4.2 Article

Distinctive iceberg ploughmarks on the mid-Norwegian margin: Tidally influenced chains of pits with implications for iceberg drift

期刊

ARCTIC ANTARCTIC AND ALPINE RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 163-175

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15230430.2022.2075120

关键词

Iceberg ploughmark; tidal; ocean current; iceberg drift velocity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified a series of asymmetrical to circular pits on the upper slope, believed to be formed by iceberg keels grounding on the seabed during low tides. The pits are considered as evidence of iceberg drift in the local marine area, as well as the evolution process of the Norwegian shelf after the Last Glacial Maximum.
Curvilinear depressions and chains of asymmetrical to circular pits up to a few meters deep and a few tens of meters wide have been mapped on the upper continental slope beyond the mid-Norwegian shelf. These features are interpreted to represent a continuum of seafloor landforms produced by the grounding of iceberg keels at successive low tides. The features occur along a 50 km long stretch of the upper slope in modern water depths between 400 and 500 m. The average distance between pits varies between about 70 and 175 m, representing one tidal cycle of 12 hr 25 min between successive low tides. This yields average iceberg drift velocities of between 5 and 15 m hr(-1). The pits are often asymmetrical, with a downstream surcharge or berm, making it possible to determine the direction of iceberg drift and, therefore, the current direction at the time of ploughmark formation. The c. 300 m thick icebergs producing the ploughmarks are likely to have been sourced mainly from the fast-flowing Norwegian Channel Ice Stream to the south and probably formed during the early part of regional deglaciation of the Norwegian shelf after the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000 years ago. The icebergs appear to follow a similar northeastward flow direction to that of the present Norwegian Atlantic Current offshore of Norway.

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

4.2
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