Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T06:48:40.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interannual variability of hydrographic properties in Potter Cove during summers between 2010 and 2017

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2021

E.M. Ruiz Barlett*
Affiliation:
Instituto Antártico Argentino, Av. 25 de Mayo 1143 (B1650HMK), General San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentina
M.E. Sierra
Affiliation:
Instituto Antártico Argentino, Av. 25 de Mayo 1143 (B1650HMK), General San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentina
A.J. Costa
Affiliation:
Instituto Antártico Argentino, Av. 25 de Mayo 1143 (B1650HMK), General San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentina
G.V. Tosonotto
Affiliation:
Instituto Antártico Argentino, Av. 25 de Mayo 1143 (B1650HMK), General San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentina
*
*Departamento de Oceanografía, Instituto Antártico Argentino, Av. 25 de Mayo 1143 (B1650HMK), General San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentina eruizbarlett@yahoo.com.ar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The temporal and spatial variability of oceanographic properties in Potter Cove was analysed for the 2010–17 summer periods. This was linked with meteorological parameters and sea ice. The water column structure presented significant differences in turbidity between two areas (away from and closer to the Fourcade Glacier). The recent retreat has been transforming it into a land terminating glacier. Therefore, correlations obtained between oceanographic properties near the glacier and meteorological parameters reveal that atmospheric conditions are the main forcing of the Potter system, in agreement with previous studies. Also, high turbidity values within deeper waters in 2013 and 2014 were probably related to resuspended glacial sediment input into the cove. Interannual variability observed in the local parameters was connected to ENSO and SAM, reflecting a larger connection with ENSO, mainly in longer timescales. Colder waters during the 2010 and 2016 El Niño phases could be related to lower air temperature. In summer 2010 during a negative SAM phase, colder, more saline and low turbid waters were observed. Alternatively, in 2012 during La Niña and positive SAM, warmer, fresher and more turbid conditions were found with high vertical stratification. Finally, during 2015 (positive SAM), warmer and low salinity waters were observed.

Information

Type
Opinion
Copyright
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2021
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Maps showing location of a. King George (25 de Mayo) Island, South Shetland Islands, and b. Potter Cove (PC). c. Location of hydrographic stations (black dots) in the inner PC. Stations were separated in two basins: in front to Carlini Station (Carlini Area: CA) and closer to the Fourcade Glacier (New Area: NA), represented by the dashed polygons. The white contour polygon represents the locations of profiles selected for calculating averages within NA. The glacier area retreated between 1956 and 2018 (coastline) is shown with colour lines (modified from Rückamp et al.2011). The glacier front in the water (December 2018) is marked in light blue. The shaded background displays the bottom topography (scale at right) in each panel. CAMS: Campbell Automatic Meteorological Station.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Monthly values at Carlini Station of a. mean near-surface air temperature (Tair; represented by diamonds) with one standard deviation (vertical bars), b. accumulated precipitation (PP) of rainfall (Tair ≥ 0 °C) and snow (Tair < 0 °C) and c. percentage of occurrence of monthly predominant wind direction from east (E), south-east (SE), south-west (SW) and west (W). Diamonds represent wind intensity monthly means associated with predominant directions. Different letters represent significant differences (ANOVA test followed by a Bonferroni post-test, P < 0.05) between months during the eight-summer period for a.Tair and b. rainfall. Shared letters indicate non-significant differences. SAM and BEST (ENSO) monthly index during January and February are shown above panel a.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Mean potential temperature (θ) profiles a., b. in the CA, and c., d. NA for the period 2010–13 and 2014–17, respectively. Horizontal bars represent one standard deviation around the mean of certain chosen depth. Vertical dashed line represents 1°C.

Figure 3

Table I. Upper panel: Results of Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA comparing areas (CA and NA) and water layers in PC. Lower panel: Significant correlations (at 95% in italic and 99% in bold) between hydrographic parameters into the black polygon in NA.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Mean salinity (S) profiles a., b., e., f. in the CA, and c., d., g., h. NA for the period 2010–13 and 2014–17, respectively. Horizontal bars represent one standard deviation around the mean of certain chosen depth. Upper panel represents 1–10 m depth layer and lower panel represents deeper than 10 m. Note the different scales between both panels. Vertical dashed line represents S of 33 (upper panel) and 34 (lower panel).

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Mean turbidity (τ) profiles a., b., e., f. in the CA, and c., d., g., h. NA for the period 2010–13 and 2014–17, respectively. Horizontal bars represent one standard deviation around the mean of certain chosen depth. Vertical dashed line represents τ of 10 (upper panel) and 2 NTU (lower panel).

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Monthly averages for sea surface values (1–5 m depth range) of a.θ, b.S and c.τ for the oceanographic stations selected in the polygon within NA (see Fig. 1c). The vertical bars represent a standard deviation around the media. Maximum of θ and τ, and minimum of S, recorded in each month are shown with black diamonds in the corresponding panel. Idem for a range of 5–10 m depth (central panel) and > 10 m (lower panel). Different letters represent significant differences (ANOVA test followed by a Bonferroni post-test, P < 0.05) between months during the eight-summer period in surface and deeper layers. Consider the change in the vertical axis scale in S and τ, between panels and each one. SAM and BEST monthly index during January and February are shown above the upper panel.

Figure 7

Table II. Monthly means and standard deviation of physical variables (in 1–5 m deep range), Simpson's parameter (ϕ) and Brunt-Väisälä frequency (N2) (in the water column) into the NA polygon for January and February. The monthly maximum value of ϕ (ϕmax) and N2 (N2max) also is mentioned. Profile numbers available for each month is indicated.

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Hovmöller diagram of a.Tair and b. sea ice cover (SIC) percentage during the period 2009–17. c. Cross-correlations between monthly Tair and SIC for the historical dataset of PC (1987–2017). Each lag corresponds to one month. Horizontal dotted black lines represent confidence bounds at 99%. d.Tair and e.SIC anomalies calculated from the historical dataset.

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Cross-correlation between monthly Tair and SIC with hydrographic parameters inside the NA polygon. Each lag corresponds to one month. Horizontal dotted black lines represent confidence bounds at 95%.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. a. Time series of the monthly Tair anomalies between January 2009 and February 2017 with respect to the full record period (December 1987 to December 2017) in the Jubany Station (SMN). b. Monthly area-averaged SIC (percentage) in PC and c. monthly SAM index for the same period. Bars show monthly Tair anomaly and SAM index, where January and February are in dark gray. The BEST index (ENSO; right axis in panel c) months represented by El Niño (= 1; red polygon), La Niña (= -1, blue polygon) and Neutral (= 0) are shown in all panels following Smith & Sardeshmukh (2000). Cross-correlation between monthly Tair and SIC with d. ENSO and e. SAM. Each lag corresponds to one month. Horizontal dotted black lines represent confidence bounds at 99%.

Figure 11

Fig. 10. Cross-correlation coefficients between monthly ENSO and SAM with hydrographic parameters inside the NA polygon. Each lag corresponds to one month. Horizontal dotted black lines represent confidence bounds at 95%.

Supplementary material: PDF

Ruiz Barlett et al. supplementary material

Ruiz Barlett et al. supplementary material

Download Ruiz Barlett et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.7 MB