Jökull


Jökull - 01.01.2001, Side 30

Jökull - 01.01.2001, Side 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
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150
Side 151
Side 152
Side 153

x

Jökull

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Jökull
https://timarit.is/publication/1155

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.