@article{HofmanHaywardHeimetal.2019, author = {Hofman, Maarten P. G. and Hayward, M. W. and Heim, M. and Marchand, P. and Rolandsen, C. M. and Mattisson, Jenny and Urbano, F. and Heurich, M. and Mysterud, A. and Melzheimer, J. and Morellet, N. and Voigt, Ulrich and Allen, B. L. and Gehr, Benedikt and Rouco Zufiaurre, Carlos and Ullmann, Wiebke and Holand, O. and Jorgensen, n H. and Steinheim, G. and Cagnacci, F. and Kroeschel, M. and Kaczensky, P. and Buuveibaatar, B. and Payne, J. C. and Palmegiani, I and Jerina, K. and Kjellander, P. and Johansson, O. and LaPoint, S. and Bayrakcismith, R. and Linnell, J. D. C. and Zaccaroni, M. and Jorge, M. L. S. and Oshima, J. E. F. and Songhurst, A. and Fischer, C. and Mc Bride, R. T. and Thompson, J. J. and Streif, S. and Sandfort, R. and Bonenfant, Christophe and Drouilly, M. and Klapproth, M. and Zinner, Dietmar and Yarnell, Richard and Stronza, A. and Wilmott, L. and Meisingset, E. and Thaker, Maria and Vanak, A. T. and Nicoloso, S. and Graeber, R. and Said, S. and Boudreau, M. R. and Devlin, A. and Hoogesteijn, R. and May-Junior, J. A. and Nifong, J. C. and Odden, J. and Quigley, H. B. and Tortato, F. and Parker, D. M. and Caso, A. and Perrine, J. and Tellaeche, C. and Zieba, F. and Zwijacz-Kozica, T. and Appel, C. L. and Axsom, I and Bean, W. T. and Cristescu, B. and Periquet, S. and Teichman, K. J. and Karpanty, S. and Licoppe, A. and Menges, V and Black, K. and Scheppers, Thomas L. and Schai-Braun, S. C. and Azevedo, F. C. and Lemos, F. G. and Payne, A. and Swanepoel, L. H. and Weckworth, B. and Berger, A. and Bertassoni, Alessandra and McCulloch, G. and Sustr, P. and Athreya, V and Bockmuhl, D. and Casaer, J. and Ekori, A. and Melovski, D. and Richard-Hansen, C. and van de Vyver, D. and Reyna-Hurtado, R. and Robardet, E. and Selva, N. and Sergiel, A. and Farhadinia, M. S. and Sunde, P. and Portas, R. and Ambarli, H{\"u}seyin and Berzins, R. and Kappeler, P. M. and Mann, G. K. and Pyritz, L. and Bissett, C. and Grant, T. and Steinmetz, R. and Swedell, Larissa and Welch, R. J. and Armenteras, D. and Bidder, O. R. and Gonzalez, T. M. and Rosenblatt, A. and Kachel, S. and Balkenhol, N.}, title = {Right on track?}, series = {PLoS one}, volume = {14}, journal = {PLoS one}, number = {5}, publisher = {PLoS}, address = {San Fransisco}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0216223}, pages = {26}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Satellite telemetry is an increasingly utilized technology in wildlife research, and current devices can track individual animal movements at unprecedented spatial and temporal resolutions. However, as we enter the golden age of satellite telemetry, we need an in-depth understanding of the main technological, species-specific and environmental factors that determine the success and failure of satellite tracking devices across species and habitats. Here, we assess the relative influence of such factors on the ability of satellite telemetry units to provide the expected amount and quality of data by analyzing data from over 3,000 devices deployed on 62 terrestrial species in 167 projects worldwide. We evaluate the success rate in obtaining GPS fixes as well as in transferring these fixes to the user and we evaluate failure rates. Average fix success and data transfer rates were high and were generally better predicted by species and unit characteristics, while environmental characteristics influenced the variability of performance. However, 48\% of the unit deployments ended prematurely, half of them due to technical failure. Nonetheless, this study shows that the performance of satellite telemetry applications has shown improvements over time, and based on our findings, we provide further recommendations for both users and manufacturers.}, language = {en} } @article{TreatKleinenBroothaertsetal.2019, author = {Treat, Claire C. and Kleinen, Thomas and Broothaerts, Nils and Dalton, April S. and Dommain, Rene and Douglas, Thomas A. and Drexler, Judith Z. and Finkelstein, Sarah A. and Grosse, Guido and Hope, Geoffrey and Hutchings, Jack and Jones, Miriam C. and Kuhry, Peter and Lacourse, Terri and Lahteenoja, Outi and Loisel, Julie and Notebaert, Bastiaan and Payne, Richard J. and Peteet, Dorothy M. and Sannel, A. Britta K. and Stelling, Jonathan M. and Strauss, Jens and Swindles, Graeme T. and Talbot, Julie and Tarnocai, Charles and Verstraeten, Gert and Williams, Christopher J. and Xia, Zhengyu and Yu, Zicheng and Valiranta, Minna and Hattestrand, Martina and Alexanderson, Helena and Brovkin, Victor}, title = {Widespread global peatland establishment and persistence over the last 130,000 y}, series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America}, volume = {116}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America}, number = {11}, publisher = {National Acad. of Sciences}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0027-8424}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.1813305116}, pages = {4822 -- 4827}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Glacial-interglacial variations in CO2 and methane in polar ice cores have been attributed, in part, to changes in global wetland extent, but the wetland distribution before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 21 ka to 18 ka) remains virtually unknown. We present a study of global peatland extent and carbon (C) stocks through the last glacial cycle (130 ka to present) using a newly compiled database of 1,063 detailed stratigraphic records of peat deposits buried by mineral sediments, as well as a global peatland model. Quantitative agreement between modeling and observations shows extensive peat accumulation before the LGM in northern latitudes (> 40 degrees N), particularly during warmer periods including the last interglacial (130 ka to 116 ka, MIS 5e) and the interstadial (57 ka to 29 ka, MIS 3). During cooling periods of glacial advance and permafrost formation, the burial of northern peatlands by glaciers and mineral sediments decreased active peatland extent, thickness, and modeled C stocks by 70 to 90\% from warmer times. Tropical peatland extent and C stocks show little temporal variation throughout the study period. While the increased burial of northern peats was correlated with cooling periods, the burial of tropical peat was predominately driven by changes in sea level and regional hydrology. Peat burial by mineral sediments represents a mechanism for long-term terrestrial C storage in the Earth system. These results show that northern peatlands accumulate significant C stocks during warmer times, indicating their potential for C sequestration during the warming Anthropocene.}, language = {en} } @article{PattynPerichonDurandetal.2013, author = {Pattyn, Frank and Perichon, Laura and Durand, Gael and Favier, Lionel and Gagliardini, Olivier and Hindmarsh, Richard C. A. and Zwinger, Thomas and Albrecht, Torsten and Cornford, Stephen and Docquier, David and Furst, Johannes J. and Goldberg, Daniel and Gudmundsson, Gudmundur Hilmar and Humbert, Angelika and Huetten, Moritz and Huybrechts, Philippe and Jouvet, Guillaume and Kleiner, Thomas and Larour, Eric and Martin, Daniel and Morlighem, Mathieu and Payne, Anthony J. and Pollard, David and Rueckamp, Martin and Rybak, Oleg and Seroussi, Helene and Thoma, Malte and Wilkens, Nina}, title = {Grounding-line migration in plan-view marine ice-sheet models: results of the ice2sea MISMIP3d intercomparison}, series = {Journal of glaciology}, volume = {59}, journal = {Journal of glaciology}, number = {215}, publisher = {International Glaciological Society}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {0022-1430}, doi = {10.3189/2013JoG12J129}, pages = {410 -- 422}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Predictions of marine ice-sheet behaviour require models able to simulate grounding-line migration. We present results of an intercomparison experiment for plan-view marine ice-sheet models. Verification is effected by comparison with approximate analytical solutions for flux across the grounding line using simplified geometrical configurations (no lateral variations, no buttressing effects from lateral drag). Perturbation experiments specifying spatial variation in basal sliding parameters permitted the evolution of curved grounding lines, generating buttressing effects. The experiments showed regions of compression and extensional flow across the grounding line, thereby invalidating the boundary layer theory. Steady-state grounding-line positions were found to be dependent on the level of physical model approximation. Resolving grounding lines requires inclusion of membrane stresses, a sufficiently small grid size (<500 m), or subgrid interpolation of the grounding line. The latter still requires nominal grid sizes of <5 km. For larger grid spacings, appropriate parameterizations for ice flux may be imposed at the grounding line, but the short-time transient behaviour is then incorrect and different from models that do not incorporate grounding-line parameterizations. The numerical error associated with predicting grounding-line motion can be reduced significantly below the errors associated with parameter ignorance and uncertainties in future scenarios.}, language = {en} } @article{SeroussiNowickiPayneetal.2020, author = {Seroussi, Helene and Nowicki, Sophie and Payne, Antony J. and Goelzer, Heiko and Lipscomb, William H. and Abe-Ouchi, Ayako and Agosta, Cecile and Albrecht, Torsten and Asay-Davis, Xylar and Barthel, Alice and Calov, Reinhard and Cullather, Richard and Dumas, Christophe and Galton-Fenzi, Benjamin K. and Gladstone, Rupert and Golledge, Nicholas R. and Gregory, Jonathan M. and Greve, Ralf and Hattermann, Tore and Hoffman, Matthew J. and Humbert, Angelika and Huybrechts, Philippe and Jourdain, Nicolas C. and Kleiner, Thomas and Larour, Eric and Leguy, Gunter R. and Lowry, Daniel P. and Little, Chistopher M. and Morlighem, Mathieu and Pattyn, Frank and Pelle, Tyler and Price, Stephen F. and Quiquet, Aurelien and Reese, Ronja and Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne and Shepherd, Andrew and Simon, Erika and Smith, Robin S. and Straneo, Fiammetta and Sun, Sainan and Trusel, Luke D. and Van Breedam, Jonas and van de Wal, Roderik S. W. and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Zhao, Chen and Zhang, Tong and Zwinger, Thomas}, title = {ISMIP6 Antarctica}, series = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, volume = {14}, journal = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, number = {9}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1994-0416}, doi = {10.5194/tc-14-3033-2020}, pages = {3033 -- 3070}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Ice flow models of the Antarctic ice sheet are commonly used to simulate its future evolution in response to different climate scenarios and assess the mass loss that would contribute to future sea level rise. However, there is currently no consensus on estimates of the future mass balance of the ice sheet, primarily because of differences in the representation of physical processes, forcings employed and initial states of ice sheet models. This study presents results from ice flow model simulations from 13 international groups focusing on the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet during the period 2015-2100 as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). They are forced with outputs from a subset of models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), representative of the spread in climate model results. Simulations of the Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level rise in response to increased warming during this period varies between 7:8 and 30.0 cm of sea level equivalent (SLE) under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario forcing. These numbers are relative to a control experiment with constant climate conditions and should therefore be added to the mass loss contribution under climate conditions similar to present-day conditions over the same period. The simulated evolution of the West Antarctic ice sheet varies widely among models, with an overall mass loss, up to 18.0 cm SLE, in response to changes in oceanic conditions. East Antarctica mass change varies between 6 :1 and 8.3 cm SLE in the simulations, with a significant increase in surface mass balance outweighing the increased ice discharge under most RCP 8.5 scenario forcings. The inclusion of ice shelf collapse, here assumed to be caused by large amounts of liquid water ponding at the surface of ice shelves, yields an additional simulated mass loss of 28mm compared to simulations without ice shelf collapse. The largest sources of uncertainty come from the climate forcing, the ocean-induced melt rates, the calibration of these melt rates based on oceanic conditions taken outside of ice shelf cavities and the ice sheet dynamic response to these oceanic changes. Results under RCP 2.6 scenario based on two CMIP5 climate models show an additional mass loss of 0 and 3 cm of SLE on average compared to simulations done under present-day conditions for the two CMIP5 forcings used and display limited mass gain in East Antarctica.}, language = {en} }