4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Snow stratigraphy over a uniform depositional surface: spatial variability and measurement tools

期刊

COLD REGIONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 289-298

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-232X(03)00071-5

关键词

snow stratigraphy; densification; radar; permittivity; spatial variability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Instrumentation and methods for measuring snow properties are compared in an investigation of millimeter- to meter-scale stratigraphy in a snowpack not influenced by topography, vegetation, or a warm and variable ground surface. Field measurements were conducted within a 20 x 20 x 2 m plot at Pika Glacier, Alaska. The snow was characterized by more than 600 point measurements of density, stratigraphic mapping in 19 snow-pits, and by pulse-radar imaging along 20 cross-plot profiles. Density was measured manually and was calculated from electric permittivity, which was determined with a hand-held probe and by radar velocity analysis. Stratigraphic mapping in snow-pit walls with manual measurements of density identified comparatively few layers, suggesting a relatively homogeneous snowpack. Both the permittivity probe and the radar imaging, however, identified a larger number of layers based on vertical density contrasts. Image analysis of a back-illuminated column of snow revealed the highest level of stratigraphic complexity, identifying layers mm in thickness that extended up to 10 cm laterally. Despite minor variations in snow properties at the mm scale, major features in the vertical density profiles were laterally continuous over tens of meters. These results provide evidence for spatial homogeneity of densification processes leading to decimeter scale layering in a situation where the snowpack is not influenced by local terrain factors. In addition, these observations demonstrate that the complexity of snow stratigraphy is highly dependent upon choice of scale and measurement tool. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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