Impact of climatic and environmental factors on ice-wedge degradation and stabilization
Ice-wedge degradation in the study area, in most cases, has been triggered by an increase in the active-layer thickness during exceptionally warm and wet summers. Analysis of historical imagery showed that degradation of ice wedges at the JS started in the 1980s and significantly increased in the 1990s (Fig. S16
2), likely after the very wet and warm summer of 1989; subsequent widespread thermokarst expansion may be attributed to extremely warm summers of 1998 and 2004 (
Jorgenson et al. 2015) and 2012 (
Walker et al. 2022).
Vegetation is one of the most important environmental factors. Prior to discovery of the oilfield and development starting in 1968, the vegetation was similar at all three study sites (JS, CS, and AS). They all had similar low-centered ice-wedge polygons with less than 0.5 m of microrelief contrast between the centers and troughs (
Everett 1980a), and the vegetation was typical of wetter portions of the Arctic Coastal Plain with base-rich non-acidic soils. Wet, non-acidic tundra vegetation dominated by sedges and mosses occupied lower microsites, such as polygon centers and troughs, and moist non-acidic tundra dominated by sedges, prostrate dwarf shrubs, mosses, and some lichens occurred on elevated microsites such as the polygon rims (
Walker 1985;
Walker and Everett 1991).
Vegetation changes since 1968 along the transects adjacent to the roads at CS and AS are primarily related to heavy road dust, roadside flooding, off-road vehicles, utility trenches, and thermokarst (
Walker et al. 2022). The vegetation on the southwest sides of the road at both sites have become more productive due to flooding. The northeast sides of the road have experienced strong reductions in the diversity of small forbs, mosses, and lichens caused by the smothering effects of heavy road dust — the impacts of which affect a wide variety of other environmental factors that impact the permafrost, including the albedo of the vegetation and snow, timing of the snow melt, moss layer thickness, and active-layer thickness (
Walker and Everett 1987;
Walker et al. 2022). The documented circumpolar increase in shrubs due to the warming climate (
Elemendorf et al. 2011;
Myers-Smith et al. 2015;
Bjorkman et al. 2018) is also occurring at all three sites (
Walker et al. 2022). Efforts to revegetate and restore impacted areas in the Prudhoe Bay area are described in several other papers (e.g.,
Jorgenson and Joyce 1994;
Kidd et al. 2006).
Studies at the JS showed that vegetation composition varied widely among stages of the ice-wedge degradation and stabilization (
Jorgenson et al. 2015). It was similar for the central parts of ice-wedge polygons and UD sites, where dwarf shrubs (
Dryas integrifolia Vahl
, Salix arctica Pall., and
Salix richardsonii Hook.) were abundant. The DI stage was dominated by sedges (
Eriophorum angustifolium Honck. and
Carex bigelowii Torr. ex Schwein.). By the DA stage, there was a large shift to the aquatic calcareous mosses (
Calliergon giganteum (Schimp.) Kindb. and
Scorpidium scorpioides (Hedw.) Limpr.) and forbs (
Utricularia vulgaris L. and
Hippuris vulgaris L.). At the SI stage, aquatic sedges (
Carex aquatilis Wahlenb. and
E. angustifolium) dominated. The SA stage had abundant dwarf shrubs similar to UD but differed from the latter by the abundance of the sedge,
Carex membranacea Hook.
Formation and deepening of ice-wedge troughs results in the accumulation of snow and water, which leads to an increase in surface and ground temperatures. At the JS, it resulted in an increase in annual mean surface temperature from –6.2 °C (UD) to –1.3 °C (DA), whereas temperatures at polygon centers were almost –7.0 °C (
Jorgenson et al. 2015). At the CS and AS, annual mean surface temperatures measured at permanent plots (
Walker et al. 2018) were significantly warmer: –2.3°C in troughs (
n = 21) and –3.9 °C at polygon centers (
n = 22). Average values of annual mean ground temperatures at 40 cm from the surface in troughs and centers were –3.7 °C (
n = 21) and –5.0 °C (
n = 22), respectively. Warmer temperatures usually corresponded to deeper trough depths, most likely due to increased winter snow accumulation in the deeper troughs. In troughs less than 30 cm deep, annual mean surface temperatures varied from –1.5 to –3.8 °C, whereas in deeper troughs they varied from +0.3 °C to –2.5 °C; correlation of annual mean surface temperatures with average snow depths was very similar but correlation with water depth in troughs was not as strong (Fig. S19
2).
Annual mean ground temperatures measured at 50 (JS) or 40 (CS and AS) cm below the surface (near permafrost table) were significantly lower than corresponding surface temperatures (
Jorgenson et al. 2015,
Walker et al. 2018). This thermal offset (
Kudryavtsev 1959;
Burn and Smith 1988;
Romanovsky and Osterkamp 1995;
Osterkamp and Romanovsky 1999) is caused by differences in the thermal conductivity of soils (especially organic-rich) in frozen and unfrozen states. At the JS, the offset was much higher in deep troughs (average value for DA sites was approximately 2.2 °C) than at polygon centers (approximately 1.3 °C). At the CS and AS, a similar trend occurred (Fig. S20
2): the average value of thermal offset in troughs was approximately 1.4 °C (in deepest troughs it sometimes exceeded 2 °C), whereas at polygon centers it was approximately 1.1 °C. This difference in the thermal offset values between troughs and centers may be explained by faster accumulation of organic material in troughs and (or) lateral thermal impact from colder polygon centers and by two-dimensionality of the temperature field across the ice wedges.
The increase in surface and ground temperatures triggered by development of deeper ice-wedge troughs is caused by positive feedbacks linked to several factors including deeper snow and water in the troughs and earlier disappearance of snow due to dust near the roads. The connection between trough development and thaw depths is not as obvious, and we see relatively weak correlation between thaw depths and depths of ice-wedge troughs, snow, and water, and annual mean surface temperature. Even a significant increase in temperatures or thickness of snow cover and depth of water usually causes only a slight (<5–7 cm) increase in thaw depths (Fig. S21
2). Interestingly, even in the deepest and warmest trough (permanent plot T3-10) with a surface temperature of + 0.3 °C, water depth of 71 cm, and snow depth of 85 cm, thaw depth was only 60 cm (less than 4 cm more than an average value for all troughs at the CS and AS). Average thaw depths in troughs with >1 cm of water (
n = 17) and relatively dry troughs (
n = 9) were 57.0 and 54.9 cm, respectively. If we exclude one exceptionally deep thaw-depth value (permanent plot T4–25, water depth 31 cm, thaw depth 82 cm), average thaw depths in water-filled and dry troughs would be almost identical, which also confirms a very weak correlation between thaw depths and water depths.
Moreover, comparison of thaw depths measured regularly along all Prudhoe Bay transects showed that average thaw depths under the water (measured mainly in water-filled troughs, except T4 where polygonal centers were also partially covered by water) were usually lower than those measured at dry locations, and the difference at some transects could reach almost 11 cm (Table S6
2). Such a difference at the CS transects was described in more detail by
Walker et al. (2022). Comparison of thaw depths at permanent plots in troughs and polygon centers also showed that the latter were significantly deeper than the former within all CS and AS transects (Table S6
a2, Fig. S22
2), with average values of 56.2 cm for troughs (
n = 24) and 64.2 cm for centers (
n = 25), whereas average values of annual mean surface temperatures in troughs and centers were –2.3 °C (
n = 21) and –3.9 °C (
n = 22), respectively (i.e., higher temperatures surprisingly correspond to shallower thaw depths). This disparity may be explained by seasonal factors that affect temperatures and thaw depths in different ways: annual mean surface temperatures are mainly affected by winter conditions (e.g., snow depths), whereas thaw depths mostly depend on summer conditions, and the occurrence of thick pond ice in deep troughs results in a significant delay in the beginning of seasonal ground thawing in comparison with shallow troughs and especially with polygon centers.
Studies at the JS also showed that thaw depths in polygon centers were greater than in troughs (
Jorgenson et al. 2015). Average thaw depths in ice-wedge troughs at this site varied significantly among stages. In late summer (end of July 2012), they were lower in UD (37.3 cm) and D1 (33.6 cm) compared with SI1 (45.0 cm), SA1 (43.3 cm), and SA2 (44.1 cm) (
Tables 3, Table S1
2).
This difference in thaw depths in troughs and polygon centers at all study sites may be also related to more organic matter and greater moisture content of soil in ice-wedge troughs. In some cases, shallow thaw depths in troughs may be explained by active ice-wedge degradation (D1 and D2 stages) at the time of measurements but our drilling at CS in 2014, which was performed at the same season as thaw-depth measurements (mid-August), showed that only two of 35 studied ice wedges experienced thawing at the time of drilling (both of them were located along Transect 1).
Thus, deepening of troughs leads to significant increases in surface and ground temperatures (Figs. S19 and S20
2) but not in thaw depths (Fig. S21
2). This means that the stabilization of ice wedges, which in many cases starts after several years of degradation as a result of accumulation of sediments and organic matter in troughs and subsequent formation of the IL, was not prevented by the accumulation of snow and water in the troughs. We compared the data from all our boreholes that were drilled in ice-wedge troughs through water (or ice) within the JS, CS, and AS transects and could not find any correlation between thicknesses of the IL and water depths (Fig. S23
2). Although some wedges were either degrading or extremely vulnerable (IL = 0 cm), others could be very well protected even under deep (20 to 70 cm) water.
Previous studies suggested that in the areas of cold continuous permafrost, stabilization of ice wedges, which have been actively degrading beneath deep thermokarst ponds at the intersections of ice wedges, commonly starts when water in troughs is still relatively deep (
Jorgenson et al. 2006,
2015;
Kanevskiy et al. 2016,
2017). This was confirmed by coring in several 10- to 70-cm-deep ponds (Tables S3, S4
2). Results of winter coring at Pond Marcel (Borehole T1-74.0) are particularly interesting because this pond has been relatively stable for many decades (at least since 1949, when it was already visible in the oldest available aerial photographs) (
Fig. 3A, Fig. S17
2). This borehole was drilled in March 2016 through the 37-cm-thick pond ice, and the total thickness of frozen soil above wedge ice was 86 cm (Table S3
2). Thaw depth in this pond measured on 16 September 2015 was 52 cm, which means that frozen protective layer (PL2) at that time was more than 30 cm. Occurrence of this layer, which includes the ice-rich 17-cm-thick intermediate layer, prevents deepening and expansion of Pond Marcel. This pond is one of several stable thermokarst ponds that have persisted at JS, CS, and AS since 1949. We presume that deep water in this pond has prevented its colonization by aquatic vegetation and eventual succession to a drier habitat, which explains the long-term stability of Pond Marcel and similar ponds.
Ice-wedge degradation under old deep ponds will resume when annual mean ground temperature at the base of the active layer exceeds 0 °C. In the areas with cold continuous permafrost, like the PBO, such a transition is still unlikely at present, although in one of our permanent plots (T3-10, trough depth 116 cm, snow depth 85 cm, water depth 71 cm) annual mean surface temperature (July 2015–July 2016) already reached positive values, whereas annual mean ground temperature at 40 cm was still negative (–0.7 °C) (Table S7
2).
Stages of ice-wedge degradation/stabilization
In general, levels of vulnerability of ice wedges to thermokarst are closely related to stages of ice-wedge degradation/stabilization: although Undisturbed ice wedges (UD) and wedges at Stabilization Advanced stages (SA1 and SA2) are relatively well protected by the intermediate layer, wedges at Degradation Initial (D1) and Degradation Advanced (D2) stages have almost no protection (
Kanevskiy et al. 2017). This correlation was confirmed by our studies at the JS, CS, and AS (
Fig. 9). However, our studies of ice wedges at Prudhoe Bay and other areas of northern Alaska have revealed the complexity associated with identifying the stages of degradation and stabilization. For example, D1, D2, and D3 stages are very unstable and can easily transform into corresponding SI stages and then revert back to corresponding degradation stages (
Fig. 1), mainly because of significant interannual fluctuations in thaw depths. As a result, it is very difficult to detect a certain stage based on remote sensing and field observations of surficial features (without drilling). We can clearly identify the actual stage by coring at the end of the warm season but only for a particular year, as the changes in thaw depths in another year may easily reverse the process of either degradation or stabilization. Another problem with degradation/stabilization stage identification is related to spatial disparities: the same wedge at the same time may be degrading at one place and stabilizing at another, and the distance between such places may be very small (for example, compare boreholes T5-96.8 and T5-94.5, which are located in the same trough only 2.5 m apart; see
Fig. 8).
SA stages are usually more static but only if a thickness of the intermediate layer is so significant that it requires a large increase in thaw depths to initiate a new degradation cycle at such sites. Fast transition from SI to SA may occur only if a trough is filled with sediments and organic matter very quickly, which cannot happen frequently in deep water-filled troughs. In deep troughs, SI2 and especially SI3 stages may last for many decades and probably even centuries (
Table 1), even if ice wedges are already protected by thick IL (like at Pond Marcel/T1-74.0 site), and a new degradation cycle is highly improbable without significant climate warming.
Theoretically, a rapid transition from SI2 and SI3 to corresponding SA stages may also occur as a result of fast growth of aquatic mosses in the bottom of the ponds and formation of thick floating vegetation mats, which has been observed in lakes and ponds in various regions of Alaska (
Parsekian et al. 2011). We speculate that when such vegetation mats cover entire surface of thermokarst ponds and their thickness exceeds the ALT, water beneath floating mats can become perennially frozen, and this may lead to relatively fast transformation to SA stages.
This process may explain the formation of near-surface TCI bodies above partially degraded ice wedges. Very often TCI forms at significant depths, but within all Prudhoe Bay study areas we have also observed numerous TCI bodies located right below the permafrost table (
Figs. 6 and
8, Figs. S6, S7
2). Previously
Kanevskiy et al. (2017) suggested two possible mechanisms for the formation of such near-surface TCI bodies: (1) some of these bodies could form in thermo-erosional cavities developed inside eroded ice wedges at significant depth, and their present-day near-surface position may be explained by subsequent thermokarst, which has affected the top parts of ice wedges after TCI formation; (2) water-filled cavities could originally form at the permafrost table as a result of thermokarst or thermal erosion, but the upper soil of the active layer (AL) could be protected from collapse by thick and dense vegetation cover and peat layer; further vegetation growth and soil accumulation on the surface resulted in permanent freezing of this shallow water. Probably the above-mentioned process of development of floating vegetation mats with subsequent freezing of water bodies beneath these mats can be considered to be the third possible mechanism, which gives another explanation of formation and preservation of near-surface TCI.
Impact of road infrastructure on ice-wedge degradation and stabilization
Based on analysis of historical imagery, we can see some differences between patterns of ice-wedge degradation within the relatively undisturbed JS (Fig. S16
2) and two study areas affected by road infrastructure (CS and AS) (Figs. S17, S18
2). Prior to the road construction (Spine Road at the CS was constructed in 1969, and Dalton Highway at the AS was constructed in 1974), all study areas had relatively uniform terrain with prevailing low-centered polygons and a few old thermokarst ponds. Widespread degradation of ice wedges at the JS started only in the late 1980s (Fig. S16
2), whereas ice wedges adjacent to the roads at the CS and AS were already degrading in 1970s (Figs. S17, S18
2).
Ice-wedge thermokarst along the roads started as a result of changes in the hydrological regime and accumulation of surface water, dust, and snow near embankments (
Walker et al. 1987;
Raynolds et al. 2014). With time, ice-wedge degradation accelerated after the very wet and warm summer of 1998. Degradation of ice wedges along Transect 2 at the CS and Transect 5 at the AS was more active for many years due to annual flooding events. At the CS and AS, ice-wedge thermokarst triggered by development was accelerated by changing climate, whereas at the JS ice-wedge thermokarst has been driven mainly by climatic factors.
Our study shows that ice-wedge degradation in the continuous permafrost zone is a reversible process not only in undisturbed areas (
Jorgenson et al. 2006,
2015;
Kanevskiy et al. 2017) but in the areas affected by infrastructure. Despite the strong influence of the road infrastructure on the active layer and the upper permafrost stability through changes in hydrology and surface conditions, numerous wedges at the CS and AS have already experienced stabilization. In comparison with the relatively undisturbed JS, CS and AS had smaller average thicknesses of the IL due to more active degradation during the last decades. Some stages (UD, SA1, SA2) at the CS and AS were poorly represented (
Table 3), which also may explain small average thicknesses of the intermediate layer at these sites. However, average thicknesses of the IL for SI2 stage in these areas were significantly larger than those of the JS (
Table 3,
Fig. 9).
Although thermokarst is usually more severe in flooded areas, higher plant productivity, more litter, and mineral material (road dust and material eroded from polygon centers) accumulating in the troughs contribute to formation of the intermediate layer, which protects ice wedges from further thawing. As a result, ice wedges under the deep water-filled troughs along T2 and T5 transects in many cases were more stable at the time of our study than the wedges along T1 transect, which had not been affected by flooding, and T3 transect, located within well-drained terrain adjacent to the riverbank. Moreover, no degradation stages (D1 and D2) were detected at T2. In general, the ice wedges along T2 (even the wedges under deep troughs filled with water) were much more stable than the wedges along T1 (Table S3
2), although thermokarst had been much more active along T2 during initial degradation. Similarly, no D1 stage was detected at T5, and only two wedges were degrading there under deep troughs (D2 stage) in September 2015.
At the JS, the IL under water-filled troughs was practically absent, which is the sign of active thermokarst. Average water depth for 13 water-filled troughs was 22.9 cm, and the average IL thickness was only 0.4 cm. Nine of 13 ice wedges (69%) were not protected by the IL, and the remaining four ice wedges were poorly protected by a very thin IL. At the CS and AS, 26 water-filled troughs had an average water depth of 25.6 cm, and average IL was 4.3 cm. Only 9 ice wedges of 26 (35%) were not protected by the intermediate layer, and most of them were located within T1, where 5 wedges of 6 were not protected. Thicknesses of the IL in the remaining 17 ice-wedge troughs varied from 2 to 19 cm. Ice wedges with the thickest IL were located not far from the road, so we suggest that dust accumulation is a major factor for their stabilization. We did not find any distinctive correlation between thicknesses of the IL under water-filled troughs and the depth of water (Fig. S23
2).
Thus, ice wedges located in water-filled troughs at the JS were much less protected in comparison with those from the CS and AS, whereas overall protection of ice wedges (located beneath both dry and water-filled troughs) at the JS was much better with the average IL thickness of 8.6 cm (n=83), compared with 3.0 cm (
n = 36) at the CS and 4.8 cm (
n = 26) at the AS (
Tables 2 and
3,
Fig. 5A). At the CS and AS, most of the ice wedges beneath the water-filled troughs were well protected (SI2 stage), and many of them had well-developed ILs. Unprotected ice wedges were encountered mainly within “dry” T1, where the surface conditions were similar to those of the JS. At frequently flooded “wet” T2, almost all wedges in water-filled troughs had well-developed IL (Table S3
2). At T5, numerous wedges were well protected, and only one was degrading in mid-September 2015. At “dry” T3, well drained by the river, only two wedges were drilled in water-filled troughs, and none of them was degrading in mid-September 2015 (though one of them had only 0.5-cm-thick frozen protective layer), whereas numerous wedges in deep dry troughs located along the same transect were degrading at that time. At “wet” T5, numerous wedges were well protected, and only one was thawing in mid-September 2015 (Table S4
2). Only ∼30% of ice wedges at the “wet” T2 and T5 transects were not protected from thawing (IL<1 cm), in comparison with ∼45% at the JS, and ∼80% at the “dry” T1 and T3 transects (
Fig. 5B). We presume that ice wedges in water-filled troughs at the CS and AS were protected by thicker intermediate layers because ice-wedge thermokarst here started earlier, which has resulted in accumulation of more soil and organic matter than at the JS.
To estimate the influence of the road infrastructure on the ice-wedge thermokarst at the CS and AS study areas, we compared thicknesses of the IL above all studied ice wedges, within four transects (T1, T2, T3, and T5) at different distances from the Spine Road (T1 and T2) and Dalton Highway (T3 and T5). We did not find any distinctive correlations, and degrading ice wedges, which were not protected by an IL, occurred at all distances from the roads (Fig. S24
2). However, several well-protected ice wedges (with the IL 5 to 20 cm thick), most of which were encountered at T2 and T3, are located very close (<30 m) to the roads, and general trends for all four transects reveal a slight increase in thicknesses of the IL closer to the roads (Figs. S25, S26
2).
Occurrence of well-protected ice wedges very close to the roads may be explained by rapid accumulation of road dust. Traditionally, road dust has been considered to be a very important factor triggering and accelerating ice-wedge thermokarst, mainly because early snowmelt, which is caused by dark-colored road dust that accumulates near the road, contributes to roadside flooding, increased soil temperatures, and deeper summer thaw along the roads (
Benson et al. 1975;
Everett 1980b;
Walker and Everett 1987;
Walker et al. 1987,
2015;
Raynolds et al. 2014). However, our study shows that road dust near to the road also creates negative feedbacks to wedge ice degradation via rapid soil accumulation in troughs that eventually leads to increase in thickness of protective layers and termination of ice-wedge thermokarst.