Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:56:06.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Capturing the transition from marine to land-terminating glacier from the 126-year retreat history of Nordenskiöldbreen, Svalbard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2023

Jan Kavan*
Affiliation:
Polar-Geo Lab, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia Alfred Jahn Cold Regions Research Centre, University of Wrocław, Wroclaw, Poland Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
Petra Luláková
Affiliation:
Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
Jakub Małecki
Affiliation:
Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Mateusz Czesław Strzelecki
Affiliation:
Alfred Jahn Cold Regions Research Centre, University of Wrocław, Wroclaw, Poland
*
Corresponding author: Jan Kavan; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Svalbard has experienced a dramatic increase in air temperature and glacier retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age. In many cases, this retreat has resulted in glaciers transitioning from being marine-terminating to land-terminating. Nordenskiöldbreen is an excellent contemporary example of this transition. A set of historical observations of glacier front positions was used to assess Nordenskiöldbreen's retreat rate and we found that the southern portion of the glacier front retreated by ~3500 m, since records began in 1896. The general retreat rate corresponds well with the air temperature trend during most of the 20th century. However, the average retreat rate has slowed since the 1990s despite increasing air temperatures. We show that this discrepancy between air temperature and retreat rate marks the transition from marine-terminating towards a land-terminating glacier, as the glacier's bedrock topography started to play an essential role in the glacier margin geometry, ice flow and retreat dynamics.

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, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Glaciological Society

Introduction

The Arctic has experienced rapid rates of warming that are above the global average, due to the effect of polar amplification; a series of positive feedbacks related to the extent of glaciers, snow cover, sea ice, permafrost and the biosphere (Callaghan and others, Reference Callaghan2011; Comiso and Hall, Reference Comiso and Hall2014). Warming of the Arctic region started after the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) in the 1900s (Bengtsson and others, Reference Bengtsson, Semenov and Johannessen2004) and has been particularly marked in Svalbard (Nordli and others, Reference Nordli2020). The meteorological station at Svalbard Airport (Longyearbyen) has recorded an increase in annual mean air temperature of 3.7°C since 1898 (Bengtsson and others, Reference Bengtsson, Semenov and Johannessen2004), and a particularly rapid temperature increase from 1991 to present (Hanssen-Bauer and others, Reference Hanssen-Bauer2019). During the last 30 years, the warming rate in the Barents Sea region is estimated to be twice the Arctic average and seven times the global average; this is among the greatest rate of modern warming recorded on Earth (Isaksen and others, Reference Isaksen2016; Nordli and others, Reference Nordli2020). The temperature increase, which is most apparent during the coldest months (Bengtsson and others, Reference Bengtsson, Semenov and Johannessen2004), impacts the form of precipitation in winter, and an increasing number of rain on snow events affects snow and firn characteristics and snow accumulation with further impact on the whole ecosystem (Peeters and others, Reference Peeters2019).

The final glacier advance of the Late Weichselian took place in Svalbard between 12.5 and 10 ky BP (Mangerud and others, Reference Mangerud1992). Ice masses in Svalbard were in overall retreat during the Holocene but advances have been detected across the entire archipelago during the Neoglacial (onset c. 3.0 ky ago), in the latter half of the Holocene (Farnsworth and others, Reference Farnsworth2020; Osika and others, Reference Osika, Jania and Szafraniec2022). The most recent glacier advances took place during the LIA, which ended in 1900 in Svalbard (Martín-Moreno and others, Reference Martín-Moreno, Allende Álvarez and Hagen2017). The position of the LIA glacier extent is typically marked by prominent frontal and lateral moraines (e.g. Werner and others, Reference Werner1993; Lønne and Lyså, Reference Lønne and Lyså2005 or specifically for the study area in Rachlewicz and others, Reference Rachlewicz, Szczuciński and Ewertowski2007). Marine-terminating glaciers have similar subaqueous counterparts (Bennett, Reference Bennett2001). These submarine landforms are studied widely in Svalbard (e.g. Baeten and others, Reference Baeten, Forwick, Vogt, Vorren, Howe, Wen, Forwick and Paetzel2010; Flink and others, Reference Flink2015; Farnsworth and others, Reference Farnsworth2017; Streuff and others, Reference Streuff, Cofaigh, Noormets and Lloyd2017; Noormets and others, Reference Noormets, Flink and Kirchner2021) and globally (Streuff and others, Reference Streuff, Cofaigh and Wintersteller2022). Apart from these landforms, the positions of glacier fronts and glacier margins were repeatedly marked on topographic maps and sea charts throughout the 20th century. Such mapping has been conducted at Nordenskiöldbreen (Allaart and others, Reference Allaart2018 and references therein), which offers a unique chance to study the retreat dynamics in relatively high temporal resolution.

A substantial proportion of Svalbard glaciers are surge-type; with different frequencies of activity (Hagen and others, Reference Hagen, Liestøl, Roland and Jørgensen1993; Jiskoot and others, Reference Jiskoot, Murray and Boyle2000; Farnsworth and others, Reference Farnsworth, Ingólfsson, Retelle and Schomacker2016). Glacier surges are dynamic instabilities which lead to rapid transfer of ice mass from higher to lower elevations of glaciers during the active phase of a surge (Benn and others, Reference Benn, Fowler, Hewitt and Sevestre2019). Therefore, actively surging glaciers commonly display frontal advances, up to kilometre-scale, even despite climate warming trends, and anomalous surface elevation changes, i.e. thinning in upper parts and thickening in lower parts (e.g. Murray and others, Reference Murray2012; Sund and others, Reference Sund, Lauknes and Eiken2014; Benn and others, Reference Benn, Hewitt and Luckman2023). Surge cycles can therefore complicate the study of climatic drivers of glacier behaviour (Blaszczyk and others, Reference Błaszczyk, Jania and Kolondra2013). Thus, records from glaciers not affected by surge cycles are of great value for studying the interconnections of glacier retreat and climate. Surges were probably more common during LIA than at present (Dowdeswell and others, Reference Dowdeswell, Hodgkins, Nuttall, Hagen and Hamilton1995; Sevestre and others, Reference Sevestre, Benn, Hulton and Bælum2015; Farnsworth and others, Reference Farnsworth, Ingólfsson, Retelle and Schomacker2016). Nordenskiöldbreen has no documented surge activity, including no clear evidence from its geomorphological assemblage (Ewertowski and others, Reference Ewertowski, Evans, Roberts and Tomczyk2016), which provides a good opportunity to study the interconnections between climate, fjord bathymetry and front retreat.

Marine-terminating glaciers are characterized by a steep ice cliff ending in the fjord and they primarily lose mass by frontal ablation (Cogley and others, Reference Cogley2011; Kochtitzky and others, Reference Kochtitzky2022). Frontal ablation represents a large proportion of the total glacier mass loss in Svalbard, estimated to be up to 32% by Błaszczyk and others (Reference Błaszczyk, Jania and Hagen2009). Another specific feature of the marine-terminating glaciers is the subglacial drainage of meltwater in the calving front, which alters the circulation in the fjord and enhances the upwelling of mineral-rich water (Kanna and others, Reference Kanna2018). Similarly, a high flux of minerals and nutrients enters the fjord directly from the glacier (Fransson and others, Reference Fransson2015; Meire and others, Reference Meire2016, Reference Meire2023). Margins of marine-terminating glaciers in the high Arctic are biodiversity hotspots (Lydersen and others, Reference Lydersen2014; Urbanski and others, Reference Urbanski2017; Womble and others, Reference Womble2021).

The presence of seawater at the glacier terminus typically increases ice velocities when compared with land-terminating glaciers (e.g. Sakakibara and Sugiyama, Reference Benn, Hewitt and Luckman2014; Baurley and others, Reference Baurley, Robson and Hart2020). At water depths of tens or hundreds of metres, the behaviour of the ice margin is influenced by large-scale topographic features on the seafloor. For example, the spatial variability of the fjord width, pinning points, prograde or retrograde slopes affect the stability of glacier grounding lines (e.g. Katz and Grae Worster, Reference Katz and Grae Worster2010; Carr and others, Reference Carr, Stokes and Vieli2017; Catania and others, Reference Catania2018; Frank and others, Reference Frank, Åkesson, de Fleurian, Morlighem and Nisancioglu2022). In contrast, in very shallow water glacier environments (depths of metres), even small-scale bed undulations along the glacier front can significantly modify local frontal ablation (Enderlin and others, Reference Enderlin, Howat and Vieli2013). A shallow bed and/or a multitude of bedrock outcrops extending above the waterline often helps to form an irregular line of the glacier margin with spatially variable rates of margin fluctuations (Vieli and others, Reference Vieli, Jania and Kolondra2002; Błaszczyk and others, Reference Błaszczyk, Jania and Kolondra2013).

The retreat dynamics of marine-terminating glaciers have been studied at numerous sites around Svalbard (e.g. Blaszczyk and others, Reference Błaszczyk, Jania and Hagen2009). However, these studies typically have a low temporal resolution, with the LIA maximum extent identified by the position of the terminal moraine and ratified with use of the 1936/1938 aerial photography campaign (e.g. Rachlewicz and others, Reference Rachlewicz, Szczuciński and Ewertowski2007; Martín-Moreno and others, Reference Martín-Moreno, Allende Álvarez and Hagen2017; Kavan, Reference Kavan2020a). Often, few additional glacier front positions have been available for comparison (Holmlund, Reference Holmlund2021; Kavan and others, Reference Kavan, Tallentire, Demidionov, Dudek and Strzelecki2022). Such glacier retreat results in the development of a new coastline, which is then exposed to active coastal processes. These processes remodel the unconsolidated glacial sediments and landforms left behind by retreating glaciers (e.g. Strzelecki and others, Reference Strzelecki2020). More than 900 km of new coastline has appeared in Svalbard as a result of marine-terminating glacier retreat since 1936 (Kavan and Strzelecki, Reference Kavan and Strzelecki2023). During the last two decades, the retreating marine-terminating glaciers trend has been common in Svalbard and across the Arctic as a whole (Kochtitzky and Copland, Reference Kochtitzky and Copland2022).

The aim of this paper is to describe the retreat dynamics of Nordenskiöldbreen since the LIA. The retreat of the front of this marine-terminating glacier has been observed using a set of historic maps, aerial images and satellite images. Nordenskiöldbreen was chosen because there is a high quantity of ice margin position data (since the LIA) as well as an absence of documented surge-activity (e.g. Hagen and others, Reference Hagen, Liestøl, Roland and Jørgensen1993; Rachlewicz and others, Reference Rachlewicz, Szczuciński and Ewertowski2007). The retreat pattern of Nordenskiöldbreen can thus be used to illustrate the relationship between retreat rate and climate drivers. We also explain its interconnection with the increasing regional air temperature trend observed since the 1900s. We take advantage of the recent shift from a marine-terminating to a land-based glacier system to illustrate the impact of this shift on the retreat rate and how monitoring of a retreat rate provide us with information on shift in the glacier regime.

Study site

Glaciers in central Svalbard are affected by a relatively dry quasi-continental climate with high summer temperatures and lower snow accumulation compared to coastal locations (Przybylak and others, Reference Przybylak2014; Gjelten and others, Reference Gjelten2016) resulting in quick glacier mass loss and retreat (Małecki, Reference Małecki2016, Reference Małecki2022). Most of the glaciers are valley type, with the exception of the large Lomonosov ice cap extending from the eastern high elevation region. Nordenskiöldbreen (78°40′N 17°E) is a westward-flowing outlet glacier descending from the high-elevated Lomonosovfonna summit (~1200 m a.s.l.) down to Adolfbukta (Fig. 1). Nordenskiöldbreen is the largest and only calving glacier in Billefjorden in central Spitsbergen (Rachlewicz and others, Reference Rachlewicz, Szczuciński and Ewertowski2007). The glacier area is ~206 km2 and it has a length of ~22 km (GLIMS ID G017371E78745N; Raup and others, Reference Raup2007). The surface mass balance of the glacier has been negative since at least the late 1980s (van Pelt and others, Reference van Pelt2012), but was very likely negative for the whole of the 20th century (Plassen and others, Reference Plassen, Vorren and Forwick2004). A modelling study by van Pelt and others (Reference van Pelt2012) indicated a glacier-wide surface mass balance of −0.4 m w.e. for the period 1989–2010, whereas direct glaciological measurements over 2005–2018 yielded a mass balance of ~−0.1 m w.e. (Schuler and others, Reference Schuler2020). The equilibrium line altitude of Nordenskiöldbreen is ~600–700 m a.s.l. (van Pelt and others, Reference van Pelt2012). The ice flow velocity (40–55 m a−1, den Ouden and others, Reference den Ouden2010) is relatively low for a Svalbard glacier of this size and type (compare with Milczarek and others, Reference Milczarek, Kopeć and Głowacki2022). The highest ice velocities of up to 60 m a−1 were found along the northern flowline between De Geerfjellet and Terrierfjellet (Fig. 1a) (den Ouden and others, Reference den Ouden2010). This corresponds well with the area where the bedrock topography was identified by GPR surveying as being below sea level (areas highlighted in red in Fig. 1a) (van Pelt and others, Reference van Pelt2013). The below sea level bedrock topography suggests that calving (presently almost non-existent) could recommence in the next decades at least in the northern ice flow area if/when the glacier retreats to a position behind a bedrock rise/knob and enters a new basin. The exact ice volume lost to the fjord via frontal ablation, i.e. a major component to the total mass balance covering calving and submarine melting, is, however, unknown but van Pelt and others (Reference van Pelt2012) argued it might play a considerable role in the overall mass balance of the glacier. The terrestrial forefield of the glacier was recently studied for its geomorphologic evidence of retreat-related processes (Allaart, Reference Allaart2016; Ewertowski and others, Reference Ewertowski, Evans, Roberts and Tomczyk2016; Nehyba and others, Reference Nehyba, Hanáček, Engel and Stachoň2017; Allaart and others, Reference Allaart2018).

Figure 1. (a) Adolfbukta with the lower region of Nordenskiöldbreen on a 2009 aerial image from NPI (Basisdata_NP_Ortofoto_Svalbard_WMTS_25833). The positions from which photographs in panels c and d are indicated with red stars and the potential bedrock below sea level with red transparent ellipses; (b) map of Svalbard with study site in red; (c) and (d) the northern portions of the glacier margin as photographed by the de Geer expedition in 1908 and, from the same location, in 2018.

The glacier itself was frequently visited by different scientific expeditions at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. de Geer, Reference de Geer1908; Wordie, Reference Wordie1921; Frazer, Reference Frazer1922; Walton, Reference Walton1922; Slater, Reference Slater1925; or other references in Liljequist, Reference Liljequist1993) and detailed information on its frontal positions is documented in historical archives. The scientific interests in Nordenskiöldbreen were later complemented by economic activities connected to mining activities in adjacent Brucebyen and especially Pyramiden – a settlement on the opposite side of the fjord. The early 20th century exploration included detailed photo documentation of the area and the glacier front which enables us to compare changes in the landscape on a centennial scale (Figs 1c, d).

Methodology

Glacier front positions

We used 23 records of glacier front positions extending from 1896 to 2022. Most of the historic glacier front positions were derived from Allaart (Reference Allaart2016) and Allaart and others (Reference Allaart2018) and references therein. This was complemented by the recent Sentinel-2 satellite images obtained from the Sentinel Hub EO Browser (https://www.sentinel-hub.com/). These positions (Fig. 2a) were then used to quantify the retreat rate along the five profiles representing different conditions of the glacier. Profiles ‘South A’ and ‘North A’ represent the near fjord shore profile where the glacier has already completely switched from marine-terminating to a land-based glacier. Profiles ‘South B’ and ‘North B’ represent the glacier front which is currently in the transition. The ‘Central’ profile goes across ‘Retreat Isle’, a small rocky island which first became visible in the 1960s. The average retreat rate was calculated as an area difference between the glacier positions divided by the width of the fjord.

Figure 2. (a) Glacier front positions derived from historic maps, aerial photographs and satellite images, overlaying a Sentinel-2 image from 31/08 2022. (b) Cumulative retreat distance since 1895 along the five colour-coded profiles indicated in panel (a).

To illustrate the retreat of the glacier front and its surface lowering, we used historic photographs from the 1908 de Geer expedition (de Geer, Reference de Geer1910) taken by Oscar Halldin (Figs 1c, d). The photographs are available from the Alvin database of the Centre for History of Science, Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden (https://info.alvin-portal.org). The photographs were taken during an expedition in July 1908. We identified the locations where the original photographs were taken, and we repeated the photographs during July 2018 fieldwork. The coordinates are 78.67475°N 16.76994°E and 78.67380°N 16.84034°E, respectively.

Glacier geometry

The ArcticDEM individual strip (Porter and others, Reference Porter2022) from 3 May 2021 was used to determine the vertical profile of the frontal part of the glacier. This was complemented by digital elevation models (DEMs) from 1990 and 2009 provided by the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI, 2022). The ArcticDEM is projected to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) Sea Ice Polar Stereographic North and referenced to the ellipsoidal WGS84 horizontal datum (EPSG:3413). The NPI DEMs are projected using the European Terrestrial Reference System 1989 using the GRS 1980 ellipsoid (local reference system UTM-zone 33). This results in a shift in altitude of 31.5 m for the ArcticDEM compared to the local reference system. This was checked on a set of virtual ground control points, i.e. points with known stable and identic altitude in both DEMs. We applied a simple correction for the DEMs mean sea level elevation difference and subtracted 31.5 m of difference from the ArcticDEM. We did not apply more complex corrections using the geoid difference model as the shift in altitude is within ±0.2 m on the small study site and our intention was not to provide any high precision analysis, but rather to visualize the geometric changes in the glacier frontal zone. The glacier surface elevation change was obtained by simple overlap of the two DEMs after co-registration of the 1990 and 2009 DEMs to fit on the 2021 DEM. The changes that are described later refer to the frontal area plotted in Figure 3b. All spatial analyses were conducted in QGIS 3.22.

Figure 3. Spatial variability of glacier surface elevation changes between 2009 and 2021 derived from the NPI 2009 DEM and the ArcticDEM (3 April 2021); (a) black box indicating extent of panels b and c on a 2009 NPI aerial image of; (b) difference model between the 2021 and 2009 DEMs; (c) the 2009 DEM with location of the along-flow profiles in the subsequent panels; (d–h) retreat and thinning illustrated by distance and elevation profiles across the DEMs of 1990, 2009 and 2021.

Air temperature data and statistical analyses

To assess the effect of air temperature on retreat dynamics, we used the reconstructed monthly air temperatures from Longyearbyen airport (Svalbard Lufthavn station) starting in 1898 (Nordli and others, Reference Nordli2020) and complemented by the most recent data available from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute (https://seklima.met.no/observations/). A more detailed description of this dataset can be found in Nordli and others (Reference Nordli2020).

The air temperature and retreat rate datasets were tested for detection of a change point with Wild Binary Segmentation (wbs; Fryzlewicz, Reference Fryzlewicz2014). Sharma and others (Reference Sharma, Swayne and Obimbo2016) recommended this method as the most effective from a set of change point detection methods. The ‘wbs’ package in R was used to perform the analysis (Baranowski and Fryzlewicz, Reference Baranowski and Fryzlewicz2014). Trend detection analysis was further performed using Mann–Kendall non-parametric test. The analysis was performed in R using the trend package (Pohlert, Reference Pohlert2020). The relationship between air temperature and retreat rate was tested with Pearson's correlation coefficients for the whole dataset and later separately for datasets split in the detected change point in 1990. The significance level of the tests was set up to 95% if not stated otherwise.

Results and discussion

Retreat of the glacier front

Nordenskiöldbreen has retreated continuously since 1896 (Fig. 2a). The shape of the glacier front used to be perpendicular to the flow direction in the first half of the 20th century. Retreat became spatially variable from 1960, probably because of the complex bedrock topography at the glacier front caused by Retreat Isle. Since 1960, the retreat rate of the northern part of the glacier snout has slowed down: from 28 m a−1 (1921–1960) to 10 m a−1 (1960–2002) (Fig. 2b). This slowdown was likely caused by the retreat of the glacier margin to shallower water, exposing a number of small islands and bedrock in the very northern forefield, which previously acted as pinning points (Todd and others, Reference Todd2018; Frank and others, Reference Frank, Åkesson, de Fleurian, Morlighem and Nisancioglu2022). Calving glaciers have a tendency to stabilize at pinning points and to retreat rapidly between them (Benn and others, Reference Benn, Hulton and Mottram2007), and this mechanism would account for the spatial heterogeneity of retreat observed. A similar process has been observed at other glaciers in the region. For example, pinning points stabilized glacier fronts in Bloomstrandbreen (Burton and others, Reference Burton, Dowdeswell, Hogan and Noormets2016) and several other glaciers in southern Spitsbergen (Shackleton and others, Reference Shackleton, Winsborrow, Andreassen, Lucchi and Bjarnadóttir2020). In contrast, accelerated retreat was observed in Hansbreen around 1990, which was attributed to a depression in the glacier bed (Vieli and others, Reference Vieli, Jania and Kolondra2002), where deeper water led to a higher rate of retreat. The gradual slowdown of a retreat rate detected since 1960s implies a similar bedrock control mechanism as the glacier retreated to shallow waters near the present glacier front.

The southern part of Adolfbukta is more open to the fjord compared to the northern part, has a maximum depth of 100 m (see Fig. 18a in Allaart, Reference Allaart2016) and the retreat was therefore much faster and pronounced there. In contrast, the retreat rate was slower in the northern part of the fjord, where water is shallower (~10–20 m depth). The general circulation pattern of ocean water in Adolfbukta is clockwise as indicated by the orientation of beach accumulations (Kavan, Reference Kavan2020b). The clockwise circulation is supported by the subglacial meltwater outflow located in the central part of the southern basin indicated by occurrence of sediment laden meltwater plumes (visible on aerial and satellite imagery – see Figs 1a, 5a). More frequent influx of Atlantic water to Billefjorden and accompanied increasing trend in water temperatures (0.78°C per decade in the 21st century) was detected (Bloshkina and others, Reference Bloshkina, Pavlov and Filchuk2021). However, this warming did not affect the retreat rate and in fact corresponded with a period of reduced retreat rates (Fig. 2a). Frequent easterly katabatic winds force the surface layer to move from the glacier front towards west, thus greatly limiting the rate at which waves undercut the ice cliff (see Fig. 1a). The calving front with a cliff in the central part of the two basins (profile E, G) is clearly visible also on the DEM (Figs 3a, c) and the resulting profiles (Figs 3e, g). The central part of the glacier front rests on the bedrock of the Retreat Isle in 1960 (Fig. 3f) which has been restraining glacier flow and slowing down the retreat rate in this section, likely due to limiting of front ablation, until at least 2022 where the most recent observations were made (Fig. 2).

Surface lowering

The DEM and selected profiles across the glacier front (Fig. 3c) as well as the aerial image (Fig. 3a) indicate the variable ice characteristics near the glacier front. The central part of the glacier margin has a highly crevassed surface suggesting ice flow over heterogeneous bedrock or faster ice flow in general, unlike the northern and southern lateral zones where the surface is smoother. This is especially apparent in the southern zone where the bedrock has been exposed for almost a decade. Nordenskiöldbreen is a polythermal glacier with temperate conditions in the interior and with a frozen snout, which is visible as the southern marginal zone at present appears stagnant and, therefore, likely cold-based (e.g. Hagen and others, Reference Hagen, Liestøl, Roland and Jørgensen1993; Rachlewicz and others, Reference Rachlewicz, Szczuciński and Ewertowski2007; Ewertowski and others, Reference Ewertowski, Evans, Roberts and Tomczyk2016). This configuration of the glacier front suggests that the remaining marine terminating front is likely grounded in the shallow water thus providing resistive stress, slowing down the ice flow and reducing thinning.

On the other hand, the central part of the glacier margin still shows clear signs of ice flow which was also reported by den Ouden and others (Reference den Ouden2010). The crevassed zone is visible on the aerial image in Figure 3a and profiles e, f, g. This is expressed in frequent minor calving events without significant retreat of the glacier front between 2009 and 2021 in the southern marine-terminating frontal zone (3 g). There is even a minor advance recorded near Retreat Isle over this period (shown in green in Fig. 3b). Despite the continuous flux of ice mass from the upper accumulation areas and relative stability of the glacier front, the glacier surface has lowered by ~14 m in total between 2009 and 2021, or ~1.2 m a−1. The stability of the glacier front suggests existence of an important pinning point which is likely to stabilize the front until it thins off this point. The maximum recorded surface lowering (except where the glacier front has retreated completely) was ~30 m, or ~2.5 m a−1 (Fig 3b), similar to frontal thinning rates of neighbouring smaller land-based ice masses (Małecki, Reference Małecki2013, Reference Małecki2016, Reference Małecki2022).

Impact of air temperatures and bedrock geometry on retreat rates

Air temperature has risen in Svalbard throughout the whole 20th century, with the exception of a short hiatus in the 1960s and 1970s (Nordli and others, Reference Nordli2020). The period from 1990 to present is the warmest period of the entire observational record. Between 1898 and 1990, glacier retreat rate was coincident with rising air temperatures (Fig. 4). From 1990 to present, the retreat rate of Nordenskiöldbreen slowed down and decoupled from this warming trend, and retreat rate has declined despite elevated rates of warming between 1991 and 2022 (Nordli and others, Reference Nordli2020) (Fig. 4a). This observation is supported by correlation tests. The 23-point time series of glacier retreat rates have a weak positive correlation (r = 0.06). However, over the period 1898–1990, there is a positive correlation of r = 0.43, and a negative correlation of r = −0.32 between 1991 and 2022 (Fig. 4b). The entire air temperature timeseries has a significant positive trend (p < 0.01) according to Mann–Kendall trend test whereas an insignificant (p = 0.27) negative trend in the retreat rate was found. A similar trend was found when the timeseries were split into the two time periods. A significant positive trend was found for air temperature (after 1990), whereas only insignificant negative trends were found in the retreat rate. The detected change point in 1990 suggests an important switch in the controlling mechanism of the glacier retreat dynamics.

Figure 4. (a) Annual average retreat rate and annual average air temperature at Svalbard Lufthavn station (data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute) over the study period with linear trendlines for the periods 1896–1990 and 1990–2022; (b) average air temperature and retreat rate timeseries divided into pre- and post-1990, showing that the clusters of 1896–1990 and 1990–2012 have minimal overlap.

We argue that the year 1990 marks the start of a full-scale transition from a marine-terminating to a land-terminating glacier (Fig. 1). This transition was at an advanced stage by the summer of 2022, where only ~1 km of the southern ice margin still terminated in shallow water. A reduced marine terminus limits frontal ablation and leads to stabilization of the front position (e.g. Frank and others, Reference Frank, Åkesson, de Fleurian, Morlighem and Nisancioglu2022). This is in line with our observations of the declining retreat rates and their mismatch with the post-1990 air temperature (Fig 4b). The exact bedrock geometry of the frontal section of the glacier is not known, but judging from the irregular geometry of the glacier surface and its relatively steep slope we do not expect there to be any larger depressions immediately behind the present ice margin. The expected relief of the bedrock is hummocky, and generally above sea level. Further retreat of the glacier front over the coming years is, therefore, very likely to complete the transition of Nordenskiöldbreen to a land-terminating glacier and, thus, greatly reduce its frontal ablation. This might be different in the far future along the northern margin between De Geerfjellet and Terrierfjellet (~5 km from the present glacier front) where below sea level bedrock topography was recorded by van Pelt and others (Reference van Pelt2013) (see the areas highlighted in red in Fig. 1a). Given that stake observations of the glacier surface mass balance yield conditions close to steady-state due to the large high-elevation accumulation area (Schuler and others, Reference Schuler2020), the retreat of the glacier front from fjord to land would hypothetically help the glacier to find a new balance within the present climatic conditions.

The magnitude of retreat rate and frontal ablation is usually attributed to ocean temperatures (Luckman and others, Reference Luckman2015) or the intrusion of warmer water (de Rovere and others, Reference de Rovere2022; Chudley and others, Reference Chudley, Howat, King and Negrette2023) which is probably responsible for most of the retreating Arctic marine-terminating glaciers (e.g. Straneo and Heimbach, Reference Straneo and Heimbach2013; Holmes and others, Reference Holmes, Kirchner, Kuttenkeuler, Krützfeldt and Noormets2019). Some regional differences are also attributed to topographic controls (Carr and others, Reference Carr, Stokes and Vieli2014). However, recent accelerated retreat of marine-terminating glaciers in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago correlates well with the enhanced atmospheric warming (Cook and others, Reference Cook2019). Similarly, Slater and Straneo (Reference Slater and Straneo2022) observed amplification of submarine melting of marine-terminating glaciers in northwest Greenland by atmospheric warming which enhanced surface meltwater production and release of water into the ocean. This further exacerbates near-glacier ocean circulation and in turn the transfer of heat from ocean to ice. Increased melt in this area was also attributed to higher frequency of föhn winds (Mattingly and others, Reference Mattingly2023). Our results show that Nordenskiöldbreen, with a large accumulation area in the high elevated ice cap (Lomonosovfonna), was probably similarly controlled by atmospheric forcing (and meltwater production which exacerbated the transfer of heat from the ocean), rather than by ocean temperatures, until the 1990s when the transition from marine to land-terminating glacier started. This is supported by the strong correlation of retreat rate and air temperature in the period prior to 1990s (Fig. 4). This interpretation cannot be directly proven due to the lack of site-specific ocean temperature data. However, warming has been observed in Billefjorden since 1912, intensifying in the last two decades (Bloshkina and others, Reference Bloshkina, Pavlov and Filchuk2021), which also does not match to the retreat rate record.

Implications for future work

Thus far medium-resolution satellite imagery has failed to clearly portray the hummocky subglacial topography beneath large sections of the present ice margin of Nordenskiöldbreen, which are evident only when observed in the field (Figs 5a, b). Our study underlines this shortcoming of remote-sensing methods (e.g. Gourmelon and others, Reference Gourmelon, Seehaus, Braun, Maier and Christlein2022) in glaciological mapping which potentially might lead to overestimation of marine-terminating ice cliff lengths, and thus, to region-wide overestimates of frontal ablation (e.g. Kochtitzky and others, Reference Kochtitzky2022). Distinguishing calving glacier fronts from already land-based glaciers might be done using information on subglacial topography where above-sea level topography would be identifiable. However, the predicted subglacial topography is also highly uncertain (compare e.g. Millan and others (Reference Millan, Mouginot, Rabatel and Morlighem2022) with Fürst and others (Reference Fürst2018)) and cannot be reliably used to eliminate the shortcomings of the remotely sensed ice cliffs. The uncertainty of glacier thickness (and consequently subglacial topography) is high especially in unsurveyed glaciers (up to 100 m according to Fürst and others (Reference Fürst2018)) but also in the case of well and frequently directly surveyed tidewater glaciers such as Hansbreen (Möller and others, Reference Möller, Navarro, Huss and Marzeion2023). Moreover, the uncertainties in glacier thickness estimates are generally higher in the terminus area (Recinos and others, Reference Recinos, Maussion, Rothenpieler and Marzeion2019). Sixty-one out of 214 Svalbard marine-terminating glaciers have developed into land-based glaciers from 1930s to 2019 (Kavan and Strzelecki, Reference Kavan and Strzelecki2023). To select glaciers which are currently undergoing a transition similar to Nordenskiöldbreen, we suggest seeking signs of front position stabilization over intervals of ~10 years to exclude short-term variability. Similar slow-down and potential switching from marine to land terminating in the near-future can be found in several glaciers around Svalbard (e.g. Vestre Torellbreen, Skimebreen, Bereznikovbreen, Havhestbreen or Andrebreen). The glacier termini show similar visual signs of slowdown as reported from Nordenskiöldbreen when inspecting the aerial images (e.g. https://toposvalbard.npolar.no/). Such a separation of glacier margins from the ocean might bring important consequences for glacier thermal regimes and, hence, their dynamics. It also removes the ocean-induced melting as an important source of ice loss. Without contact with water and especially due to thinning of the frontal part, glacier marginal zones might switch from warm-based conditions to freezing of their basal sections to the bed, as documented for several smaller glaciers in Svalbard (Hodgkins and others, Reference Hodgkins, Hagen and Hamran1999; Hambrey and others, Reference Hambrey2005; Bælum and Benn, Reference Bælum and Benn2011) or in Greenland (Carrivick and others, Reference Carrivick, Smith, Sutherland and Grimes2023). This might lead to a general deceleration of ice flow (Sevestre and others, Reference Sevestre, Benn, Hulton and Bælum2015), and, therefore, a reduction of their ice flux to the ocean, an effect which should be accounted for in projections of future sea-level rise contribution from Arctic glaciers.

Figure 5. (a) Sentinel-2 false colour scene of 23/08/2022 of the northern section of the Nordenskiöldbreen margin. Red rectangles show the areas photographed in panels b and c, the star marks the location of the delta in panel d; (b) bedrock outcrops beneath the present ice margin of Nordenskiöldbreen in August 2022; (c) the southern glacier margin with remaining calving front; (d) delta that was formed after a sudden drainage of an ice-marginal lake, and subglacial bedrock outcrops (July 2018 photograph by Martin Lulák).

Conclusions

We have presented a comprehensive overview of the post LIA retreat of Nordenskiöldbreen and have shown its transition from a marine-terminating to a land-based glacier. We have used a set of historic glacier front positions in a high temporal resolution complemented by long-term air temperature observation. Our data indicate that a major shift in the glacier regime occurred around the year 1990 when the retreat rate slowed down despite the clear increasing trend in air temperature. It is apparent that the climatic control has not been the main driving force of the retreat since this point, likely because the glacier retreated into shallow water or in some parts subaerial environment which has restricted further calving in most of the frontal zone. The transition towards a land-terminating glacier was documented by analysis of the available historic DEMs. Despite the extreme warming in the last decade, the retreat was negligible in the southern part of the marine-based glacier front. However, a significant surface lowering (with the average lowering of 14 m and up to 30 m maximum) was recorded between 2009 and 2021. The shift towards a land-based glacier may have important implications for fjord circulation in front of the glacier with consequences for the local ecosystem. Identification of glacier fronts in transition from marine terminating towards land based (or perhaps already land based) may be crucial for precision of regional scale frontal ablation estimates based purely on remote-sensing data analysis, which may be overestimating this component in its present form.

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014–2021: SVELTA – Svalbard Delta Systems Under Warming Climate (UMO-2020/37/K/ST10/02852) based at the University of Wroclaw. This work was also supported by the Masaryk University project ARCTOS MU (MUNI/G/1540/2019) and Arctic Field Grant project ‘Glacier mass balance – central Svalbard’ (ID 282536), funded by The Research Council of Norway. J. K. was supported by the Czech Antarctic Research Programme. We acknowledge the help of Veronika Kavanová for performing the statistics in R and Christopher Stringer for language checks. We also greatly appreciate help of the three anonymous reviewers and Rachel Carr as scientific editor.

References

Allaart, L (2016) Combining terrestrial and marine glacial archives: a geomorphological map of the Nordenskiöldbreen forefield, Svalbard (Master's thesis). Department of Geology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 94 pp.Google Scholar
Allaart, L and 7 others (2018) Drumlins in the Nordenskiöldbreen forefield, Svalbard. GFF 140, 170188. doi: 10.1080/11035897.2018.1466832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bælum, K and Benn, DI (2011) Thermal structure and drainage system of a small valley glacier (Tellbreen, Svalbard), investigated by ground penetrating radar. The Cryosphere 5, 139149. doi: 10.5194/tc-5-139-2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeten, NJ, Forwick, M, Vogt, C and Vorren, TO (2010) Late Weichselian and Holocene sedimentary environments and glacial activity in Billefjorden, Svalbard. In Howe, JA, Wen, A, Forwick, M and Paetzel, M (eds), Fjord Systems and Archives ()Special Publications 344. London: Geological Society, pp. 207223. doi: 10.1144/SP344.15Google Scholar
Baranowski, R and Fryzlewicz, P (2014) wbs: wild binary segmentation for multiple change-point detection. R package version 1.1.Google Scholar
Baurley, NR, Robson, B and Hart, JK (2020) Long-term impact of the proglacial lake Jökulsárlón on the flow velocity and stability of Breiðamerkurjökull glacier, Iceland. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 45(11), 26472663. doi: 10.1002/esp.4920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, L, Semenov, VA and Johannessen, OM (2004) The early twentieth-century warming in the Arctic – a possible mechanism. Journal of Climate 17, 40454057.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benn, DI, Hulton, N and Mottram, R (2007) ‘Calving laws’, ‘sliding laws’ and the stability of tidewater glaciers. Annals of Glaciology 46, 123130. doi: 10.3189/172756407782871161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benn, DI, Fowler, AC, Hewitt, I and Sevestre, H (2019) A general theory of glacier surges. Journal of Glaciology 65, 701716. doi: 10.1017/jog.2019.62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benn, DI, Hewitt, I and Luckman, A (2023) Enthalpy balance theory unifies diverse glacier surge behaviour. Annals of Glaciology 63, 8894. doi: 10.1017/aog.2023.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, MR (2001) The morphology, structural evolution and significance of push moraines. Earth-Science Reviews 53, 197236. doi: 10.1016/S0012-8252(00)00039-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Błaszczyk, M, Jania, JA and Hagen, JO (2009) Tidewater glaciers of Svalbard: recent changes and estimates of calving fluxes. Polish Polar Research 30, 85142.Google Scholar
Błaszczyk, M, Jania, JA and Kolondra, L (2013) Fluctuations of tidewater glaciers in Hornsund Fjord (Southern Svalbard) since the beginning of the 20th century. Polish Polar Research 34(4), 327352. doi: 10.2478/popore-2013-0024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloshkina, EV, Pavlov, AK and Filchuk, K (2021) Warming of Atlantic water in three west Spitsbergen fjords: recent patterns and century-long trends. Polar Research 40, 5392. doi: 10.33265/polar.v40.5392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, DJ, Dowdeswell, JA, Hogan, KA and Noormets, R (2016) Marginal fluctuations of a Svalbard surge-type tidewater glacier, Blomstrandbreen, since the Little Ice Age: a record of three surges. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 48, 411426. doi: 10.1657/AAAR0014-094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaghan, TV and 5 others (2011) Feedbacks and interactions: from the Arctic cryosphere to the climate system. Ambio 40, 7586. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0215-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, JR, Stokes, C and Vielli, A (2014) Recent retreat of major outlet glaciers on Novaya Zemlya, Russian Arctic, influenced by fjord geometry and sea-ice conditions. Journal of Glaciology 60(219), 155170. doi: 10.3189/2014JoG13J122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, JR, Stokes, C and Vieli, A (2017) Threefold increase in marine-terminating outlet glacier retreat rates across the Atlantic Arctic: 1992–2010. Annals of Glaciology 58(74), 7291. doi: 10.1017/aog.2017.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrivick, JL, Smith, MW, Sutherland, JL and Grimes, M (2023) Cooling glaciers in a warming climate since the Little Ice Age at Qaanaaq, northwest Kallaalit Nunaat (Greenland). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 48(13), 24462462. doi: 10.1002/esp.5638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catania, GA and 7 others (2018) Geometric controls on tidewater glacier retreat in central western Greenland. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 123, 20242038. doi: 10.1029/2017JF004499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chudley, TR, Howat, IM, King, MD and Negrette, A (2023) Atlantic water intrusion triggers rapid retreat and regime change at previously stable Greenland glacier. Nature Communications 14, 2151. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37764-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cogley, JG and 10 others (2011) Glossary of glacier mass balance and related terms, IHP-VII Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 86, IACS Contribution No. 2, UNESCO-IHP, Paris.Google Scholar
Comiso, JC and Hall, DK (2014) Climate trends in the Arctic as observed from space. WIREs Climate Change 5, 389409. doi: 10.1002/wcc.277CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, JA and 7 others (2019) Atmospheric forcing of rapid marine-terminating glacier retreat in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Science Advances 5, eaau8507. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau8507CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Geer, G (1908) Den svenska Spetsbergsexpeditionen 5.r 1908. Ymer 28, 341344.Google Scholar
de Geer, G (1910) Guide de l'excursion au Spitsberg. Excursion A1. Stockholm, Sweden: XI International Geological Congress. 305–310 pp.Google Scholar
de Rovere, F and 6 others (2022) Water masses variability in inner Kongsfjorden (Svalbard) during 2010–2020. Frontiers on Marine Science 9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.741075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Ouden, M and 5 others (2010) Stand-alone single-frequency GPS ice velocity observations on Nordenskiöldbreen, Svalbard. The Cryosphere 4, 593604. doi: 10.5194/tc-4-593-2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowdeswell, JA, Hodgkins, R, Nuttall, AM, Hagen, JO and Hamilton, GS (1995) Mass balance change as a control on the frequency and occurrence of glacier surges in Svalbard, Norwegian High Arctic. Geophysical Research Letters 22, 29092912. doi: 10.1029/95GL02821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enderlin, EM, Howat, IM and Vieli, A (2013) High sensitivity of tidewater outlet glacier dynamics to shape. The Cryosphere 7, 10071015. doi: 10.5194/tc-7-1007-2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewertowski, MW, Evans, DJ, Roberts, DH and Tomczyk, AM (2016) Glacial geomorphology of the terrestrial margins of the tidewater glacier, Nordenskiöldbreen, Svalbard. Journal of Maps 12, 476487. doi: 10.1080/17445647.2016.1192329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, WR, Ingólfsson, Ó, Retelle, M and Schomacker, A (2016) Over 400 previously undocumented Svalbard surge-type glaciers identified. Geomorphology 264, 5260. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.03.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, WR and 6 others (2017) Dynamic Holocene glacial history of St. Jonsfjorden, Svalbard. Boreas 46, 585603. doi: 10.1111/bor.12269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, WR and 7 others (2020) Holocene glacial history of Svalbard: status, perspectives and challenges. Earth-Science Reviews 208, 103249. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flink, AE and 5 others (2015) The evolution of a submarine landform record following recent and multiple surges of Tunabreen glacier, Svalbard. Quaternary Science Reviews 108, 3750. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, T, Åkesson, H, de Fleurian, B, Morlighem, M and Nisancioglu, KH (2022) Geometric controls of tidewater glacier dynamics. The Cryosphere 16, 581601. doi: 10.5194/tc-16-581-2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fransson, A and 6 others (2015) Effect of glacial drainage water on the CO2 system and ocean acidification state in an Arctic tidewater-glacier fjord during two contrasting years. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans 120, 24132429. doi: 10.1002/2014JC010320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, RA (1922) The topographical work of the Oxford University Expedition to Spitsbergen (1921). The Geographical Journal 60, 321334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryzlewicz, P (2014) Wild binary segmentation for multiple change-point detection. Annals of Statistics 42, 2242281. doi: 10.1214/14-AOS1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fürst, JJ and 25 others (2018) The ice-free topography of Svalbard. Geophysical Research Letters 45, 11760. doi: 10.1029/2018GL079734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjelten, HM and 9 others (2016) Air temperature variations and gradients along the coast and fjords of western Spitsbergen. Polar Research 35, 29878. doi: 10.3402/polar.v35.29878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourmelon, N, Seehaus, T, Braun, M, Maier, A and Christlein, V (2022) Calving fronts and where to find them: a benchmark dataset and methodology for automatic glacier calving front extraction from synthetic aperture radar imagery. Earth System Science Data 14, 42874313. doi: 10.5194/essd-14-4287-2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, JO, Liestøl, O, Roland, E and Jørgensen, T (1993) Glacier atlas of Svalbard and Jan Mayen. pp. 141. Norwegian Polar Institute.Google Scholar
Hambrey, MJ and 7 others (2005) Structure and changing dynamics of a polythermal valley glacier on a centennial timescale: Midre Lovénbreen, Svalbard. Journal of Geophysical Research Earth Surface 110, F01006. doi: 10.1029/2004JF000128Google Scholar
Hanssen-Bauer, and 5 others (2019) Climate in Svalbard 2100 knowledge base for climate adaptation. NCCS Report 1. Oslo: Norwegian Centre for Climate Services.Google Scholar
Hodgkins, R, Hagen, J and Hamran, S (1999) 20th century mass balance and thermal regime change at Scott Turnerbreen, Svalbard. Annals of Glaciology 28, 216220. doi: 10.3189/172756499781821986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, FA, Kirchner, N, Kuttenkeuler, J, Krützfeldt, J and Noormets, R (2019) Relating ocean temperatures to frontal ablation rates at Svalbard tidewater glaciers: insights from glacier proximal datasets. Scientific Reports 9, 9442. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45077-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmlund, E (2021) Aldegondabreen glacier change since 1910 from structure-from-motion photogrammetry of archived terrestrial and aerial photographs: utility of a historic archive to obtain century-scale Svalbard glacier mass losses. Journal of Glaciology 67(261), 107116. doi: 10.1017/jog.2020.89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaksen, K and 5 others (2016) Recent warming on Spitsbergen – influence of atmospheric circulation and sea ice cover. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 121, 1191311931. doi: 10.1002/2016JD025606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiskoot, H, Murray, T and Boyle, P (2000) Controls on the distribution of surge-type glaciers in Svalbard. Journal of Glaciology 46, 412422. doi: 10.3189/172756500781833115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanna, N and 5 others (2018) Upwelling of macronutrients and dissolved inorganic carbon by a subglacial freshwater driven plume in Bowdoin Fjord, Northwestern Greenland. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences 123, 16661682. doi: 10.1029/2017JG004248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, RF and Grae Worster, M (2010) Stability of ice-sheet grounding lines. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 466. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2009.0434Google Scholar
Kavan, J (2020a) Early twentieth century evolution of Ferdinand glacier, Svalbard, based on historic photographs and Structure-from-Motion technique. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 102, 5767. doi: 10.1080/04353676.2020.1715124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavan, J (2020b) Post-Little Ice Age development of coast in the locality of Kapp Napier, central Spitsbergen, Avalbard Archipelago. Marine Geodesy 43, 234247. doi: 10.1080/01490419.2019.1674429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavan, J and Strzelecki, MC (2023) Glacier decay boosts the formation of new Arctic coastal environments – perspectives from Svalbard. Land Degradation & Development 34, 34673474. doi: 10.1002/ldr.4695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavan, J, Tallentire, GD, Demidionov, M, Dudek, J and Strzelecki, MC (2022) Fifty years of tidewater glacier surface elevation and retreat dynamics along the south-east coast of Spitsbergen (Svalbard Archipelago). Remote Sensing 14, 354. doi: 10.3390/rs14020354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochtitzky, W and Copland, L (2022) Retreat of northern hemisphere marine-terminating glaciers, 2000–2020. Geophysical Research Letters 49, e2021GL096501. doi: 10.1029/2021GL096501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochtitzky, W and 17 others (2022) The unquantified mass loss of northern hemisphere marine-terminating glaciers from 2000–2020. Nature Communications 13, 5835. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33231-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liljequist, GH (1993) High Latitudes – A History of Swedish Polar Travels and Research. Stockholm: Swedish Polar Research Secretariat.Google Scholar
Lønne, I and Lyså, A (2005) Deglaciation dynamics following the Little Ice Age on Svalbard: implications for shaping of landscapes at high latitudes. Geomorphology 72, 300319. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luckman, A and 5 others (2015) Calving rates at tidewater glaciers vary strongly with ocean temperature. Nature Communications 6, 8566. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9566CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lydersen, C and 12 others (2014) The importance of tidewater glaciers for marine mammals and seabirds in Svalbard, Norway. Journal of Marine Systems 129, 452471. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Małecki, J (2013) Elevation and volume changes of seven Dickson Land glaciers, Svalbard, 1960–1990–2009. Polar Research 32(1), 18400. doi: 10.3402/polar.v32i0.18400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Małecki, J (2016) Accelerating retreat and high-elevation thinning of glaciers in central Spitsbergen. The Cryosphere 10, 13171329. doi: 10.5194/tc-10-1317-2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Małecki, J (2022) Recent contrasting behaviour of mountain glaciers across the European High Arctic revealed by ArcticDEM data. The Cryosphere 16, 20672082. doi: 10.5194/tc-16-2067-2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangerud, Jan and 9 others (1992) The last glacial maximum on Spitsbergen, Svalbard. Quaternary Research 38(1), 1–31. doi: 10.1016/0033-5894(92)90027-GCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín-Moreno, R, Allende Álvarez, F and Hagen, JO (2017) ‘Little Ice Age’ glacier extent and subsequent retreat in Svalbard archipelago. The Holocene 27(9), 13791390. doi: 10.1177/0959683617693904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, KS and 6 others (2023) Increasing extreme melt in northeast Greenland linked to foehn winds and atmospheric rivers. Nature Communications 14, 1743. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37434-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meire, L and 6 others (2016) Spring bloom dynamics in a subarctic fjord influenced by tidewater outlet glaciers (Godthåbsfjord, SW Greenland). Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences 121, 15811592. doi: 10.1002/2015JG003240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meire, L and 9 others (2023) Glacier retreat alters downstream fjord ecosystem structure and function in Greenland. Nature Geoscience 16, 671674. doi: 10.1038/s41561-023-01218-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milczarek, W, Kopeć, A and Głowacki, T (2022) Mapping ice flow velocity of tidewater glaciers in Hornsund fjord area with the use of autonomous repeat image feature tracking (2018–2022). Remote Sensing 14, 5429. doi: 10.3390/rs14215429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millan, R, Mouginot, J, Rabatel, A and Morlighem, M (2022) Ice velocity and thickness of the world's glaciers. Nature Geoscience 15, 124129. doi: 10.1038/s41561-021-00885-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möller, M, Navarro, F, Huss, M and Marzeion, B (2023) Projected sea-level contributions from tidewater glaciers are highly sensitive to chosen bedrock topography: a case study at Hansbreen, Svalbard. Journal of Glaciology 69(276), 966980. doi: 10.1017/jog.2022.117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, T and 5 others (2012) Geometric changes in a tidewater glacier in Svalbard during its surge cycle. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 44, 359367. doi: 10.1657/1938-4246-44.3.359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nehyba, S, Hanáček, M, Engel, Z and Stachoň, Z (2017) Rise and fall of a small ice-dammed lake – role of deglaciation processes and morphology. Geomorphology 295, 662679. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.08.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noormets, R, Flink, A and Kirchner, N (2021) Glacial dynamics and deglaciation history of Hambergbukta reconstructed from submarine landforms and sediment cores, SE Spitsbergen, Svalbard. Boreas 50(1), 2950. doi: 10.1111/bor.12488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordli, Ø and 6 others (2020) Revisiting the extended Svalbard airport monthly temperature series, and the compiled corresponding daily series 1898–2018. Polar Research 39, 3614. doi: 10.33265/polar.v39.3614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NPI (2022) Norwegian Polar Institute map data and services. Available at https://geodata.npolar.no/ (accessed 01/11/2022).Google Scholar
Osika, A, Jania, J and Szafraniec, JA (2022) Holocene ice-free strait followed by dynamic neoglacial fluctuations: Hornsund, Svalbard. The Holocene 32(7), 664679. doi: 10.1177/09596836221088232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, B and 9 others (2019) Spatiotemporal patterns of rain-on-snow and basal ice in high Arctic Svalbard: detection of a climate-cryosphere regime shift. Environmental Research Letters 14(1), 015002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaefb3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plassen, L, Vorren, T and Forwick, M (2004) Integrated acoustic and coring investigation of glacigenic deposits in Spitsbergen fjords. Polar Research 23, 89110. doi: 10.3402/polar.v23i1.6269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohlert, T (2020) Non-parametric trend tests and change-point detection (trend package in R). version 1.1.4.Google Scholar
Porter, C and 17 others (2022) ArcticDEM – strips, version 4.1. Available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/C98DVS, Harvard Dataverse, V1, (accessed 06/12/2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przybylak, R and 10 others (2014) Spatial distribution of air temperature on Svalbard during 1 year with campaign measurements. International Journal of Climatology 34, 37023719. doi: 10.1002/joc.3937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlewicz, G, Szczuciński, W and Ewertowski, M (2007) Post – ‘Little Ice Age’ retreat rates of glaciers around Billefjorden in central Spitsbergen, Svalbard. Polish Polar Research 28, 159186.Google Scholar
Raup, BH and 5 others (2007) The GLIMS geospatial glacier database: a new tool for studying glacier change. Global and Planetary Change 56, 101110. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.07.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recinos, B, Maussion, F, Rothenpieler, T and Marzeion, B (2019) Impact of frontal ablation on the ice thickness estimation of marine-terminating glaciers in Alaska. The Cryosphere 13, 26572672. doi: 10.5194/tc-13-2657-2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakakibara, D and Sugiyama, S (2014) Ice-front variations and speed changes of calving glaciers in the Southern Patagonia Icefield from 1984 to 2011. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 119(11), 25412554. doi: 10.1002/2014JF003148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, Thomas V and 12 others (2020) Reconciling Svalbard Glacier Mass Balance. Frontiers in Earth Science 8, 247. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevestre, H, Benn, DI, Hulton, NRJ and Bælum, K (2015) Thermal structure of Svalbard glaciers and implications for thermal switch models of glacier surging. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 120, 22202236. doi: 10.1002/2015JF003517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackleton, CS, Winsborrow, MCM, Andreassen, K, Lucchi, RG and Bjarnadóttir, LR (2020) Ice-margin retreat and grounding-zone dynamics during initial deglaciation of the Storfjordrenna Ice Stream, western Barents Sea. Boreas 49, 3851. doi: 10.1111/bor.12420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, S, Swayne, DA and Obimbo, C (2016) Trend analysis and change point techniques: a survey. Energy, Ecology and Environment 1, 123130. doi: 10.1007/s40974-016-0011-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, G (1925) Observations on the Nordenskiöld and neighboring glaciers of Spitsbergen, 1921. The Journal of Geology 33, 408446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, DA and Straneo, F (2022) Submarine melting of glaciers in Greenland amplified by atmospheric warming. Nature Geosciences 15, 794799. doi: 10.1038/s41561-022-01035-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straneo, F and Heimbach, P (2013) North Atlantic warming and the retreat of Greenland's outlet glaciers. Nature 504, 3643. doi: 10.1038/nature12854CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streuff, K, Cofaigh, , Noormets, R and Lloyd, JM (2017) Submarine landforms and glacimarine sedimentary processes in Lomfjorden, East Spitsbergen. Marine Geology 390, 5171. doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2017.04.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streuff, K, Cofaigh, and Wintersteller, P (2022) GlaciDat – a GIS database of submarine glacial landforms and sediments in the Arctic. Boreas 51, 517531. doi: 10.1111/bor.12577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strzelecki, MC and 5 others (2020) New fjords, new coasts, new landscapes: the geomorphology of paraglacial coasts formed after recent glacier retreat in Brepollen (Hornsund, southern Svalbard). Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 45, 13251334. doi: 10.1002/esp.4819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sund, M, Lauknes, TR and Eiken, T (2014) Surge dynamics in the Nathorstbreen glacier system, Svalbard. The Cryosphere 8, 623638. doi: 10.5194/tc-8-623-2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, J and 10 others (2018) A full-Stokes 3-D calving model applied to a large Greenlandic glacier. Journal of Geophysical Research Earth Surface 123, 410432. doi: 10.1002/2017JF004349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbanski, J and 6 others (2017) Subglacial discharges create fluctuating foraging hotspots for sea birds in tidewater glacier bays. Scientific Reports 7, 43999. doi: 10.1038/srep43999CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Pelt, WJJ and 5 others (2012) Simulating melt, runoff and refreezing on Nordenskiöldbreen, Svalbard, using a coupled snow and energy balance model. The Cryosphere 6, 641659. doi: 10.5194/tc-6-641-2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Pelt, WJJ and 6 others (2013) An iterative inverse method to estimate basal topography and initialize ice flow models. The Cryosphere 7, 9871006. doi: 10.5194/tc-7-987-2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieli, A, Jania, J and Kolondra, L (2002) The retreat of a tidewater glacier: observations and model calculations on Hansbreen, Spitsbergen. Journal of Glaciology 48, 592600. doi: 10.3189/172756502781831089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, J (1922) A Spitsbergen Salt Marsh: with observations on the ecological phenomena attendant on the emergence of land from the Sea. The Journal of Ecology 10, 109121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, A (1993) Holocene moraine chronology, Spitsbergen, Svalbard: lichenometric evidence for multiple Neoglacial advances in the Arctic. The Holocene 3, 128137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Womble, JN and 6 others (2021) Harbor seals as sentinels of ice dynamics in tidewater glacier fjords. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, 634541. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.634541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wordie, JM (1921) Present-day conditions in Spitsbergen. The Geographical Journal 58, 2545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a) Adolfbukta with the lower region of Nordenskiöldbreen on a 2009 aerial image from NPI (Basisdata_NP_Ortofoto_Svalbard_WMTS_25833). The positions from which photographs in panels c and d are indicated with red stars and the potential bedrock below sea level with red transparent ellipses; (b) map of Svalbard with study site in red; (c) and (d) the northern portions of the glacier margin as photographed by the de Geer expedition in 1908 and, from the same location, in 2018.

Figure 1

Figure 2. (a) Glacier front positions derived from historic maps, aerial photographs and satellite images, overlaying a Sentinel-2 image from 31/08 2022. (b) Cumulative retreat distance since 1895 along the five colour-coded profiles indicated in panel (a).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Spatial variability of glacier surface elevation changes between 2009 and 2021 derived from the NPI 2009 DEM and the ArcticDEM (3 April 2021); (a) black box indicating extent of panels b and c on a 2009 NPI aerial image of; (b) difference model between the 2021 and 2009 DEMs; (c) the 2009 DEM with location of the along-flow profiles in the subsequent panels; (d–h) retreat and thinning illustrated by distance and elevation profiles across the DEMs of 1990, 2009 and 2021.

Figure 3

Figure 4. (a) Annual average retreat rate and annual average air temperature at Svalbard Lufthavn station (data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute) over the study period with linear trendlines for the periods 1896–1990 and 1990–2022; (b) average air temperature and retreat rate timeseries divided into pre- and post-1990, showing that the clusters of 1896–1990 and 1990–2012 have minimal overlap.

Figure 4

Figure 5. (a) Sentinel-2 false colour scene of 23/08/2022 of the northern section of the Nordenskiöldbreen margin. Red rectangles show the areas photographed in panels b and c, the star marks the location of the delta in panel d; (b) bedrock outcrops beneath the present ice margin of Nordenskiöldbreen in August 2022; (c) the southern glacier margin with remaining calving front; (d) delta that was formed after a sudden drainage of an ice-marginal lake, and subglacial bedrock outcrops (July 2018 photograph by Martin Lulák).