4.5 Article

Evidence of ground ice melting detected by InSAR and in situ monitoring over permafrost terrain on the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibet) Plateau

期刊

PERMAFROST AND PERIGLACIAL PROCESSES
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 52-67

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ppp.2171

关键词

active layer; ground ice; long-term; SBAS-InSAR; terrain subsidence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed ground surface deformation and observed temperature and moisture data to investigate the thawing process of ice-rich permafrost. The results showed that long-term subsidence velocity is a reliable indicator of ground ice melting, and the melting of ice-poor permafrost does not result in significant subsidence. The study also found that geomorphological conditions affect the deformation velocity.
The thawing of ice-rich permafrost has attracted considerable attention in recent years. In this study, we analyzed both the ground surface deformation time series spanning 6 years, derived through the SBAS-InSAR technique on the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibet) Plateau (QTP), and the long-term active layer soil temperature and moisture in situ observations and their relationships. The results showed that long-term subsidence velocity directly represents the melting of ground ice instead of the thickening rate of the active layer by a quantitative analysis of both terrain subsidence velocity and active layer thickening rate and the increase in liquid water at the bottom of the active layer. Ice-poor permafrost thawing does not result in distinct subsidence, although the active layer deepening rate can be very high. The spatial analysis reveals that long-term deformation velocities are large in the foothills and on gentle slopes (1-5 degrees) and are closely related to geomorphological conditions, which could regulate the soil properties and ground ice content. These findings improve the understanding of the thawing degradation of icy permafrost and promote method developments for the automated mapping of ground ice melting in permafrost environments.

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