Sediment Discharge Variability in Arctic Rivers: Implications for a Warmer Future
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sediment discharge variability in Arctic rivers: implications for a warmer future James P. M. Syvitski A new model for predicting the sediment ß ux in ungauged river basins is applied to 46 Arctic to sub-Arctic rivers. The model predicts the pre- anthropogenic ß ux of sediment to within a factor of 2, across four orders of magnitude in basin area and run-off. The model explains for the Þ rst time why Arctic rivers carry so little sediment when compared at the global scale. Sensitive to drainage basin temperature, the model is used to examine the impact of a climate warming scenario on the loads of high latitude rivers. As the Arctic warms, rivers will carry increased sediment loads, similar to more temperate rivers. For every 2 °C warming, the model predicts a 22 % increase in the ß ux of sediment carried by rivers. For every 20 % increase in water discharge there will be a 10 % increase in sediment load. The model also aids the interpretation of palaeoclimate records obtained from Arctic continental margins. J. P. M. Syvitski, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, 1560 30th St., Boulder, CO 80309-0450, USA. Compared to temperate and tropical rivers, the A new (2001) multi-agency SEARCH report sediment load discharged by Arctic rivers is (http://psc.apl.washington.edu/search/) warns: “it relatively low (Fig. 1a) in spite of large un con- is alarmingly clear that a complex suite of signif- solidated sedimentary deposits located through- i cant, interrelated atmospheric, oceanic and ter- out the Arctic, particularly in regions where restrial changes has occurred in the Arctic in the imprint of Pleistocene ice sheets remains recent decades.” These changes may provide a evident. This puzzle is at a time when Arctic large-scale manifestation of greenhouse warming: coast al erosion appears to be accelerating (Peck- 1) rapid penetration of the warmer Atlantic water ham et al. 2001). Siberian rivers are known to into the Arctic Ocean, concomitant with changes trans port very low sediment loads (Lopatin 1952; in surface water circulation and ice drift, and there- Alek seev & Lisitsyna 1974), while Canadian fore changes in atmospheric pressure patterns rivers like the Mackenzie are considered normal (Steele & Boyd 1998; Maslanik et al. 1999); (Milli man & Meade 1983). Bobrovitskaya et al. 2) warming of surface air temperature and (1996) suggested that the expanses of swamp increase in cloudiness (Serreze et al. 2000); and forest in the hinterlands of Siberian rivers 3) decrease in coastal ice extent thereby in creas- could account for their low load. Gordeev (2000) ing in storm fetch and surge, and mechanical– suggested that differences between Russian and thermal erosion of the coastal zone (e.g. Forbes & Canadian rivers are more a function of plate Syvitski 1995); and tectonics and the nature of the regional bedrock. 4) reduction in snow cover and increase in Recently Morehead et al. (in press) developed a ablation of glacier ice inducing changes in Arctic ß uvial model that suggested long-term sediment hydrology (Lemeshko 1992; Petersen et al. 1995; loads are partly dependent on the temperature of Van Blarcum et al. 1995; Dyurgerov & Meier a drainage basin: if the temperature is low, so is 1997; Kovalevsky 1998; Lammers et al. 2001). the relative load that a river can transport. The Arctic Ocean receives enough freshwater Syvitski 2002: Polar Research 21(2), 323–330 323 (a) (b) Fig. 1. (a) Sediment load (Qs) for sub-Arctic and Arctic rivers, predicted without a temperature correction but based on a global expression (Qs = βH3/2A1/2 see Syvitski & Morehead 1999) of the measured sediment load (Milliman & Syvitski 1992). Many rivers are predicted to transport more sediment than observed. (b) Rivers corrected for their cold basin temperatures (i.e. Qs = αH3/2A1/2ekT) fall on the global regression. discharge to determine its properties and circu- (Wilson 1973; Milliman & Syvitski 1992) and lation (Carmack 2000). Four of the world’s largest large-scale relief within it (Pinet & Souriau 1988; 15 rivers drain into the Arctic Ocean (Ob, Yenisei, Milliman & Syvitski 1992; Harrison 1994). Other Lena, Mackenzie); two others (Amur, Yukon) inß uences scale with one of these two parameters. drain into the North PaciÞ c. Draining signiÞ cant For example, local relief (Ahnert 1970; Jansen & tracts of permafrost terrain, their hydrology is Painter 1974) is correlative with large-scale relief dominated by the melt of seasonal snowfall. (Summer Þ eld & Hulton 1994), and ice cover Extreme events often control the land–sea ß ux and ice-melt scales with solar radiation and of material in the circum-Arctic (Lisitsyna relief (Andrews & Syvitski 1994). Precipitation 1974). Large Arctic rivers can discharge 90 % of intensity is captured in part through basin relief their sediment load in a month or less (Bobrovit- (Fournier 1960; Jansen & Painter 1974; Hay skaya et al. 1996, 1997). Other comparably sized et al. 1987). Run-off is correlative with basin temperate or tropical rivers lack this type of area (Walling 1987; Milliman & Syvitski 1992; dynamic response (Wang et al. 1998). Mulder & Syvitski 1996): in our Arctic river data A warming of between 4 °C and 6 °C is pre- (Table 1), average discharge Q, scales with basin dicted for the central Arctic by the middle of area A (Q = 0.93A0.82 at R2 = 0.892; Fig. 2). the 21st century (×2 CO2 scenario; Manabe et al. Vegetation scales with both regional tem- 1991; Lewis et al. 2001). Sediment ß ux by high perature and precipitation and can inß uence latitude rivers is expected to increase (Syvitski on a river’s sediment load (Douglas 1967). The & Andrews 1994). Unfortunately at this critical rock and soil type within a basin also provides time of change, there has been a rapid decrease local variability to sediment delivery (Pinet & in the monitoring of pan-Arctic rivers, both for Souriau 1988; Milliman & Syvitski 1992; In man their water discharge (Shiklomanov et al. 2002) & Jenkins 1999). Lakes may Þ lter out a river’s and for their sediment load (Syvitski et al. 2000). sediment load (Vörösmarty et al. 2001); Arctic This paper examines the ß ux of sediment from terrain has a high density of lakes (Milli man Arctic and sub-Arctic rivers, and applies a model 1980). Basin temperature inß uences the sediment for estimating the sediment ß ux for ungauged load carried by rivers through control of the rivers given a climate warming scenario. number of soil-forming frost cycles and (frozen) ground conditions (Syvitski & More head 1999). Drainage basin properties affecting sediment load High latitude drainage basin data A variety of non-anthropogenic factors inß uence Table 1 provides data on the drainage properties the “natural” sediment load of a river, but the of 46 Arctic and sub-Arctic rivers that represent signiÞ cant factors are the size of a drainage basin the spectrum of northern environments. The data 324 Sediment discharge variability in Arctic rivers: implications for a warmer future set includes 28 rivers that together account for Þ ve orders of magnitude, from 90 km2 (South) 70 % of the land surface draining into the Arctic to 2 929 000 km2 (Ob). Relief H, is measured Ocean (Prowse & Flegg 2000), 13 rivers that between the elevation of the gauging station drain into the North Atlantic (including Hudson and the highest point of land, and varies from Bay), and 7 rivers that drain into the North PaciÞ c 75 m (Kalkkinen, Finland) to 6094 m (Yukon, through coastal mountain ranges. The rivers Alaska). Long-term sediment discharge varies are located in Russia, Canada or the US, with from 0.1 kg/s (Kalkkinen) to 2580 kg/s (Liard). one Finnish river to represent coastal plain sub- Some rivers have very low turbidity levels (e.g. Arctic drainage. Drainage area A varies across 0.01 kg/m3: Attawapiskat), while others are Table 1. Drainage properties of 46 Arctic and sub-Arctic rivers derived from the databases of Binda et al (1986), Milliman & Syvitski (1992, with revisions from Bobrovitskaya et al. 1996, 1997), Gordeev (2000) and Syvitski et al. (2000). River Receiving Areaa H b Mean T c Qd Cse Qsf Pred. Qsg T-PQsh Q-PQsi Pred. Obs. Pσ-cl ocean (km2) (m) (°C) (m3/s) (kg/m3) (kg/s) (kg/s) (kg/s) (kg/s) C j (-) C k (-) (-) South (Can) Atl. 90 1025 -13 1 1.350 2 6 2 1 1.87 0.17 Middle (Can) Atl. 110 865 -13 2 1.100 2 5 1 1 1.82 0.17 North (Can) Atl. 190 1060 -13 4 1.160 4 10 3 2 1.93 0.17 Ekalugad Fjord (Can) Atl. 380 1060 -13 7 1.180 8 13 4 3 1.98 0.17 St. Jean (Can) Atl. 5600 990 1 1100 0.010 8 47 16 75 2.13 0.19 Murray (Can) Arct. 5620 1686 -3 452 0.192 87 104 77 174 2.31 2.70 0.18 Homathko (Can) Pac. 5700 3994 2 253 0.540 136 381 89 527 2.79 2.60 0.17 Odei R (Can) Atl. 6130 222 0 67 0.075 5 5 5 4 1.67 1.60 0.17 Klinaklini (Can) Pac. 6500 3800 2 330 0.480 158 378 92 566 2.77 0.18 N Saskatchewan (Can) Atl. 11000 2212 -4 156 0.891 139 218 146 128 2.49 2.40 0.17 Romaine (Can) Atl. 14000 650 0 5 39 17 2.03 Arctic Red (Can) Arct. 18600 2452 -4 752 0.192 452 331 222 237 2.60 2.80 0.18 Stikine (Can) Pac.