Reply to: “impact of marine processes on flow dynamics of northern antarctic peninsula outlet glaciers” by rott et al.

REPLYING TO Rott et al. _Nature Communications_ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16658-y (2020) In Tuckett et al.1, we report short-term speed-up events of Antarctic Peninsula outlet

glaciers. Modelled surface melting, observations of surface meltwater, and speed-up event characteristics led us to propose speed-ups were a consequence of meltwater reaching the ice-bed

interface; a meltwater hypothesis. Rott et al.2 replicate the velocity data and show that during one event, sea-ice conditions change ~90 km from three glaciers, and at the front of another,

leading Rott et al.2 to propose a sea ice hypothesis: that sea-ice movement away from glacier fronts reduces back-stress triggering acceleration. Simultaneously Rott et al.2, argue that the

ice velocity observations are biased due to measurement artefacts. Here, we defend the meltwater hypothesis, present evidence against the sea-ice hypothesis, and examine potential bias in

our glacier velocity measurements. Although sea-ice evacuation is coincident with the March 2018 speed-up event observed in Tuckett et al.1, changes in sea-ice characteristics are not

synchronous across all studied glaciers. Movement of sea ice, driven by Foehn winds (Fig. 1a), at the front of Drygalski Glacier, and distal to Hektoria, Cayley and Jorum glaciers (past ~90 

km of unchanged multi-annual fast pack ice), during the March 2018 event was presented by Rott et al.2 as evidence for the sea-ice hypothesis. Foehn winds also induce surface melting. We

interpret this melting as the trigger of the speed-up event, and the sea-ice movement as a by-product of Foehn winds for the following reasons. First, sea-ice cover increases near Cayley

glacier during this event (Supplementary Table 1) while during other events, wind speeds are lower (Fig. 1a) and glacier-adjacent sea-ice conditions remain unchanged (Fig. 1b). Second, all

three speed-up events have a corresponding spike in surface melting (Fig. 1a). Third, we find it unlikely that changes in sea ice, far from the glacier front (~90 km), can trigger a speed-up

event. Finally, the sea-ice hypothesis cannot explain how glaciers return to pre-event velocities1, as the sea ice does not rapidly reform to its pre-breakup structure (Fig. 1c).

Conversely, the meltwater hypothesis incorporates an explanation for the return to pre-event ice velocity: namely that the subglacial drainage system adapts to accommodate the extra water

flux, thereby reducing basal water pressure3. Whether water is able to penetrate the Antarctic Peninsula glaciers is also questioned by Rott et al.2. Theory4, supported by extensive

observations5,6, demonstrates that lakes 0.25–0.80 km in diameter (comparable to those observed in Tuckett et al.1) provide enough water to drive fracture propagation to the ice sheet bed

(hydrofracture) through >1 km of cold ice. Although we have no direct observations of this process, and demonstrate that refreezing of lakes is common, hydrofracture to the bed offers the

simplest explanation for the sudden disappearance of surface lakes in crevassed regions (Fig. 5 in Tuckett et al.1). Furthermore, speed-up events occur during large melt events (e.g. March

2017) or those which follow a prolonged period of little or no melt (e.g. November 2017 and March 2018), consistent with the theory that melt supply variability is more important than

magnitude for triggering speed-ups3. Thus, the notion that there is insufficient water to penetrate to the bed and cause a speed-up ignores a large body of theoretical and empirical

research. Though Rott et al.2 are correct to raise our use of an outdated grounding line, our own up to date analysis of the grounding-line position for these glaciers shows that the

majority of velocity data were obtained from grounded or partially grounded ice (Fig. 2; Supplementary Fig. 2). Excluding Hektoria (where the grounding-line position is highly uncertain due

to an ice plain), 69% of our observations came from grounded ice, and 15% were located at the grounding line. For Hektoria, the majority of observations came from the ice-plain region, where

ice-surface features indicate at least partially grounded ice (Fig. 2). Regardless, the location of velocity observations is irrelevant for the meltwater hypothesis. Key is that meltwater

drainage through ice occurs above the grounding line, as is inferred1. Thus, the assertion of Rott et al.2 that our interpretation depends upon the assumption that velocity data come from

grounded ice is false. We acknowledge that a spatially constant acceleration in ice flow would result in a relatively smaller change toward the glacier termini, where baseline velocities are

higher. However, relative velocities do show that the relative magnitude of speed-ups decreases away from the location of water-filled crevasses and potential lake drainage, even up-flow

where the baseline velocity is lower. Figure 4 in Tuckett et al.1 shows the relative size of the ice flow perturbation is largest near a field of crevasses observed to fill with meltwater,

and the absolute magnitude of the November 2017 speed-up is greater at 9 km inland than at 4 km at Hektoria Glacier (Supplementary Fig. 4 in Tuckett et al.1), inconsistent with a marine

driver. The estimates of ice motion in Tuckett et al.1 did not account for temporal variations in radar penetration depth as the surface evolves between snow, firn, water and ice. To our

knowledge, the effect this has on satellite radar velocity measurements has never been fully quantified. This introduces a bias2, which for our data1 means that a change from frozen to

melted snow would induce an apparent slow-down for westward flowing glaciers and an apparent speed-up for eastward flowing glaciers (vice-versa for refreezing). Several lines of evidence

suggest that this bias is smaller than the signal of speed-up events (see Supplementary Note 3). First, of our study glaciers, the bias effect should be smallest at Hektoria glacier because

the ice flow direction is closest to the satellite heading angle, yet the largest speed-ups are observed here1. Furthermore, speed-ups similar to those identified in Tuckett et al.1 occur at

Edgeworth Glacier, which flows roughly parallel to the satellite heading angle and so the bias should be close to zero2 (Supplementary Fig. 2). Moreover, speed-ups at individual glaciers

vary depending on the magnitude of melt and antecedent conditions in-line with hydrological theory. Finally, the majority of speed-up events produce a net positive effect on ice velocity,

whereas a net zero effect would be expected if solely due to bias. Further sources of error raised by Rott et al.2 are also unlikely to have a larger signal than that of the

meltwater-induced speed-up events identified in ref. 1 (Supplementary Note 4). Overall, we show that sea-ice and/or measurement bias are unlikely to be the main cause of the short-lived

(<6 day) speed-up events observed in Tuckett et al.1. We note that sea-ice thinning and disintegration can cause ice flow speed-ups that are greatest near tidewater glacier and ice shelf

termini and are not followed by slow-down (e.g. refs. 7,8,9), making them distinct from the events observed in Tuckett et al.1. The spatial and temporal pattern of ice flow variations and

their relationships to environmental forcings can therefore allow the underlying chain of events to be inferred, but this is only possible with high-resolution datasets. In addition,

ground-based observations would aid in elucidating and enumerating the underlying causes of the speed-up events reported in Tuckett et al.1. DATA AVAILABILITY Data are available from

https://figshare.shef.ac.uk/s/896c34d71a41caf5d03b. Elevation data (Fig. 2) are available from https://www.pgc.umn.edu/data/rema/. CODE AVAILABILITY Image processing to derive velocity

estimates was performed using GMSTAR (https://topex.ucsd.edu/gmtsar/) and the following Matlab © functions: Particle Image Velocimetry framework:

https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/45028-pivsuite; normalised cross-correlation with same-sized images:

https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/29005-generalized-normalized-cross-correlation; subpixel cross-correlation peak determination:

https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/18401-efficient-subpixel-image-registration-by-cross-correlation; image segmentation filtering:

https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/19084-region-growing; visible structured noise filter:

https://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/~weiss/Codes/VSNR/VNSR_VariationalStationaryNoiseRemover.html. REFERENCES * Tuckett, P. A. et al. Rapid accelerations of Antarctic Peninsula outlet glaciers

driven by surface melt. _Nat. Commun._ 10, 4311 (2019). Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar  * Rott, H. et al. Impact of marine processes on flow dynamics of northern Antarctic Peninsula

outlet glaciers. _Nat. Commun_. (submitted). * Schoof, C. Ice-sheet acceleration driven by melt supply variability. _Nature_ 468, 803–806 (2010). Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar  *

Krawczynski, M. J. et al. Constraints on the lake volume required for hydro-fracture through ice sheets. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 36, L10501 (2009). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Davison, B.

J. et al. The influence of hydrology on the dynamics of land-terminating sectors of the Greenland Ice Sheet. _Front. Earth Sci._ 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00010 (2019). * Wyatt,

F. R. & Sharp, M. J. Linking surface hydrology to flow regimes and patterns of velocity variability on Devon Ice Cap, Nunavut. _J. Glac._ 61, 387–399 (2015). Article  ADS  Google Scholar

  * Robel, A. A. Thinning sea ice weakens buttressing force of iceberg mélange and promotes calving. _Nat. Commun._ 8, 14596 (2017). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Greene, C. A. et al.

Seasonal dynamics of Totten Ice Shelf controlled by sea ice buttressing. _Cryosphere_ 12, 2869–2882 (2018). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Miles, B. W. J. et al. Simultaneous disintegration

of outlet glaciers in Porpoise Bay (Wilkes Land), East Antarctica, driven by sea ice break-up. _Cryosphere_ 11, 427–442 (2017). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  * Howat, I. et al. The

Reference Elevation Model of Antarctica. _Cryosphere_ 13, 665–674 (2019). Article  ADS  Google Scholar  Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of

Geography, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Peter A. Tuckett, Jeremy C. Ely, Andrew J. Sole & Stephen J. Livingstone * School of Geography and Sustainable Development,

University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK Benjamin J. Davison * Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands J. Melchior van Wessem

Authors * Peter A. Tuckett View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Jeremy C. Ely View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Andrew J. Sole View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Stephen J. Livingstone View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Benjamin J. Davison View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * J. Melchior van Wessem View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS P.A.T., A.S. and B.J.D. performed additional Sentinel 1 data analysis. J.C.E. conducted the reanalysis

of the grounding-line position. S.J.L. provided additional interpretation. M.J.V.M. contributed RACMO data. All authors contributed to the writing of the paper. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

Correspondence to Jeremy C. Ely. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PEER REVIEW INFORMATION _Nature Communications_

thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published

maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the

source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative

Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by

statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Tuckett, P.A., Ely, J.C., Sole, A.J. _et al._ Reply to: “Impact of marine processes

on flow dynamics of northern Antarctic Peninsula outlet glaciers” by Rott et al.. _Nat Commun_ 11, 2970 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16685-9 Download citation * Received: 14

February 2020 * Accepted: 15 May 2020 * Published: 11 June 2020 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16685-9 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to

read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing

initiative