Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T12:07:43.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Some aspects of ice phenology on ponds in central Alaska, USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

Martin O. Jeffries
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 903 Koyukuk Drive, PO Box 757320, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA E-mail: martin.jeffries@gi.alaska.edu
Kim Morris
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 903 Koyukuk Drive, PO Box 757320, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA E-mail: martin.jeffries@gi.alaska.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ice phenology (freeze-up, break-up and duration) was monitored for five seasons between autumn 2001 and spring 2006 at 11 small, shallow ponds in the boreal forest of central Alaska, USA. The sequence in which freeze-up (FU; day of 100% ice cover) and break-up (BU; day of zero ice cover) occurred at the 11 ponds showed moderately high to very high coherence each season. This was probably due to FU and BU being poorly correlated with pond morphometry (area, depth). BU is strongly correlated with April mean air temperature; a ±1˚C change in mean April air temperature is equivalent to a ±1.86 day change in BU. FU and air-temperature relationships are inconclusive, primarily because post-FU warm intervals in two autumns cause an anticorrelation between mean September air temperature and FU. Mean ice duration varies between 205 and 225 days, and is strongly correlated with maximum ice thickness through its effect on BU. A ±10mm change in maximum ice thickness will cause a ±0.6 day change in ice duration. Maximum ice thickness and ice composition (snow ice, congelation ice) also have a strong influence on break-up when all data from all ponds and all years are considered. The predictability of FU and BU sequence, the minor role of morphometry in FU and BU, the strong role of April mean air temperature in BU, and the role of maximum ice thickness in duration suggests that these ponds would be good sites for continued long-term observation of phenology and the influence of weather/climate variation and change, and for freeze-up/break-up process studies, particularly the role of ice composition and albedo.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2017
Figure 0

Table 1. Geographic coordinates, area and maximum depth of ponds

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Interannual variability of FU at 11 ponds. Mean FU (solid line) excludes the anomalous value in 2004 at 33.5 mile pond. The number of days is the time that elapsed between the dates the first and last ponds achieved FU. For reference here and in Figures 1 and 7 we identify MST, 31.6 and 33.5 mile ponds; they are the main sites where ice growth, snow accumulation and conductive heat flow have been studied each winter since 1999 (Jeffries and Morris, 2006).

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Mean daily air temperature during September 2003 (a) and September 2004 (b). The vertical grey lines indicate the first appearance of ice. The vertical black lines indicate the day the final pond achieved 100% ice cover (FU).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Dependence of mean FU (a) and mean BU (b) on mean monthly air temperature. r2 is the coefficient of determination with p (significance level) for each regression line (dotted line).

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Areal extent of ice on 11 ponds during the decay period each year from 2002 to 2006. The number of days is the time that elapsed between the dates the first and last ponds achieved BU.

Figure 5

Table 2. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) for interannual comparisons of FU and BU sequence of 11 ponds. Values in boldface are significant at ≥95% level (Siegel and Castellan, 1988)

Figure 6

Table 3. Coefficients of determination (r2) for least-squares regression of FU and BU as a function of water depth and area. No p values are given, as the r2 values are so low

Figure 7

Table 4. Least-squares regression equations, coefficients of determination (r2) and significance levels (p) for BU (x) as a function of maximum total ice thickness (Zmax), and amounts of snow ice (ZSI) and congelation ice (ZC)

Figure 8

Fig. 5. BU (first day of zero ice) as a function of Zmax (maximum total ice thickness).for all years (a) and for individual years 2002 (b), 2003 (c), 2004 (d), 2005 (e) and 2006 (f), with regression equations, coefficients of determination (r2) and mean ZSI (amount of snow ice).

Figure 9

Fig. 6. Pond-to-pond and interannual variability of Zmax (maximum total ice thickness) and ice composition (snow ice, congelation ice) each year from 2002 to 2006. TI is the mean Zmax and SI is the mean ZSI. Zmax was measured at all ponds in spring 2002, but ZSI was recorded at only four ponds that spring.

Figure 10

Fig. 7. Interannual variability of ice duration at 11 ponds. The mean duration (bold line) excludes the anomalously early FU in 2004 at 33.5 mile pond (see Fig. 1).