Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T02:09:23.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Snow-Fence Experiments in Alpine Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2017

M. Martinelli Jr*
Affiliation:
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, * Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Snow fences built up-wind of natural snowdrifts at four alpine sites in the Colorado Rocky Mountains changed snow accumulation appreciably. The 3 m tall fences increased the amount of snow at three sites but decreased it at the fourth. At two of the three sites where snow was increased, there was no change in melt rate, so the additional snow prolonged the melt period 1–3 weeks. Fences most successfully augmented natural snow accumulation at sites with level or gently sloping terrain down-wind from the accumulation site. Between 15 and 30 m of fence was needed to produce an extra 1000 m3 of water equivalent in the snowfields at the beginning of the melt season. Fences of the type described here, if properly located, are a means of increasing summer stream flow from alpine areas.

Résumé

Résumé

Des barrières à neige construites à l’amont de congères naturelles dans quatre sites de montagne dans les Colorado Rocky Mountains ont modifié de manière appréciable l’accumulation de la neige. Des barrières hautes de 3 m ont accru l’enneigement en trois sites mais l’on diminué au quatrième. Sur deux des trois sites où l’enneigement avait augmenté, il n’y avait pas de changement dans la vitesse de fusion. Les barrières se montrèrent les plus efficaces pour augmenter l’accumulation naturelle de la neige dans les endroits où il y avait un terrain horizontal ou à faible pente sous le vent du lieu d’accumulation. II fallait entre 20 et 30 m de barrières pour produire un supplément de 1000 m3 d’équivalent en eau dans le manteau neigeux en début de saison de fusion. Les barrières du type décrit ici, si elles sont convenablement placées, sont un moyen d’accroître les écoulements hydrologiques à partir des zones de montagne.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Schneezäune, die im Luv der natürlichen Schneedrift an vier alpinen Stellen in den Rocky Mountains von Colorado errichtet wurden, veränderten die Schneeablagerung beträchtlich. Die 3 m hohen Zäune erhöhten die Schneemenge an drei Stellen, aber verringerten sie an der vierten. An zwei der drei Stellen mit erhöhter Schneemenge änderte sich die Schmelzgeschwindigkeit nicht, so dass der zusätzliche Schnee die Schmelzperiode um 1–3 Wochen verlängerte. Zäune erhöhten die natürliche Schneeablagerung am wirkungsvollsten leeseits von Stellen im ebenen oder leicht abfallenden Gelände. Für eine Zunahme von 1000 m3 Wasserwert in den Schneefeldern am Beginn der Schmelzperiode waren Zäune zwischen 15 m und 30 m Länge notwendig. Zäune der hier beschriebenen Art sind, wenn sie richtig gesetzt werden, ein Mittel zur Erhöhung des sommerlichen Abflusses aus Gebirgsgebieten.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1973
Figure 0

Fig 1. Straight Creek pass snowfield, 3 February 1963. Natural snow accumulation in foreground of picture. Person is standing in a depression caused by wind blowing under the fence. The profile is a generalization of maximum snow accumulation behind the fence. (Vertical and horizontal scales are equal.) wind flows from left to right.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Mount Evans snowfield, 1 August 1965, 1 d after a 15 cm (6 inches) snowfall. Two people on the snow give scale. The profile is a generalization of maximum snow accumulation behind thefence. (vertical and horizontal scales are equal.) Wind flows from left to right.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Teller Mountain snowfield, 14 July 1966. Dirty snow in lower right edge of photograph is left over from summer of 1965. The profile is a generalization of maximum snow accumulation behind the fence. (Vertical and horizontal scales are equal.) Wind flows from left to right.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Glacier Mountain snowfield, 6 August 1965. The tendency for the natural snowfield to be drawn up-hill behind the fence is noticeable in this photograph. The profile is a generalization of maximum snow accumulation behind the fence. (Vertical and horizontal scales are equal.) Wind flows from left to right.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Snow fence of the type used in this study. Doubled end poles and stout back braces were needed at these windy sites. The guy wires are satisfactory if no snow accumulates on them. If they become buried, snow settlement exerts tremendous pressure on the fence.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Snow volume, average snow depth and length of snow-profile lines behind the fence (test lines) as a function of natural conditions (control lines) at Straight Creek Pass.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Best fence results were obtained at Straight Creek Pass. On 9 August 1962, the additional 1.8–2.1 m (6–7 ft) of snow accumulated behind the fence is still obvious.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Snow volume, average snow depth and length of snow-profile lines behind the fence as a function of natural conditions at Mount Evans.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Snow volume, average snow depth and length of snow-profile lines in all four lines at Teller Mountain as functions of natural conditions at Glacier Mountain.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. Snow volume, average snow depth and length of the profile lines behind the fence as a function of natural conditions at Glacier Mountain.

Figure 10

Table I. Regressions, Equations and Correlation Coefficients (r) for Snow Volume in Test Lines () As A Function Of Snow Volume In Control Lines (x)