4.5 Article

Towards a calculation of organic carbon release from erosion of Arctic coasts using non-fractal coastline datasets

Journal

MARINE GEOLOGY
Volume 257, Issue 1-4, Pages 1-10

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.margeo.2008.10.004

Keywords

fractals; coastal erosion; shoreline; Arctic; carbon cycle

Funding

  1. ArcticNet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Changing environmental conditions in the Arctic will affect patterns of coastal erosion processes and thus modify the carbon cycle in the Arctic Ocean. To address this issue, a coastal classification of the Arctic was established to provide the first reliable estimate of organic carbon input from coastal erosion to the Arctic Ocean. The calculation relies on geomorphic parameters and the length of the coastline in the form of a line dataset used in geographical information systems (the World Vector Shoreline). The statistical self-similarity of Arctic shorelines (i.e. the fact that they exhibit similar features and hence different lengths at different scales) hampers the calculation process. Delineating the same section of shoreline at different spatial scales produces changes in the calculated length of the coastline and therefore in the volume of sediment released by up to 30% in some cases. The amount of change differs depending on the type and morphology of the coastline. The length of the World Vector Shoreline does not correlate well to any one scale and is inappropriate for use at the global level. Computations of erosion based on areas instead of lengths (i.e. buffers instead of shoreline lengths) provide a valuable yet simple substitute to the length-based method. Differences in quantities of eroded sediment are, on average, 70% less affected by scale changes when areas are used. Area-based methods are therefore recommended for circum-polar, computation-demanding, shoreline-based erosion calculations. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available