Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:46:20.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sea-ice production and air/ice/ocean/biogeochemistry interactions in the Ross Sea during the PIPERS 2017 autumn field campaign

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. F. Ackley*
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Measurements in Extreme Environments, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
S. Stammerjohn
Affiliation:
Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
T. Maksym
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, USA
M. Smith
Affiliation:
Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
J. Cassano
Affiliation:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
P. Guest
Affiliation:
Department of Meteorology, NPS, Monterey, CA, USA
J.-L. Tison
Affiliation:
PROPICE Unit, Laboratoire de Glaciologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
B. Delille
Affiliation:
Unité d'Océanographie Chimique, Astrophysics, Geophysics and Oceanography Department, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
B. Loose
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI, USA
P. Sedwick
Affiliation:
Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
L. DePace
Affiliation:
Department of Science, US Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT, USA
L. Roach
Affiliation:
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
J. Parno
Affiliation:
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, USA
*
Author for correspondence: S. F. Ackley, E-mail: Stephen.ackley@utsa.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Ross Sea is known for showing the greatest sea-ice increase, as observed globally, particularly from 1979 to 2015. However, corresponding changes in sea-ice thickness and production in the Ross Sea are not known, nor how these changes have impacted water masses, carbon fluxes, biogeochemical processes and availability of micronutrients. The PIPERS project sought to address these questions during an autumn ship campaign in 2017 and two spring airborne campaigns in 2016 and 2017. PIPERS used a multidisciplinary approach of manned and autonomous platforms to study the coupled air/ice/ocean/biogeochemical interactions during autumn and related those to spring conditions. Unexpectedly, the Ross Sea experienced record low sea ice in spring 2016 and autumn 2017. The delayed ice advance in 2017 contributed to (1) increased ice production and export in coastal polynyas, (2) thinner snow and ice cover in the central pack, (3) lower sea-ice Chl-a burdens and differences in sympagic communities, (4) sustained ocean heat flux delaying ice thickening and (5) a melting, anomalously southward ice edge persisting into winter. Despite these impacts, airborne observations in spring 2017 suggest that winter ice production over the continental shelf was likely not anomalous.

Information

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (top) Trends (days yr−1) in annual ice season duration over 1979–2015 (updated from Stammerjohn and others, 2012) showing strong positive trends (i.e. longer annual ice seasons) in the central-western Ross Sea, where ice season became ~2 months longer on average over 1979–2015. The green contour outlines those trends significant at the p < 0.01 level. (bottom) The 2017 anomaly (days) in the timing of the autumn ice-edge advance (compared to the 1980–2010 base period), showing a later ice-edge advance (red) across the Ross Sea and into the inner Amundsen Sea. The blue contour outlines the 1979–2018 climatological location of the September ice edge. The thin black contour in both images outlines the continental shelf-slope break.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Schematic of technologies used on PIPERS. Observational platforms included automatic weather stations (AWS), SWIFT and wave buoys, and ice mass balance (IMB) buoys, ship-based instrumentation (e.g. Conductivity-Temperature-Depth, CTD, rosette package), a mooring, an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), an unmanned airborne vehicle (UAV) and Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling (SOCCOM) floats. Not shown are the ice-based observations (i.e. ice stations) that are further described in the text.

Figure 2

Table 1. PIPERS sampling platforms, topics, investigators and measurements

Figure 3

Fig. 3. (left) PIPERS cruise track within the sea ice zone, color-coded by observed ice type. The open circles are short (<1 day) stations; open squares are several-day ice stations; bow-ties are AUV stations. Buoy drifts (black lines) for one buoy from each buoy array from date of deployment to Jun 30 are also shown. Dotted black lines bisecting the cruise track roughly delineate ice regimes described in the text. Dates on which the ship crosses these delineations are (a) 23 April, (b) 30 April, (c) 12 May, (d) 15 May, (e) 19 May, (f) 3 June. The background white-gray shading corresponds to Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) ice extents for 1 April, 15 April, 1 May, 15 May, 1 June (defined with a 15% concentration cutoff). MIZ is marginal ice zone, TNBP is Terra Nova Bay polynya, RSP is Ross Sea Polynya. Note, only the cruise track at/inside the ice edge is shown here (and does not include the open ocean portions from/to Lyttleton, NZ). (right) PIPERS cruise track in TNBP (30 April—12 May), color-coded by observed ice type. The gray-shading corresponds to AMSR2 ice concentration on 1 May, with gray shading indicating ice concentration from 40% (darkest grey) to 90% (lightest grey).

Figure 4

Table 2. The suite of measurements collected as part of the biogeochemical component

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Underway ice concentration (left y-axis; blue), ice thickness (inside right y-axis; black) and snow depth (outside right y-axis; orange) from hourly visual ice observations. The dashed black line is the ice thickness accounting for ridging, and the solid black line is the level ice thickness. The vertical dotted lines, lettered a-f, correspond to the delineations highlighted in Figure 3a. On the basis of comparisons with drilled measurements the error associated with thin ice such as nilas and grey-white ice <10 cm thick is ± 50%; for ice between 0.1 and 0.3 m the error is ± 30%; and for level ice >30 cm the error is ± 20% (Worby and others, 2008).

Figure 6

Fig. 5. The N.B. Palmer alongside rafted pancake ice (known as ‘dragon skin’) in the TNBP outflow. Pancakes are ~0.5–1 m in diameter and were vertically rafted in places, resulting from strong wind-driven advection out of TNBP to subsequently pile up against the northward drifting, often heavy pack ice. The orange and white measuring stick (pointing left over the pancake field from ship's starboard) has delineations of 5 cm and was used to estimate floe size and thickness (of upturned floes) from the starboard wing of the bridge. The visible ‘shear line’ stretching diagonally across the pancake field reveals the active deformation that was occurring at this site. (Photo by S. Stammerjohn).

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Coincident, high-resolution topography of the snow, ice surface, and ice underside in planar view (top) for a 100 m × 100 m survey, and in vertical view (bottom) for the dashed transect (shown in top view). In the planar view, the underlying light/dark shading provides the surface topography from Lidar (inside right gray-shaded color bar) and the filled color contours are the AUV ice thickness (far right color bar, ice thickness in meters), while the colored circles are the snow depth (far right color bar, snow depth in decimeters).

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Latitude-depth sections of salinity (color shading) and neutral density (black contours) in the western Ross Sea from just north of the continental shelf break to TNBP for: (top) a summer composite (see Orsi and Wiederwohl, 2009), and (bottom) autumn 2017 (as acquired by PIPERS between 22 April and 10 May). Water masses are defined in the text.

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Latitude-depth (top) and longitude-depth (bottom) sections of dissolved iron (DFe) concentration (color shading) and density (sigma-theta, kg m−3, white contours) from just north of the continental shelf break to TNBP (top) and along the Ross Ice Shelf (bottom). The white numbers at the bottom of the sections correspond to profile numbers in the maps on the left.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. Heat fluxes from a ‘fast transect’ at 75.2 S latitude in TNBP, starting ~10 km from the front of the Nansen Ice Shelf, and taken as the vessel traversed downwind from west to east. The sensible and latent heat fluxes shown here are estimates from a bulk method based on underway measurements of wind speed, temperature, humidity and surface temperature and roughness, with positive being upward towards the atmosphere. (Alternate heat flux calculations using the integral method based on changes in the downwind temperature and humidity produced similar values.)

Figure 11

Fig. 10. (left) Schematic of frazil formation at depth during katabatic wind events. (right) Example temperature and salinity profiles from a CTD station in a katabatic wind event in TNBP. Shaded regions show the temperature and salinity anomaly compared to the baseline values (dotted line) where frazil ice is forming and releasing heat and salt. The blue line is the calculated freezing temperature (De Pace and others, 2019).

Figure 12

Fig. 11. (a) Wind speed (U1, m s−1) and wave height (Hs, m) observations from a SWIFT drifter deployed during katabatic wind events, and (b) coincident ASPeCt visual ice observations. Downwind distance from the coast was ~27 km at deployment, and 64 km at recovery.