4.0 Article

The glacial geomorphology of the Antarctic ice sheet bed

Journal

ANTARCTIC SCIENCE
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 724-741

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0954102014000212

Keywords

Antarctica; Cenozoic; glacial erosion; ice sheet history; landscape evolution; morphometry

Funding

  1. Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) UK [NE/J018333/1]
  2. NERC [NE/J018333/1, NE/J005665/2, NE/F014260/1, NE/K003674/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/K003674/1, NE/J018333/1, NE/F014260/1, NE/J005665/2] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 1976, David Sugden and Brian John developed a classification for Antarctic landscapes of glacial erosion based upon exposed and eroded coastal topography, providing insight into the past glacial dynamics of the Antarctic ice sheets. We extend this classification to cover the continental interior of Antarctica by analysing the hypsometry of the subglacial landscape using a recently released dataset of bed topography (BEDMAP2). We used the existing classification as a basis for first developing a low-resolution description of landscape evolution under the ice sheet before building a more detailed classification of patterns of glacial erosion. Our key finding is that a more widespread distribution of ancient, preserved alpine landscapes may survive beneath the Antarctic ice sheets than has been previously recognized. Furthermore, the findings suggest that landscapes of selective erosion exist further inland than might be expected, and may reflect the presence of thinner, less extensive ice in the past. Much of the selective nature of erosion may be controlled by pre-glacial topography, and especially by the large-scale tectonic structure and fluvial valley network. The hypotheses of landscape evolution presented here can be tested by future surveys of the Antarctic ice sheet bed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available