Jökull


Jökull - 01.01.2001, Page 30

Jökull - 01.01.2001, Page 30
Knudsen et al. erosion of the left bank was 200 m. At the eastern end of the former bridge, as well as further east, the bed elevation was 4–5 m higher in 1997 than in 1992. The bed elevation west of the former bridge was un- changed (Figure 5). Whereas this part of the Gígjukvísl river channel was virtually unaffected by the 1991 surge and jökul- hlaup, it underwent an overall widening and shallow- ing during the 1996 jökulhlaup. Downstream of the moraine constriction the erosion was concentrated on the left bank. At transect 6 the erosion has shifted to the right bank. Net deposition dominates the old channel course with 3–4 m of aggradation. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents maps that show the channel of Gígjukvísl after the 1991 surge of Skeiðarárjökull and following the November 1996 jökulhlaup. These maps have been used to measure changes in the Gígjukvísl channel resulting from the jökulhlaup. The main geomorphic impact consists of channel change brought about by bank erosion of up to 300 m at the main Gígjukvísl outlet (transect 1) and within– channel deposition between 6 and 12 m. Aggradation rates decrease markedly downstream, with bank ero- sion of 600 m downstream of the moraine constriction (transect 5) accompanied by localised within–channel aggradation of only 4 m. Comparison of 1992 and 1997 aerial photographs also provides a clear picture of 300 m of glacier snout retreat and thinning of 50- 60 m during the study period. The Gígjukvísl channel system underwent spec- tacular transformation from a complex system of low capacity channels and proglacial lakes to a large, high capacity channel scaled to November 1996 jökulhlaup flows. The overall size of the Gígjukvísl channel in- creased, reducing flood–flow resistance and decreas- ing future potential for the formation of backwater lakes. The drastic change within the Gígjukvísl chan- nel was brought about by the fact that the proglacial trench in which the river system is located had only recently (post–1954) been created. As such, the prox- imal Gígjukvísl channel had never experienced a high magnitude jökulhlaup, in contrast to the Skeiðará channel system, which had adjusted to successive jökulhlaups over the previous decades, and where the overall geomorphic impact of the November 1996 jökulhlaup was much less spectacular. Due to the extensive bank erosion during the jökulhlaup, the present Gígjukvísl channel is now well–adjusted to high magnitude flood flows reducing the geomorpho- logical impact of any subsequent jökulhlaups. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was funded by the Icelandic Public Roads Administration. Ground survey was carried out by Jón S. Erlingsson and Halldór S. Hauksson from the Iclandic Public Roads Administration. ÁGRIP BREYTINGAR Á FARVEGI GÍGJUKVÍSLAR Í JÖKULHLAUPINU Í NÓVEMBER 1996 Ný kort af farvegi Gígjukvíslar eftir framhlaup Skeið- arárjökuls árið 1991 og eftir hlaupið í nóvember 1996 eru notuð til að leggja mat á breytingar á farvegi Gígjukvíslar sem áttu sér stað í hlaupinu í nóvem- ber 1996. Helstu breytingar á farveginum eru allt að 300 m rof á árbakka á móts við stærsta útfall hlaupsins (snið 1) og hækkun á árbotni þar á bilinu 6 til 12 m. Botninn á farveginum hækkar minna eftir því sem neðar dregur og í sniði 5 var rof á árbakka 600 m en botnhækkunin aðeins 4 m. Við samanburð á kortunum má sjá að jaðar jökulsins hefur hopað um 300 m og lækkað um 50-60 m á árabilinu 1992 og 1997. Þær miklu breytingar sem urðu á farvegi Gígjukvíslar stafa af því að lægðin sem áin rennur í meðfram jökuljaðrinum er nýleg og hefur myndast við hop jökulsins eftir 1954. Farvegur Gígjukvíslar hafði því aldrei áður tekið við vatnsmagni úr stóru jökulhlaupi, ólíkt farvegi Skeiðarár sem hefur mót- ast af mörgum stórum jökulhlaupum á undanförnum áratugum enda urðu breytingar á farvegi Skeiðarár í hlaupinu í nóvember 1996 mun minni en breyting- arnar á farvegi Gígjukvíslar. Vegna hins mikla rofs á árbökkum Gígjukvíslar í hlaupinu í nóvember 1996 þá getur núverandi farvegur Gígjukvíslar flutt meira vatnsmagn en áður og því má búast við minni breyt- ingum í næstu jökulhlaupum. 30 JÖKULL No. 50
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153

x

Jökull

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Jökull
https://timarit.is/publication/1155

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.