4.5 Article

Physical and chemical impacts of a major storm on a temperate lake: a taste of things to come?

期刊

CLIMATIC CHANGE
卷 151, 期 2, 页码 333-347

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2302-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. NERC (UKLEON) [NE/I007407/1]
  2. CEH
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/I007407/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [NE/I007407/1, ceh020010] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extreme weather can have a substantial influence on lakes and is expected to become more frequent with climate change. We explored the influence of one particular extreme event, Storm Ophelia, on the physical and chemical environment of England's largest lake, Windermere. We found that the substantial influence of Ophelia on meteorological conditions at Windermere, in particular wind speed, resulted in a 25-fold increase (relative to the study-period average) in the wind energy flux at the lake-air interface. Following Ophelia, there was a short-lived mixing event in which the Schmidt stability decreased by over 100Jm(-2) and the thermocline deepened by over 10m during a 12-h period. As a result of changes to the strength of stratification, Ophelia also changed the internal seiche regime of Windermere with the dominant seiche period increasing from similar to 17h pre-storm to similar to 21h post-storm. Following Ophelia, there was an upwelling of cold and low-oxygenated waters at the southern-end of the lake. This had a substantial influence on the main outflow of Windermere, the River Leven, where dissolved oxygen concentrations decreased by similar to 48%, from 9.3 to 4.8mgL(-1), while at the mid-lake monitoring station in Windermere, it decreased by only similar to 3%. This study illustrates that the response of a lake to extreme weather can cause important effects downstream, the influence of which may not be evident at the lake surface. To understand the impact of future extreme events fully, the whole lake and downstream-river system need to be studied together.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据