Search for: All records

Abstract The rate of technological innovation within aquatic sciences outpaces the collective ability of individual scientists within the field to make appropriate use of those technologies. The process of in situ lake sampling remains the primary choice to comprehensively understand an aquatic ecosystem at local scales; however, the impact of climate change on lakes necessitates the rapid advancement of understanding and the incorporation of lakes on both landscape and global scales. Three fields driving innovation within winter limnology that we address here are autonomous real‐time in situ monitoring, remote sensing, and modeling. The recent progress in low‐power in situ sensing and data telemetry allows continuous tracing of under‐ice processes in selected lakes as well as the development of global lake observational networks. Remote sensing offers consistent monitoring of numerous systems, allowing limnologists to ask certain questions across large scales. Models are advancing and historically come in different types (process‐based or statistical data‐driven), with the recent technological advancements and integration of machine learning and hybrid process‐based/statistical models. Lake ice modeling enhances our understanding of lake dynamics and allows for projections under future climate warming scenarios. To encourage the merging of technological innovation within limnological research of the less‐studied winter period, we have accumulated both essential details on the history and uses of contemporary sampling, remote sensing, and modeling techniques. We crafted 100 questions in the field of winter limnology that aim to facilitate the cross‐pollination of intensive and extensive modes of study to broaden knowledge of the winter period. 

Abstract Despite the importance of high-latitude surface energy budgets (SEBs) for land-climate interactions in the rapidly changing Arctic, uncertainties in their prediction persist. Here, we harmonize SEB observations across a network of vegetated and glaciated sites at circumpolar scale (1994–2021). Our variance-partitioning analysis identifies vegetation type as an important predictor for SEB-components during Arctic summer (June-August), compared to other SEB-drivers including climate, latitude and permafrost characteristics. Differences among vegetation types can be of similar magnitude as between vegetation and glacier surfaces and are especially high for summer sensible and latent heat fluxes. The timing of SEB-flux summer-regimes (when daily mean values exceed 0 Wm −2 ) relative to snow-free and -onset dates varies substantially depending on vegetation type, implying vegetation controls on snow-cover and SEB-flux seasonality. Our results indicate complex shifts in surface energy fluxes with land-cover transitions and a lengthening summer season, and highlight the potential for improving future Earth system models via a refined representation of Arctic vegetation types.