Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T19:15:39.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing the relevance of digital elevation models to evaluate glacier mass balance: application to Austre Lovénbreen (Spitsbergen, 79°N)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

J-M. Friedt
Affiliation:
University of Franche-Comté, FEMTO-ST, UMR 6174 CNRS, Besançon, France (jmfriedt@femto-st.fr)
F. Tolle
Affiliation:
University of Franche-Comté, ThéMA, UMR 6049 CNRS, Besançon, France
É. Bernard
Affiliation:
University of Franche-Comté, ThéMA, UMR 6049 CNRS, Besançon, France
M. Griselin
Affiliation:
University of Franche-Comté, ThéMA, UMR 6049 CNRS, Besançon, France
D. Laffly
Affiliation:
University of Toulouse, GEODE, UMR 5602 CNRS. Toulouse, France
C. Marlin
Affiliation:
University of Paris Sud, IDES, UMR 8148 CNRS, Orsay, France
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The volume variation of a glacier is the actual indicator of long term and short term evolution of the glacier behaviour. In order to assess the volume evolution of the Austre Lovénbreen (79° N) over the last 47 years, we used multiple historical datasets, complemented with our high density GPS tracks acquired in 2007 and 2010. The improved altitude resolution of recent measurement techniques, including phase corrected GPS and LiDAR, reduces the time interval between datasets used for volume subtraction in order to compute the mass balance. We estimate the sub-metre elevation accuracy of most recent measurement techniques to be sufficient to record ice thickness evolutions occurring over a 3 year duration at polar latitudes.

The systematic discrepancy between ablation stake measurements and DEM analysis, widely reported in the literature as well as in the current study, yields new questions concerning the similarity and relationship between these two measurement methods.

The use of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) has been an attractive alternative measurement technique to estimate glacier area and volume evolution over time with respect to the classical in situ measurement techniques based on ablation stakes. With the availability of historical datasets, whether from ground based maps, aerial photography or satellite data acquisition, such a glacier volume estimate strategy allows for the extension of the analysis duration beyond the current research programmes. Furthermore, these methods do provide a continuous spatial coverage defined by its cell size whereas interpolations based on a limited number of stakes display large spatial uncertainties. In this document, we focus on estimating the altitude accuracy of various datasets acquired between 1962 and 2010, using various techniques ranging from topographic maps to dual frequency skidoo-tracked GPS receivers and the classical aerial and satellite photogrammetric techniques.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
Figure 0

Fig. 1. 3D view of the Austre Lovénbreen DEM mapped with a satellite image. The dashed line is the 1962 glacier front limit, the dotted line is the 1995 glacier front limit, and the solid line is the current (2009) glacier front limit, at an altitude 100 m above sea level.

Figure 1

Table 1. Elevation of a few selected points in historical DEMs known not to evolve over time: the observed discrepancies are attributed either to DEM interpolation artifacts or measurement uncertainty. Each analysis is performed on a 90mx90m grid, using points 10m apart (total of 100points), centred on the coordinates provided in the second line, in the Little Ice Age moraine and in a sandur area assumed not to move over time. For each area under consideration, the mean elevation difference (m, in m) and standard deviation (s, in m) is computed. The Fig. illustrates the location of the selected reference areas.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Two datasets – SPIRIT DEM obtained from stereographic satellite images, and a skidoo-tracked dual-frequency GPS receiver – are acquired during the same year, and are compared to estimate the error (bias and standard deviation) due to DEM processing. The obvious discrepancies visible on the southern and western parts of the glacier, yielding elevation errors up to 300m and −200m, are indicated as unreliable pixels by the mask file provided in addition to the SPIRIT dataset and should not be considered, as shown in the bottom right zoom.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Comparison of the 2010 GPS field measurements and 2005-LiDAR data provided by Rees (Arnold and others 2006), partially covering the glacier in which we are interested. The selected region, known to be flat and subject to little ablation thanks to its distance to the glacier snout, exhibits a standard deviation in the sub-m range salt = 0.60m, the general trend observed between the two datasets (mean value of the altitude difference: −4m) being attributed to the ice thickness evolution between the 5 years time lapse. Although the skidoo tracks are still visible on the bottom right figure with the selected interpolation, the resulting error bar is not affected by the various interpolation schemes.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Map of the skidoo tracks (lines) followed while mapping the glacier elevation, while sampling the GPS position at 1Hz rate: each dark circle indicates the intersection of two tracks with measurement points separated by a distance of less than 5 m in the latitude/longitude plane. The histogram (right) summarises the altitude difference between each one of these point pairs.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Glacier mass balance measured for the years 2007–2008, 2008–2009, and 2009–2010, using ablation stakes, and interpolated over the glacier basin area. The 2007–2010 mass balance calculation from the interpolated ablation stake measurements is computed for comparison with the GPS dataset subtraction (Fig. 6).

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Volume loss of the glacier between 2007 and 2010 based on the subtraction of DEMs acquired using skidoo-tracked GPS receivers. Some of the most obvious errors, associated with the difficulty of connecting the GPS-based DEM with the surrounding mountain DEM (extracted from aerial photography cross-correlation), yield a significant uncertainty (15%) as illustrated by the comparison between the raw subtracted data (volume difference of 8.0 M m3), and after removal of the most obvious discrepancies close to the steepest slopes (volume difference of 6.7 M m3): all subtracted values below –10 m were set to 0, as shown in the white areas. 1962–1995 1995–2009 1962–2009

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Map of the pixels exhibiting accumulation (light colour areas) and ablation (dark colour areas): the DEM method provides a high resolution spatial information, exhibiting strong ablation at the glacier snout mostly visible on the field as a glacier snout retreat.