Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-22T22:05:53.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Microfeatures of modern sea-ice-rafted sediment and implications for paleo-sea-ice reconstructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Kristen St John
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA E-mail: stjohnke@jmu.edu
Sandra Passchier
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, USA
Brooke TantillO
Affiliation:
Halliburton, Laramie, WY, USA
Dennis Darby
Affiliation:
Department of Ocean, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Lance Kearns
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA E-mail: stjohnke@jmu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Distinguishing sea-ice-rafted debris (SIRD) from iceberg-rafted debris is crucial to an interpretation of ice-rafting history; however, there are few paleo-sea-ice proxies. This study characterizes quartz grain microfeatures of modern SIRD from the Arctic Ocean, and compares these results with microfeatures from representative glacial deposits to potentially differentiate SIRD from ice-rafted sediments which have been recently subjected to glacial processes. This allows us to evaluate the use of grain microfeatures as a paleo-sea-ice proxy. SIRD grains were largely subrounded, with medium relief, pervasive silica dissolution and a high abundance of breakage blocks and microlayering. The glacial grains were more angular, with lower relief and higher abundances of fractures and striations/gouges. Discriminate analysis shows a distinct difference between SIRD and glacial grains, with ˂7% of the SIRD grains containing typical glacial microtextures, suggesting this method is a useful means of inferring paleo-sea-ice presence in the marine record. We propose that differences in microfeatures of SIRD and glacial ice-rafted debris reflect differences in sediment transport and weathering histories. Sediment transported to a coastal setting and later rafted by sea ice would be subject to increased chemical weathering, whereas glaciers that calve icebergs would bypass the coastal marine environment, thus preserving their glacial signature.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2015
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Location of sea-ice samples (H: HOTRAX expedition in 2005; L: LOMROG expedition in 2007; A: AOS expedition in 1994), back trajectories for sea-ice drifts (solid lines) based on the date and location of each dirty ice sample, and major drift patterns (dashed lines) of the Beaufort Gyre and Trans-Polar Drift. Net drift paths based on buoy drift and circulation models of Rigor and Wallace (2004). The bathymetry is from the International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (Jakobsson and others, 2008). Modified from Darby and others (2011).

Figure 1

Table 1. Arctic sea-ice floe samples used in this study

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Example SEM secondary electron photos of grain surface features from the sea-ice sediment: (a) angular shape; (b) subangular shape; (c) subrounded shape; (d) rounded shape; (e) equant form; (f) elongate form; (g) irregular form; (h) tabulate form; (i) high relief; (j) medium relief; (k) low relief; (l) breakage block; (m) conchoidal fractures; (n) arc step-like fractures; (o) straight step-like fractures; (p) isolate cusp; (q) dissolution (abundant, ˃75% of visible surface); and (r) microlayering.

Figure 3

Table 2. Grain microfeatures included in this study

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Bar graphs showing the mean (blue bars) and range (black lines) of the microfeature percentages in the sea-ice sediment samples. Colored boxes correspond to specific samples ( Table 1 ). (a) All microfeatures; and (b) the percentage of grains with silica dissolution broken down by subcategories. Samples AOS-94-232-1 and AOS-94-215-E3 were included in calculating the mean and range, but their sample averages (colored boxes) are not displayed here because grains from these samples were combined during preparation for SEM analysis.

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Bar graph comparing microfeature percentages in the sea-ice-rafted grains (black) vs the Pleistocene glacial sediment grains (red). Only categories common to both datasets are compared, which includes all SEM-observed microfeatures except grain form and microlayering. Straight and arc step-like fractures are combined as one category. Dissolution is categorized by presence vs absence, not degree of dissolution (as in Fig. 3b).

Figure 6

Fig. 5. DA results for SIRD and Pleistocene glacial sediment samples including all SEM grain microfeature observations, except grain form: (a) multivariate data matrix plotted on the discriminant axis that represents the largest difference between the two grain populations: sea-ice (black) vs glacial grains (red); and (b) loadings of different variables on the discriminant function that defines the position of discriminant axis in multidimensional space. Greater positive or negative loadings correspond to greater importance of these variables in distinguishing the SIRD and Pleistocene glacial grain populations. Note the negative loadings for typical ‘glacial’ features.