W. Quinton, M. Hayashi, N. Wright, L. Chasmer, W. Quinton, M. Hayashi, N. Wright, L. Chasmer,

C. Hopkinson, R. Schincariol, F. Rezanezhad, R. Thorne,C. Hopkinson, R. Schincariol, F. Rezanezhad, R. Thorne,

A. Kenward, Y. Zhang, A. Verma, R. PetroneA. Kenward, Y. Zhang, A. Verma, R. Petrone

IP3 Progress at Scotty Creek

33rdrd Annual IP3 Workshop, Westmark Conference Centre, Whitehorse, Canada, 12-15 Nov., 2008 Annual IP3 Workshop, Westmark Conference Centre, Whitehorse, Canada, 12-15 Nov., 2008

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scotty Creek, NWT, Canada:Scotty Creek, NWT, Canada:

Mackenzie River

Liard

River

Fort Simpson

Canad

aU.S.A.

Nkilometres

1 km1 km

1 km

Lake

Isolated bog

Connected bog

Fen

Peat plateau

Goose Lake

Study Area 0 50

Hillslope Runoff:Hillslope Runoff:

Hillslope Runoff:Hillslope Runoff:

Hydraulic conductivity profile:Hydraulic conductivity profile:

0 .1 1 1 0 1 02

1 03

0 . 5

0

0 .1

0 . 2

0 .3

0 .4

depth below ground surface (m)

saturated hydraulic conductivity, (m d )Ks-1

Granger basin

Other organic-covered, permafrost

Water table

flowzone

Frost table

158 m d-15 m d-1

h i gh Kf

lo w Kf

Uniformly high K s

Transitional Ks

Uniformly low l o g K ( z ) =

l o g K b t m + ( l o g K t o p – l o g K b t m )

[ 1 + ( z / z t r n )

n

]

FT topography - runoffFT topography - runoff

0

0.01

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

a) 5 mm b) 10 mm

c) 20 mm (d) 35 mm

WT depth (m)

What controls FT depth distribution?What controls FT depth distribution?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

5-Sep 6-Sep 7-Sep

No canopy (bog)

Sparse canopy

Dense canopy

Inco

min

g S

hor

twav

e R

adia

tion

(W

m-2)

FT depth related to canopy:FT depth related to canopy:

Lidar digital terrain model:Yellow areas = raised peat plateausBlue areas = disconnected “sinks”Gray areas = channeled fens and bogs

Lidar canopy height model: Shades of light to dark green = increasing canopy height from 0.7 m to 13 m

Shades of brown to green = increasing canopy fractional cover from 10% to 60%

Ground surface albedo:

lichen

moss

α = 0.19

α = 0.15

40 m40 m

Soil moisture – FT depth:Soil moisture – FT depth:

Seasonal moisture input:Seasonal moisture input:

Sparse vs. no canopy surface RB:Sparse vs. no canopy surface RB:

-2000

200400600800

10001200

0 6 12 18 24

radi

atio

nflu

xd

ensi

ty(W

m-2

)

-200

0

200

400600

8001000

1200

0 6 12 18 24

rad

iatio

nflu

xde

nsity

(Wm

-2)

Kex K* Q* L*

Flat Bog

Peat Plateau

Bog development - new model:Bog development - new model:

saturated, frozen saturated, thawed unsaturated, thawed

1

3

2

Ground cover - basin runoff:Ground cover - basin runoff:

Mackenzie River

Liard

River

Fort Simpson

Canad

aU.S.A.

Nkilometres

1 km1 km

1 km

Lake

Isolated bog

Connected bog

Fen

Peat plateau

Goose Lake

Study Area 0 50

Basin runoff in lower Liard valley:Basin runoff in lower Liard valley:

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

12 Mar 992 Dec 98 20 Jun 99 28 Sep 99 6 Jan 0024 Aug 9816 May 985 Feb 9828 Oct 97 1 Nov 0024 Jul 0015 Apr 0020 Jul 9711 Apr 971 Jan 97

0.0

2.0

Blackstone River

Birch River

Jean-Marie River

Scotty Creek

Bas

in r

unof

f (m

m p

er d

ay)

Change cover = change runoff?Change cover = change runoff?

a) drainage density

R2 = 0.99

100

120

140

160

180

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

c) coverage of channel fens

R2 = 0.93100

120

140

160

180

15 20 25 30 35

d) coverage of flat bogsR2 = 0.87

100

120

140

160

180

2 4 6 8 10 12

Scotty Birch Blackstone Jean-Marie

Drainage density (km/km)

Percentage of basin covered by channel fens

Average slope (m/m)

Percentage of basin covered by flat bogs

b) basin slope

R2 = 0.84

100

120

140

160

180

0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007

Ave

rage

ann

ual 1

997-

2000

run

off

(mm

)

Shifting boundaries:Shifting boundaries:

Shifting boundaries - rates:Shifting boundaries - rates:

June, 2003

Aug., 2008

Aug., 2002

Peat profile warming:Peat profile warming:

Beginning 25 August:

-

-

0.91o

(0.81o)

2.32o

(1.82o)

0.97o

(0.33o)

0.57o

(-1.13o)

0.61o

(0.76o)

0.32o

(0.40o)

0.75o

(1.17o)

Ending 13 July:

3.11o

(2.7o)

2.07o

(2.7o)

1.54o

(1.7o)

0.7o

(1.4o)

-0.33o

(0.16o)

-0.80o

(-0.11o)

-0.54o

(-0.30o)

-

-

-

-

2.68o

(3.34)

2.97o

(3.08o)

1.82o

(2.25o)

0.29o

(0.62o)

0.58o

(1.51o)

-

-

-

-

Annual:

20082007200620052004200320022001

Permafrost loss on a plateau:Permafrost loss on a plateau:

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

metres

ground surface

FT

Ele

v. R

elat

ive

to f

en W

L

e.g.. 2005::

2001

2004

2006

2008

40 m

38 m

33 m

26 m

Permafrost loss on a plateau:Permafrost loss on a plateau:

Changes since 1999:Changes since 1999: Decrease in plateau width = 15.8 mDecrease in plateau width = 15.8 m Loss on fen side = 10.7 mLoss on fen side = 10.7 m Avg. annual loss = 1.76 mAvg. annual loss = 1.76 m Number of years remaining ~15Number of years remaining ~15

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

metres

ground surface

FT

Ele

v. R

elat

ive

to f

en W

L

e.g.. 2005::

2001

2004

2006

2008

40 m

38 m

33 m

26 m

Permafrost melt:Permafrost melt:

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

1897 1907 1917 1927 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997

Years

degrees C

1947 2000

Permafrost loss 2000 – 2008:Permafrost loss 2000 – 2008:

IKONOS 2000 false colour composite with lidar-classified plateaus (brown). Red = retreat of permafrost since 2000.

Imagery includes laser pulse intensity. Split pulses are darker than single pulses except where absorbed by water.

Shaded lidar DEM with 2008 peat plateaus (brown) and disconnected sinks (blue). Red = permfrost loss since 2000.

Permafrost loss - summary:Permafrost loss - summary:

◆ 1947 – 2000: ~30% permafrost loss. Approx 90 yrs. remaining.1947 – 2000: ~30% permafrost loss. Approx 90 yrs. remaining.

◆ 2000 – 2008: 19% permafrost loss. Approx. 32 yrs. remaining.2000 – 2008: 19% permafrost loss. Approx. 32 yrs. remaining.

◆ 1999 – 2008: 38% loss of permafrost. Approx. 15 yrs. remaining.1999 – 2008: 38% loss of permafrost. Approx. 15 yrs. remaining.

On-going IP3 activities include:On-going IP3 activities include:

◆ Examine canopy influence on FT depth distributionExamine canopy influence on FT depth distribution◆ Other influences on FT – examined at plots and transectsOther influences on FT – examined at plots and transects◆ Chamber studies – internal energy and water cyclingChamber studies – internal energy and water cycling◆ CRHM modelling for a PP slope 2001 – 2008CRHM modelling for a PP slope 2001 – 2008◆ Runoff input from overall PP coverRunoff input from overall PP cover◆ Contribute toward MESH runs for ScottyContribute toward MESH runs for Scotty