 pp.

Huggel, C., Haeberli, W., Kaab, A., Bieri, D and Richardson, S. 2004. An assessment procedure for glacial hazards in the Swiss Alps NRC Research Pres. at http://cgj.nrc.ca.

IHA (1972): Derrotero de la costa de Chile. Instituto Hidrográfico de la Armada de Chile, 3, 321. 

Iribarren Anacona, P.I., Norton, K., Mackintosh, A., 2014. Moraine-dammed lake failures in Patagonia and assessment of outburst susceptibility in the Baker Basin. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 3243–3259.

Iribarren Anacona, P.I., Mackintosh, A., Norton, K., 2015a. Reconstruction of a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) in the Engaño Valley, Chilean Patagonia: lessons for GLOF risk management. Sci. Total Environ. 527–528, 1–11.

Iribarren Anacona, P.I., Mackintosh, A., Norton, K., 2015b. Hazardous processes and events from glacier and permafrost areas: lessons from the Chilean and Argentinean Andes. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 40, 2 –21.

Iwata,S. (1983): Further advance of Pio XI Glacier. In R. Naruse (ed.) Glaciological and Meteorological studies in Patagonia, Chile, by Japanese Research Expeditions in 1967-82. Data Center for Glacier Researches, Japanese Society of Snow and Ice, 14-17.

Lewis, N., and Deegan, P. 2004. Minimising Environmental Impact. RGS Expeditions Handbook. pp174-184. 

Lliboutry ,L. (1956): Nieves y Glaciares de Chile. Fundamentos de Glaciología. Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile, Santiago, 471p.

Lliboutry, L. (1957): Banding and volcanic ash on Patagonian glaciers. Journal of Glaciology, 3(21), 18-25.

LLiboutry, L. (1965): Traité de Glaciologie. Tomo I and II. Ed.Masson & Cie. Editeurs. París,France, 1040p. 

Loriaux, T., Casassa, G., 2013. Evolution of glacial lakes from the Northern Patagonia Icefield and terrestrial water storage in a sea-level rise context. Glob. Planet. Chang. 102, 33–40.

Malz, P., Meier, W., Casassa, G., Jaña, R., Skvarca, P., & Braun, M. H. (2018). Elevation and mass changes of the southern Patagonia icefield derived from TanDEM-X and SRTM data. Remote Sensing, 10(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020188. 

Marangunic, C. (1964): Observaciones glaciológicas y Geológicas de la zona del paso de los cuatro glaciares. Memoria de título, Depto. Geología Universidad de Chile, Santiago, 120p.

Masiokas, M. H., A. Rivera, L. E. Espizua, R. Villalba, S. Delgado, and J. C. Aravena (2009), Glacier fluctuations in extratropical South America during the past 1000 years, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol., 281, 242–268.

Martinic, M., (1999): Cartografía Magallánica 1523-1945. Ediciones de la Universidad de Magallanes, punta Arenas, 345 p.

McKillop, Robin J., and John J. Clague. (2007). Procedure for Making Objective Preliminary Assessments of Outburst Flood Hazard from Moraine-Dammed Lakes in Southwestern British Columbia.” Natural Hazards 41.1 131-57.

Mouginot, J., & Rignot, E. (2015). Ice motion of the Patagonian Icefields of South America: 1984-2014. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(5), 1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062661. 

Mercer, J.H. (1964): Advance of a Patagonian Glacier. Journal of Glaciology 5(38),267-268.

Nasa Earth Observatory. Various dates. Image of the day, Southern Patagonia Ice Field. 

National Department of State Borders and Boundaries (DIFROL). 2018. Requirements to apply for authorization for a Scientific or Technical Expedition to mountain tops located in Border Areas. Available from: https://difrol.gob.cl/en/procedures/expeditions/. Accessed on 30.11.2018

Paterson, W., (1994): The Physics of Glaciers. Pergamon Press, London.

RGI Consortium (2017). Randolph Glacier Inventory – A Dataset of Global Glacier Outlines: Version 6.0: Technical Report, Global Land Ice Measurements from Space, Colorado, USA. Digital Media. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7265/N5-RGI-60. 

Rignot, E., A. Rivera, and G. Casassa (2003), Contribution of the Patagonia Icefields of South America to sea level rise, Science, 302(6544), 434–437, doi:10.1126/science.1087393.

Risopatrón, L. (1905):La Cordillera de los Andes, entre las latitudes 46° I 50°s. Imprenta Cervantes, Santiago, 233 p.

Rivera,A. (1992): "El glaciar Pio XI: Avances y retrocesos, el impacto sobre su entorno durante el presente siglo." Revista Geográfica de Chile Terra Australis, Santiago, 36,33-62. 

Rivera, A., H. Lange, J. Aravena and G. Casassa, (1997b): "The 20th Century Advance of Glaciar Pío XI, Southern Patagonia Icefield." Annals of Glaciology, 24: 66-71. 

Rivera, A., Aravena, J. C., & Casassa, G. (1997). Recent Fluctuations of Glaciar Pio XI, Patagonia: Discussion of a Glacial Surge Hypothesis. Mountain Research and Development, 17(4), 309. https://doi.org/10.2307/3674021. 

Rivera, A., & Casassa, G. (1999). Volume changes on Pio XI glacier, Patagonia: 1975-1995. Global and Planetary Change, 22(1–4), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(99)00040-5

Rootes, D. 2004. Polar Expeditions. RGS Expeditions Handbook. pp. 220-232. 

Sakakibara, D., and S. . (2014). Ice-front variations and speed changes of calving glaciers in the Southern Patagonia Icefield from 1984 to 2011, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 119, 2541–2554, doi:10.1002/2014JF003148.

Stenmark, J., and Jiduc, S.G. (2015). Fifty people, two yaks and a goat. GeoConexxion pp.10.

Sevestre, H & Benn, DI 2015, 'Climatic and geometric controls on the global distribution of surge-type glaciers: implications for a unifying model of surging' Journal of Glaciology, vol. 61, no. 228, pp. 646-662. DOI: 10.3189/2015JoG14J136

Warren, C., & Rivera, A. (1994). Non-linear climatic response of Calving Glaciers: A case study of Pio XI Glacier, Chilean Patagonia. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 67, 385–394.

Warren, C. R., & Sugden, D. E. (1993). The Patagonian Icefields: A Glaciological Review. Arctic and Alpine Research, 25(4), 316. https://doi.org/10.2307/1551915. 

Wilson, R., Carrión, D., & Rivera, A. (2016). Detailed dynamic, geometric and supraglacial moraine data for Glaciar Pio XI, the only surge-type glacier of the Southern Patagonia Icefield. Annals of Glaciology, 57(73), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/aog.2016.32

Warren, C., A. Rivera and A. Post, (1997): "Greatest Holocene advance of Glaciar Pío XI, Chilean Patagonia: Possible Causes." Annals of Glaciology, 24: 11-15.

Wilson, R., Glasser, N. F., Reynolds, J. M., Harrison, S., Anacona, P. I., Schaefer, M., & Shannon, S. (2018). Glacial lakes of the Central and Patagonian Andes. Global and Planetary Change, 162(January), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.01.004.