Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T21:06:57.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mass balance characteristics of the ‘vanishing’ Rolleston Glacier, New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2025

Heather Purdie*
Affiliation:
School of Earth & Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Tim Kerr
Affiliation:
Rainfall.NZ, Christchurch, New Zealand
Benjamin Robson
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Brian Anderson
Affiliation:
Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
Andrew M. Lorrey
Affiliation:
Earth Sciences New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand
Wolfgang Rack
Affiliation:
School of Earth & Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
James Brasington
Affiliation:
School of Earth & Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Paul Bealing
Affiliation:
School of Earth & Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
*
Corresponding author: Heather Purdie; Email: heather.purdie@canterbury.ac.nz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 15 years of mass balance monitoring (2010–25) on Rolleston Glacier in the Southern Alps of New Zealand has documented a mass loss of −11.5 m w.e. (−0.8 m w.e. a−1). An analysis of winter snow accumulation patterns indicated that secondary accumulation processes (avalanche and wind) contribute approximately 8% of annual accumulation. A geodetic change detection over the glacier highlighted that regardless of the additional input, the entire glacier has experienced net thinning in recent years. Assuming mass loss continues at the current accelerated rate of −1.2 m w. e. a−1 (2017–25) we estimate that Rolleston Glacier may vanish by mid-2060.

Information

Type
Letter
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Glaciological Society.
Figure 0

Figure 1. Location map of the Rolleston Glacier (a) in relation to the South Island of New Zealand, (b) key mass balance monitoring components including snow depths used in this study, location of snow pit, mass balance stakes (also average surface velocity), average ELA since 2010 and location of previous ice thickness measurements. Background image is the orthophoto from the 2022 lidar survey, and red dashed line shows the glacier outline in 2010. For reference, cross-glacier ice-thickness points are approximately 150 m from the glacier headwall, also see Figure S1.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Directly measured mass balance for Rolleston Glacier, showing the winter (bw), summer, (bs) and net (bn) balances as well as the cumulative balance (grey line) for 2010–25.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Development (a, b) and persistence (c, d) of avalanche accumulated snow in winter at Rolleston Glacier. Images a–c were captured by remote camera, and image d by the 2016 NIWA end-of-summer snowline survey (Willsman and others, 2017).

Figure 3

Figure 4. (a) Measured winter snow depth (probe + GPR, grey points) and average snow depth (black) with distance from the glacier headwall. Averages calculated for 20 m bins and error bars are 1 standard deviation (1 SD), (b) normalised winter snow depth (probe, light grey + GPR, dark grey) in relation to distance from the glacier headwall. The solid grey line shows a linear down-glacier trend in normalised snow depth, and the solid red line the linear trend based on data points beyond the avalanche run-out (≥150 m). The dashed red line is the estimated normalised accumulation after subtraction of the headwall enhancement (also see S1).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Elevation change (metres per year) at Rolleston Glacier derived from on DEM differencing over various time periods, with a focus on the more recent, strongly negative mass balance years (Figure 2). Refer to Table 1 for elevation source data.

Figure 5

Table 1. Comparison of mass balance estimates (m w.e.). From direct measurement and geodetic measurement 2018–23. An adjustment was applied to the geodetic estimate to align the different time periods between methods (S3).

Supplementary material: File

Purdie et al. supplementary material

Purdie et al. supplementary material
Download Purdie et al. supplementary material(File)
File 889.4 KB