BriciuAndrei Diurnalsemidiurnalandfortnightlytidalcomponentsinorthotidalproglacialrivers

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323344118
Diurnal, semidiurnal, and fortnightly tidal

components in orthotidal proglacial rivers
Article in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · March 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10661-018-6513-x
CITATIONS READS
0 18
1 author:
Andrei-Emil Briciu
Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava
24 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Field Studies In Orthotidal Potamology, funded by UEFISCDI as project PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2900 View

project
All content following this page was uploaded by Andrei-Emil Briciu on 23 February 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Acknowledgement: This is a pre-print of an article published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. The
final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6513-x.
Briciu, Andrei-Emil (2018). Diurnal, semidiurnal, and fortnightly tidal components in orthotidal proglacial rivers.
Environ Monit Assess, 190:160.
Diurnal, semidiurnal, and fortnightly tidal components in

orthotidal proglacial rivers
Andrei-Emil Briciu
Department of Geography, Ștefan cel Mare University (13 Universităţii Street, 720229 Suceava, Romania)
e-mail - andreibriciu@atlas.usv.ro
Abstract The orthotidal rivers are a new concept referring to inland rivers influenced by gravitational tides
through the groundwater tides. “Orthotidal signals” is intended to describe tidal signals found in inland
streamwaters (with no oceanic input); these tidal signals were locally generated and then exported into
streamwaters. Here we show that orthotidal signals can be found in proglacial rivers due to the
gravitational tides affecting the glaciers and their surrounding areas. The gravitational tides act on glacier
through earth and atmospheric tides, while the subglacial water is affected in a manner similar to the
groundwater tides. We used the wavelet analysis in order to find tidally affected streamwaters. T_TIDE
analyses were performed for discovering the tidal constituents. Tidal components with 0.95 confidence
level are: O1, PI1, P1, S1, K1, PSI1, M2, T2, S2, K2 and MSf. The amplitude of the diurnal tidal constituents
is strongly influenced by the daily thermal cycle. The average amplitude of the semidiurnal tidal
constituents is less altered and ranges from 0.0007 m to 0.0969 m. The lunisolar synodic fortnightly
oscillation, found in the time series of the studied river gauges, is a useful signal for detecting orthotidal
rivers when using noisier data. The knowledge of the orthotidal oscillations is useful for modelling fine
resolution changes in rivers.
Keywords Potamology, Wavelet analysis, Glacier meltwater, Orthotides
Introduction
The changing relative positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun (caused by celestial dynamics) create periodic
fluctuations in gravity (gravitational tides) on Earth’s surface which translates in periodic compression and
decompression of the terrestrial crust in a process termed earth tide (Melchior 1983). The compressible
aquifers react to the gravitational changes and create oscillations in groundwater level; the groundwater
tide is a phenomenon studied for a long time (Robinson 1939; Wesseling 1959; Bredehoeft 1967; Acworth
and Brain 2008) and used in determining properties of the studied aquifer and groundwater (Bower 1983).
Until approximately 15 years ago, the tidal influence on inland rivers was only theoretically stated
(Kümpel 1989; Camuffo 2001). Afterwards, Kulessa et al. (2003) discovered lunar diurnal (K1, with a period
of ~23.9 hours) and solar semidiurnal (S2, 12 h) tidal components/frequencies in the oscillation of the
water drainage time series of subglacial sediments beneath an alpine glacier, at high altitude in the Swiss
Alps. These tidal components exist because the meltwater is forced by earth and atmospheric tides.
The atmospheric tides are another consequence of the gravitational tides and are caused mainly
by Sun (Chapman and Lindzen 1970; Hagan et al. 2003). The influence of atmospheric tides on
1
groundwater fluctuations is intensely studied (Rojstaczer and Riley 1990) and atmospheric loading is often
substracted from groundwater level time series for filtering/denoising data (Gribovszki et al. 2013).
In 2012, the O1 (another lunar diurnal tidal constituent with a period of ~25.8 h), S1 (solar diurnal,
24 h), M2 (principal lunar semidiurnal, ~12.4 h) and S2 (principal solar semidiurnal, 12 h) tidal cycles were
found in the radon-222 variations in an alpine subglacial laboratory (Richon et al. 2012), proving again
that tidal effects can be detected under ice bodies. According to the authors, the O1 and M2 radon waves
in the air result from the mechanical forcing of the ice induced by an earth tide modulated basal motion
of the glacier. These tidal components were not previously discovered because of their very small
amplitude when compared to the solar waves (S1, S2).
Briciu (2014) showed that the water level semidiurnal oscillations in non-tidal inland rivers are
strongly correlated with the lunar tides. These semidiurnal periodicities are generated by the tidally
affected groundwaters. The main tidal components at inland groundwater piezometers are K1 and M2,
representing the tidal influence of the Moon, according to the scientific literature (Merritt 2004). When
the tidal signal is transferred from groundwater into river, the river becomes orthotidal (‘orthotidal’ is a
term used in order to distinguish this phenomenon from that of the tidal rivers (Briciu 2014)). Jasonsmith
et al. (2017) found orthotides in the salinity fluctuations of an Australian inland river caused by saline
groundwater discharge influenced by earth tides.
The tidal influence of the Moon on inland rivers was also found at a monthly scale in 2010 by
Cerveny et al. (2010). According to these authors, this influence is due to the lunar tidal signal in rainfalls,
as observed by these authors for 23.6% of river gauges with 30 years of data in the conterminous United
States.
Because the study of lunar and solar tidal influence on inland rivers requires high precision
measurements (millimetric water level variations) done regularly at high temporal resolution (hourly or
higher frequency) and for a long time (one year or longer, for statistical relevance), the results in this
scientific domain are only recent, mainly due to technical limitations. Previously, numerous scientific
papers were written concerning the diurnal profile of inland rivers, but only the daily peak was found as
a significant natural periodicity (caused by the daily cycle of solar radiation and air temperature)(Merritt
2004; Gribovszki et al. 2010); other signals were classified as noise, unphased peaks or transient
oscillations (Peters et al. 2003).
The hypothesis to be tested in this article is that the Moon and Sun tidally affect the water level
of inland proglacial rivers (rivers flowing from the margins of glaciers and fed by them). We wish to
continue the research initiated by Kulessa et al. (2003) for tidal signals in glacier meltwater and to extend
the research area. The tidal influence on inland rivers should be detected as periodic signals of lunar and
solar origin in the analyzed time series. This type of study may add useful information for studies analyzing
the glaciers melting (Kulessa et al. 2003) and will contribute to modelling fine resolution changes in rivers
(where orthotidal signals may be eliminated in the data refining/denoising process or may be taken into
account for better explaining research results).
Materials and methods
Study area
High temporal resolution measurements of the proglacial rivers discharge or water level are quite scarce.
In order to work with streamflow values exhibiting clear tidal signals, we have searched for river gauges
placed near headwaters/ablation areas (which drain the glacial outwash systems). We searched for
2
proglacial river gauges placed at altitudes higher than 25 m a.s.l. in order to avoid the influence of the
oceanic tidal input (25 m is above the maximum cumulative height of the recorded highest high oceanic
tide and sea seiche). It was also necessary to search for rivers with a weak or insignificant human alteration
of the natural flow (no active dam or diversion). 42 river gauges fulfilling all these requirements were
selected from U.S.A., Canada, Greenland, Norway and New Zealand (Table 1).
Table 1 River gauges of the studied inland proglacial rivers

No Code, name and location Time interval
U.S.A.
1 USGS 15008000 Salmon Rv. nr Hyder, AK 2009-2014
2 USGS 15009000 Soule Rv. nr Hyder, AK 2007-2014
3 USGS 15052000 Lemon Cr. nr Juneau, AK 2007-2014
4 USGS 15052500 Mendenhall Rv. nr Auke Bay, AK 2007-2011
5 USGS 15055500 Antler Rv. bl Antler Lk nr Auke Bay, AK 2007-2014
6 USGS 15056210 Taiya Rv. nr Skagway, AK 2007-2014
7 USGS 15056500 Chilkat Rv. nr Klukwan, AK 2013-2014
8 USGS 15129120 Alsek Rv. at Dry Bay nr Yakutat, AK 2011-2014
9 USGS 15214000 Copper Rv. at Million Dollar Bridge nr Cordova, AK 2009-2014
10 USGS 15215900 Glacier Rv. trib. nr Cordova, AK 2013-2014
11 USGS 15236900 Wolverine Cr. nr Lawing, AK 2007-2014
12 USGS 15243900 Snow Rv. nr Seward, AK 2007-2014
13 USGS 15266110 Kenai Rv. bl Skilak Lk outlet nr Sterling, AK 2007-2014
14 USGS 15281000 Knik Rv. nr Palmer, AK 2007-2013
15 USGS 15291000 Susitna Rv. nr Denali, AK 2012-2014
16 USGS 15292400 Chulitna Rv. nr Talkeetna, AK 2012-2014
17 USGS 15292700 Talkeetna Rv. nr Talkeetna, AK 2007-2014
18 USGS 15478040 Phelan Cr. nr Paxson, AK 2007-2014
Canada
19 08AB001 Alsek Rv. above Bates Rv., YT 1995-2010
20 09CB001 White Rv. at Km 1881.6 Alaska Highway, YT 1995-2010
21 08CE001 Stikine Rv. at Telegraph Cr., BC 1997-2013
22 08CG001 Iskut Rv. bl Johnson Rv., BC 1997-2013
23 08DA005 Surprise Cr. near the mouth, BC 1997-2013
24 08GE003 Icy Cr. nr the mouth, BC 1998-2013
25 08GF009 Kingcome Rv. bl Atlatzi Rv. BC 2012-2014
26 08GF008 Kingcome Rv. above Atlatzi Rv. BC 2006-2010
27 08ME023 Bridge Rv. (south branch) bl Bridge Glacier, BC 1996-2013
28 08GA071 Elaho Rv. nr the mouth, BC 1995-2013
29 08MG005 Lillooet Rv. nr Pemberton, BC 1997-2013
30 08FE003 Kemano Rv above Powerhouse Tailrace, BC 1997-2013
31 06SB001 Isortoq Rv. at outlet of Isortoq Lk, NU 2006-2014
Greenland
32 AK2 Akuliarusiarsuup Kuua Rv. northern trib., SW Greenland 2008-2010
New Zealand
36 Haast Rv. at Roaring Billy 2, WC 2014
37 Hokitika Rv. at Gorge, WC 2013-2014
38 Waiho Rv. at State Highway, WC 2013-2014
39 Whataroa Rv. at State Highway, WC 2013-2014
Norway
40 76.5b Nigardsbrevatn, Sogn og Fjordane 1998-2014
41 78.8 Bøyumselv, Sogn og Fjordane 1994-2014
42 159.12 Engabreelv, Nordland 2012-2014
All stations are located in undeveloped areas or within/near natural parks or reserves and,
therefore, the human impact is negligible. The chosen proglacial rivers cover a wide variety of meltwater
sources: ice sheet (Greenland Ice Sheet), ice capes (Barnes Ice Cape (Canada), Svartisen Ice Cap (Norway)),
3
ice field (Ha-Iltzuc Icefield (Canada)) and mountain glaciers (Engabreen and Jostedalsbreen glaciers
(Norway); Gulkana, Wolverine and Chilkat glaciers (USA); Mt. Pattullo glaciers (Canada); West Coast
glaciers (New Zealand)). The 42 preliminary gauges can be found near the lower end of the ice bodies, at
distances of 30 km or less from them; these distances should theoretically prevent the orthotidal signal
loss caused by natural oscillations which are not originated in the ablation area or have broader
manifestation (such as the day-night cycle).
Data
The river data was provided by: USGS, Environment Canada, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy
Directorate (NVE), National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)(for New Zealand) and
Rennermalm et al. (2011)(for Greenland)). The temporal resolution of the water level/discharge
measurements available at the selected gauges ranges from hourly data to 5 minute data.
When selecting the river time series, water level data (where available) were preferred over
discharge data because of the reasons explained by Briciu (2014) when analyzing centimetric or millimetric
oscillations (the discharge values are often rounded and the rounding erases the fluctuations that we seek
to analyze; the discharge formula takes into consideration river sections which are very dynamic).
No groundwater data is available in the river gauges area for verifying the relationship between
the tidal constituents from groundwater and streamflows (the subarctic and mountainous areas do not
have a proper monitoring network yet for the natural areas). In order to verify if there is a correlation
between the gravitational tides and the oscillations in river time series, we used gravity data. Gravity data
was obtained from ICET (International Centre for Earth Tides). The parameters of the synthetic gravity
tide at the studied river gauges were obtained from the bilinearly interpolated gravity data (depending
on latitude, longitude and elevation) by using the WPARICET software (ICET,
http://www.upf.pf/ICET/soft/index.html) and the NAO99 model (non-hydrostatic/inelastic Earth (Dehant
et al. 1999); used by ICET). The temporal evolution of the synthetic tides at each river gauge was computed
by using the ETERNA3.4 software (ICET, http://www.upf.pf/ICET/soft/index.html).
Also, an analysis implying raw level/discharge data and atmospheric pressure data was performed
in order to verify if there is a meteorological forcing of the tidal constituents in river through the
atmospheric tides. The atmospheric pressure data was obtained from the ASOS network (automated
airport weather observations; http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/download.phtml). The chosen
atmospheric pressure measuring points were the closest to the selected river gauges at the time required
for analysis.
Methods
The water time series were analyzed as shown in Fig. 1. Thus, a simple plot analysis was the first step in
order to detect river data with diurnal and semidiurnal oscillations (double-peaked daily evolution or
similar, when a second peak is rather an inflexion of the diurnal peak). The next step was verifying, by
using the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) analysis, if these oscillations have indeed frequencies of
approximately 24 and, respectively, 12 h (therefore, the wavelet analysis was an additional confirmation
tool, with statistical relevance included). Time series that passed these two consecutive verification
methods (meaning time series with statistically significant diurnal and semidiurnal oscillations) were
completed with archive data (provided by national agencies upon request, where available; the archive
4
data was not included in the preliminary analyses because it usually represents only discharge data) and
the verification process was reloaded (longer time series are useful for statistical significance of the
analyses results and for finding relevant time intervals for examples). The new water discharge/level data
was selected only for years having regular sampling because the older years at the selected stations do
not have regular sampling. The previous types of analysis (simple plots, scalograms and periodograms)
were repeated for the new (longer) time series.
Fig. 1 Flowchart of the steps used in selecting and analysing river data. All graphics were obtained in the
described process
For the wavelet analysis previously described, data denoising was necessary in order to filter out
high frequency oscillations (</= 6 hours period). Modified gauge height and discharge data resulted and
were obtained in two steps. The first step: a square root is calculated from the sum of the simple derivative
of the raw data and the modulus of the simple derivative minimum; the simple derivative (difference
between each two neighbor values in the time series) is an efficient way to enhance secondary signals,
being already successfully used for the orthotidal ones (Briciu 2014); the square root of the mentioned
sum is meant to enhance the secondary signals over the surrounding noise. The simple derivative data is
composed of positive and negative values which generate an always positive square root. The process of
extracting the square root transforms the valleys in time series (negative values) into peaks and the real
signal is therefore faked with oscillations having half the wavelength of the true signal. This effect can be
avoided by applying the square root only to the entirely positive time series. The modulus of the simple
derivative minimum was used because it is the smallest value necessary to transform all the values of the
simple derivative data into positive values by adding it to each value. The second step: the moving
standard deviation for each day is obtained and an average daily (24 h) standard deviation is obtained; if
the daily standard deviation in a 24 h analysis window is higher than the average standard deviation for
the entire time series of the studied river gauge, data is replaced by a LOWESS (‘locally weighted scatter
plot smooth’) smoothed version calculated for each 6 h (in order to eliminate extreme values); then, the
entire time series are smoothed by using the LOWESS method with a span representing ¼ of a day).
LOWESS is a nonparametric local regression which uses weighted linear least squares and a 1 st degree
polynomial model.
5
We used the wavelet transform as a tool for selecting the final river gauges because this type of
analysis is often used for analyzing streamwater time series (Labat 2005) and it is described as a
microscope of signals (Sang et al. 2009). The wavelet analyses used the Morlet wavelet as mother-wavelet
because it is a non-orthogonal wavelet which, when compared to orthogonal wavelet, offers a better
balance between frequency and time localizations and is adequate for data with non-stationary processes
(Torrence and Compo 1998). The thick black contours on scalograms represent the 0.95 confidence level
against AR1 red noise (found in river data). The confidence level detection was based on the Monte Carlo
test, according to the methodology of Grinsted et al. (2004). The edges of scalograms are affected by edge
effects which create a cone of influence that separates the altered results (lighter shade) from the
unaltered ones (filled colors). Some scalograms and all periodograms in this study are the result of the
CWT analysis. CWT means here a rectified version (WTREC) of the classical CWT analysis for MATLAB which
was applied according to the method described by Ng and Chan (2012). The rectified version was
preferred because it corrects the power loss at higher frequencies and therefore enhances the analysis of
the semidiurnal and diurnal bandwidths. The time series with semidiurnal signal having 0.95 confidence
level against red noise in the CWT scalograms of the modified data were subsequently analyzed by using
GWS (Global Wavelet Spectrum) periodograms. GWS was calculated by using the methodology described
by Labat (2010). The diurnal signals were not selected as a criterion because, for inland rivers, their
significance level is always better than that of the semidiurnal signals (Briciu 2014) because of the solar
thermal diel cycle.
We used case study time series extracted from the full-length time series in order to obtain better
ratio between the studied signals and the surrounding noises for our analyses. Therefore, these case
studies, which are just subsets of the time series, were manually selected by using the areas on full-length
time series CWT scalograms with 0.95 confidence level against red noise and with the highest values of
the power spectrum in the semidiurnal bandwidth. The standard length of the selected case study analysis
windows was established to 15 days in order to completely include the length of a fortnightly evolution
(14.76 days, with the full tidal constituents’ evolution from neap tides to spring tides).
For the case study time series, in the process of denoising the raw data, we preferred to replace
the LOWESS smoothing method with LOESS (which is similar, but uses a 2nd degree polynomial model) in
order to obtain a better smoothing of the shorter time series. The wavelet analyses were repeated for
these new, shorter data (resulting scalograms and periodograms). The river gauges data with 0.95 or
greater confidence levels of the semidiurnal signal in the GWS periodograms (of full-length and/or case
study time series) were considered as possibly having semidiurnal tidal signal and were marked as valid
for continuing the analysis.
By using the case study time series, other scalograms were obtained by using wavelet coherence
(WTC) analyses according to the methodology of Torrence and Compo (1998) and Grinsted et al. (2004).
The wavelet coherence is used for assessing the non-linear relationship between the water data and air
pressure or gravity data. The WTC scalograms include phase arrows that indicate the phase relationship
between two time series (pointing right means an in-phase relationship; pointing left means anti-phase;
pointing down means that series 1 leads series 2 by 90°)(Grinsted et al. 2004). The WTC analyses were
performed only on the case study time series in order to use only temporal sequences with fewer noises.
The raw data were preferred because of the better results over the modified data. The WTC scalograms
are useful for finding temporal areas when the selected time series co-vary (at high power or not) in the
diurnal and semidiurnal bandwidths.
After the aforementioned steps, the exact tidal components and their confidence level on full-
length and case study time series were obtained by using the T_TIDE package (Pawlowicz et al. 2002) with
MATLAB software. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the continuous wavelet transform is
6
unable to exactly determine both the frequency and time of a given event. Compared to the wavelet
analysis, T_TIDE is specially designed to detect known tidal constituents. T_TIDE is useful because it not
only precisely classifies the detected signals into existing classes, but also calculates their amplitudes. The
T_TIDE method is not sensible to the signal enhancing techniques (like smoothing; therefore, we used
here the raw data) and reveals a list of signals having at least 0.95 confidence level in the analyzed time
series. Because the tidal prediction softwares are generally intended for earth or ocean tides time series,
the T_TIDE analysis used a wave group selection for computation which defined, for time series shorter
than 1 year, a broader band for K1, thus resulting in S1 frequencies being recognized as K1. In order to
separate S1 from K1 in our case studies (involving fortnightly time series), we inferred S1 from K1 by using
the K1 amplitude and phase.
Results and discussion
Five gauges of the analyzed proglacial rivers had relevant (0.95 confidence level) semidiurnal signal at the
GWS analysis (Table 2, Fig. 2) and our analysis is further focused on them. The distance between these
river gauges and the closest ice body ranges from 1 to 10 km (with the exception of the gauge on Chilkat
River – 30 km). The longest time series comprises 25 years of measurements (Phelan River at Paxson).
Even if the selected river gauges have maritime climate – excepting Gulkana, with a continental climate –
their latitudinal coordinates are different enough to impose diversity in air temperature and precipitation.
According to the Köppen-Trewartha climate classification, Wolverine, Phelan and Chilkat rivers have
boreal climate, while Surprise and Icy have temperate oceanic climate.
Table 2 The remaining river gauges for in-depth analyses

No. Code and name Time interval Coordinates a.s.l. Ice body
(WGS84 (m) providing
datum) flow
USA
1 USGS 15056500 Chilkat Rv. nr Feb. 2013- 59°24′55″N, 30 Chilkat
Klukwan, AK Jul. 2014 135°55′45″W Glacier and
smaller
neighbour
glaciers
2 USGS 15236900 Wolverine Cr. nr May 1997- 60°22′14″N, 366 Wolverine

Lawing, AK Jul. 2014 148°53′48″W Glacier
3 USGS 15478040 Phelan Cr. nr Aug. 1990- 63°14′27″N, 1125 Gulkana

Paxson, AK Jul. 2014 145°28′03″W Glacier
Canada
4 08DA005 Surprise Cr. near the Apr. 1997- 56°06′33″N, 284 Mt. Pattullo
mouth, BC Dec. 2013 129°28′38″W glaciers
5 08GE003 Icy Cr. nr the mouth, BC Feb. 1998- 51°08′41″N, 25 Ha-Iltzuk

Dec. 2013 125°35′39″W Icefield
7
Fig. 2 Geographic position of the final river gauges. The river gauges described in Table 1 (map made with
ArcGIS 9.3.1 software and public domain data from Natural Earth - http://www.naturalearthdata.com/).
CWT scalograms of the selected full-length time series indicate strong diurnal and semidiurnal
signals during the warm season (March-October) of the year and weak or no signals during the cold season
(Fig. 3.a; Supplementary Figs. 1-4.a) This behavior is caused by the presence/absence of water from the
melted ice. During the coldest months, the small volumes of meltwater will flow under gravitational
drainage through free cavities, rather than under ice and rock pressure, and the tidal signal in proglacial
rivers is insignificant. At the opposite side, the maximum meltdown months will generate
overflows/outbursts clearly dominated by the solar diurnal (thermal) signal. The temporal distribution of
the case studies (chosen for having an optimal signal/noise ratio) clearly indicate that the most relevant
periods containing diurnal and semidiurnal lunar and solar signals can usually be found at the beginning
and the end of the glacier melting season (March-April, August-September, with variations depending on
the monthly air temperature and precipitation)(Fig. 3.d,e; Supplementary Figs. 1-4.d,e).
8
Fig. 3 Signal detection analyses for Phelan Cr. nr Paxson. (a) CWT scalogram of the modified full-length
data; (b) GWS periodogram of the modified full-length time series; (c) T_TIDE results of the raw full-length
data (by using a 10th order polynomial we obtained a regression equation based on gauge height and
discharge values recorded in the entire available time interval (June 8th, 2008 – March 20th, 2015) that
allowed us to transform the T_TIDE discharge values into level values: (m3/s  m) 0.0456  0.0022,
0.3646  0.0033); (d) simple plot of the raw and modified (diff.) case study river data; (e) CWT scalogram
of the modified case study data; (f) GWS periodogram of the modified case study time series; (g) T_TIDE
results of the raw case study data.
9
The results of the wavelet and T_TIDE analyses for each station (Fig. 3.b,c; Supplementary Figs. 1-
4.b,c) indicate the existence of numerous tidal constituents included in the diurnal and semidiurnal
classes. On scalograms, significant (0.95 confidence level) diurnal and semidiurnal signals can be observed
as high-power (red) areas delineated by black contours and found around the 1 and 0.5 days periodicities
bandwidths. The plots of the T_TIDE analysis indicate the significant (0.95 confidence level) tidal
components from lower frequencies (the left side of the horizontal axis) to higher frequencies. The diurnal
tidal constituents found in river data are: O1, PI1, P1, S1, K1, PSI1; the semidiurnal constituents are: M2,
T2, S2, K2 (Table 3). The average amplitude of the diurnal signals ranges between 0.0018 m and 0.3646 m
(influenced by the diurnal thermal cycle), while the average amplitude of the semidiurnal signals ranges
between 0.0007 m and 0.0969 m.
Table 3 Details of the tidal constituents found by using T_TIDE analysis

Species Name Frequency (hours)
Principal lunar declinational diurnal O1 25.819
Lunisolar diurnal PI1 24.132
Principal solar declinational diurnal P1 24.065
Solar diurnal S1 24
Lunisolar declinational diurnal K1 23.934
Lunisolar diurnal PSI1 23.869
Principal lunar semidiurnal M2 12.42
Larger solar elliptic T2 12.016
Principal solar semidiurnal S2 12
Lunisolar semidiurnal K2 11.967
The mean amplitude of the tidal components revealed by the T_TIDE analysis is greater for case
studies than for the entire period (one exception: Phelan, due to average diurnal variations higher than
during the case study): 2.6-7.7 times higher for diurnal signals and 13-20.1 times higher for semidiurnal
signals (outliers: 17.5 times higher for diurnal signals (Icy), 9.8 times higher for semidiurnal signals
(Wolverine))(Fig. 3.g; Supplementary Figs. 1-4.g). It is interesting to observe the unequal increase in
amplitude depending on frequency. It seems that, outside the window analysis of the case studies, the
low frequency signals (such as the diurnal signals) and the noise have a shadowing effect over the higher
frequency (semidiurnal) signals. For example, if 2 theoretical tidal signals, S1 and M2, having equal
amplitudes, are mixed together, a hybrid signal will result (Fig. 4) having equal amplitudes of the
composing signals detected in future analysis (T_TIDE); but, if noises are added, they will firstly alter/erase
the semidiurnal signal. If the initial S1 has amplitudes 2 or 3 times greater than M2, M2 will fade in the
hybrid signal to a level low enough to be easily (partly or totally) erased by various noises. Moreover, a
simple plot of these hybrid signals will draw a succession of daily peaks occurring at almost fixed hours
and, apparently, without any lunar signal (migratory peaks, occurring at different hours).
We supposed that the shadowing effect also applies to the S2 - M2 relationship because S2 has
twice the frequency of S1 and will gain energy from this much stronger solar diurnal signal. We also
supposed that the frequency difference between S2 and M2 is not significant in order to contribute to the
shadowing effect. A demonstration of this hypothesis was possible for Phelan Creek at Paxson gauge
because its time series allowed for a simple removal of the diurnal peaks from water data (Fig. 5). After
smoothing the difference between the original time series and the diurnal Hermite interpolation of the
smoothed time series, the M2/S2 amplitude ratio indicate closer M2 and S2 values, being equal to 0.42
(the previous value, with diurnal peaks included, was 0.2). Due to the computation method, we could
10
calculate only ratios, not absolute amplitudes. However, even if T_TIDE indicate as relevant (at least 0.95
confidence level) only the semidiurnal signals (Fig. 5.g), the GWS periodogram of the modified time series
shows that significant diurnal signals were not fully deleted (Fig. 5.f). Because the diurnal signals were not
fully erased, the real M2/S2 amplitude ratio is probably higher.
Fig. 4 Examples of theoretical tidal signals. (a) S1; (b) M2; (c) (S1+M2)/2; (d) (2*S1+M2)/3; (e)
(3*S1+M2)/4.
The disadvantage of the 15 days window analysis is that some signals will include power from tidal
constituents that cannot be separated in only 15 days of data: M2 has energy from N2, K1 from P1 (Parker
2007) etc. The real power/amplitude of the detected diurnal and semidiurnal signals is most probably the
dominant contributor to the measured amplitude, but cannot be exactly measured because of the
increased effect of the red noise in the analysis windows longer than the 15-days one.
When the apparent amplitude of the tidal constituents is considered, the solar tides are the
dominant signals, especially when comparing the semidiurnal constituents. According to Hsieh et al.
(1987), in groundwater, K1 has the same harmonic number as S1, meaning that it represents the combined
effects of barometric and tidal loading. Therefore, it is not a good indicator of lunar influence. The
apparent, measurable amplitude represents only an indicative number, not an accurate representation of
the tidal influences because of the altering factors (such as the shadowing effect or other natural causes).
11
S1, S2, K1, K2 and M2 are the most important tidal parameters when considering their occurrence in both
full-length time series and case studies (Fig. 6).
Fig. 5 Steps in detecting stronger M2 signal in Phelan Creek stream level data. (a) raw data; (b) Hermite
interpolation of the LOESS smoothing (with a span of half a day) applied to the raw data; (c) data values
obtained at step (b) are uniformly diminished in order to avoid intersection with the raw time series; (d)
the difference between the two time series from step (c) is calculated; (e) data from (d) is smoothed with
the LOESS method and a span of ¼ of a day; (f) GWS periodogram of the final data; (g) results of the T_TIDE
analysis of the final data.
12
Fig. 6 Percentages of the diurnal and semidiurnal signals found by using T_TIDE. (a) percentages in the
full-length time series; (b) percentages in the case study time series; (c) percentages in all time series.
By analyzing the strong solar influences detected in the proglacial rivers, one can assume that S1
is not a purely tidal signal because of its frequency which is equal to the diurnal thermal one (which creates
water level variation too). Chilkat, Phelan and Surprise rivers have the diurnal minimum exactly or almost
exactly (~+/-1 hour) at noon, followed by the diel maximum in the afternoon caused by the increased flux
of meltwater when the air temperature is highest. The temporal distribution of the minimum may be a
coincidence or the effect of the groundwater level dropping at noon in an expanding unconfined aquifer
(with output into the studied rivers) caused by the solar tide. Icy and Wolverine rivers have the daily
minimum 4 to 6 hours before noon. According to Yusa (1969) and Weeks (1979), the water table in
unconfined aquifers may respond to atmospheric loading due to unsaturated zone effects, while
Bredehoeft (1967) states that the same water table may be insensitive to earth tides due to the thin
aquifer. The unconfined aquifer does not need to be unrealistically thick in order to be sensitive to the
atmospheric tides (Rojstaczer and Riley 1990). Therefore, we suggest that the solar tides found in the
proglacial rivers could be the consequence of the atmospheric tides in unconfined aquifers, especially the
S2 signal, which is less altered than S1 by the diurnal thermal cycle.
On the other side, according to Kümpel (1997), the presence of the tidal constituents O1 and M2
in groundwater is indicator of aquifer confinement. O1 and M2 are found together in the case study time
series of Phelan River and separately in the case study time series of Wolverine (O1), Icy and Surprise (M2)
rivers. A research paper of Weaver (2003) showed that the sub-permafrost groundwater is 100% tidally
efficient (the studied sub-permafrost aquifer lies under 100 m thick permafrost in Alaska and indicates
solar and lunar tidal influences). Our study areas have mountain permafrost which may partly explain the
finding of the tidal constituents O1 and M2 in proglacial waters. The mountain permafrost or the glacier
itself may act as confining layer. Cold-based glaciers can rest on permafrost and, together, determine
subglacial sediment deformations (Waller et al. 2012) as result of the gravitational tides and, therefore,
modify the subglacial water drainage.
The WTC analysis indicates slightly greater coherence areas between gravity and streamflow than
between atmospheric pressure data and stream data (Fig. 7, Supplementary Figs. 5-8). The greater
coherence is indicated by the broader semidiurnal and diurnal bandwidth with high power and by the
longer and more continuous time intervals of the high power areas. But, when the phasing between the
compared signals is taken into account, one can observe that there is a much greater phase persistence
established between the atmospheric pressure and some signals in rivers (diurnal signals: Icy, Phelan and
Surprise rivers; semidiurnal signals: Chilkat River). A phase-locked relationship between river signals and
gravity signals can be found in Wolverine River for the diurnal tidal constituents
Gravity does not directly act on the measured rivers flow, but acts indirectly through groundwater
and atmospheric tides (see Fig. 8.a for the generic mechanism, which is also available for rivers without
13
glacial input). This explains why gravity generates greater significant coherence areas in the WTC
scalograms than the atmospheric pressure. The atmospheric pressure has a more constant phasing than
gravity because it acts almost directly on the river discharges. The tides in proglacial rivers caused by the
atmospheric tides appear because the atmospheric tides act on rocks and ice placed above the meltwater.
The effect of the atmospheric tides is not to be neglected even on small surfaces, as it is proven to trigger
landslide movement (Schulz et al. 2009). Some tidal signals in proglacial rivers are a first order effect of
groundwater tides, which are the effect of the earth tides and a secondary effect of the gravitational tides.
Therefore, the orthotidal waves caused by groundwater tides are a tertiary effect of the gravitational
waves (Fig. 8.b). The way the earth tide is influencing the subglacial groundwater seems to be not (only)
the expected one (groundwater level increase/decrease due to the compression/decompression of the
aquifer). According to Kulessa et al. (2003), the expanding glacier bedrock caused by the earth tides drives
water from the glacier body into subglacial sediments. The authors state that this mechanism has the
potential to affect the strength of the sediments and the glacier drainage and motion. The glacier velocity
increases with the increasing volume of englacial and subglacial water (Bartholomaus et al. 2008) and the
gravitational tides may repeatedly create increased water levels. The oceanic tides are already known to
affect the basal motion of the glaciers in coastal areas (Walters and Dunlap 1987). All these effects may
be available for the glaciers in this study. This supposition is strengthened by the finding of Harper et al.
(2010) who discovered that there is a much greater subglacial water volume due to the vertical extension
of basal crevasses. For cold-based glaciers, the basal sliding is more active than previously thought, at
temperatures below the pressure melting point, because of the basal water (Waller et al. 2012).
Fig. 7 Comparative signal analysis for Icy Cr. nr. the mouth (24th August – 7th September 2006): (a) gravity
data; (b) atmospheric data (from Bella Coola airport – CYBD); (1) simple plot of raw data (and simple
derivative data for the atmospheric pressure (diff.)); (2) WTC scalogram of river data and
gravity/atmospheric data
The processes depicted in Fig. 8.b represent hypothetic mechanisms proposed to explain the
observed diurnal and semidiurnal oscillations in proglacial streamwaters. These processes may act
together or some of them may not happen at all, depending especially on glacier and site characteristics.
14
Depending on the various processes that act on proglacial streamwater level/discharge, the recorded
signals will be more or less complex. Thus, it must be specified that only in one case they clearly originate
from a single glacier (Wolverine – Supplementary Fig. 9). In the other cases, it is probable that multiple
ice fields participate in the production of orthotidal signals. Because the chances are to have time lags
between the arrivals of the tidal signals from various sources into rivers, the production of the orthotidal
signals is more complex than theoretically presented in Fig. 8.b. Moreover, above the selected gauges,
some rivers (Chilkat and Surprise) receive tributaries which are not originated from glacier melting and
with discharges probably shaped only by the thermal diurnal maximum. The receiving of these tributaries
increases the difficulty of detecting tidal constituents.
Fig. 8 Flowchart describing the domino effect of the gravitational tides. The domino effect of the
gravitational tides on rivers without glacial input (a) and the general mechanism proposed to explain the
creation of orthotides in proglacial streamwaters (b).
As seen in Fig. 4.e, even if the semidiurnal signal of a time series is hard to detect and a only a
solar diurnal cycle (which may be or not of tidal origin) seems to persist, the tidal behavior of the measured
parameter is indicated by the new, large sine wave that spans for the entire 15 days time interval (and
includes the diurnal cycle as sub-oscillations). This new cycle is detected by T_TIDE analysis and is termed
15
MSf signal (lunisolar synodic fortnightly; 14.76 days period). The presence of MSf in the time series of the
analyzed proglacial streams, if present, could be an independent proof of the tidal origin of the diurnal
and semidiurnal oscillations.
Fig. 9 The average amplitude of the significant MSf signal. MSf signal in the analysis windows of the
selected gauges; K1 and S2 amplitudes given for comparison (default calculation method; no S1 inference)
– (a) Wolverine, (b) Phelan, (c) Surprise, (d) Icy.
For the Antarctic ice streams, the tidal signals can be propagated tens of km upstream from the
grounding line (Gudmundsson 2006) and affect ice stream velocity, which can vary by a factor of three
per day (Anandakrishnan et al. 2003) due to the oceanic tides beneath the ice shelves. The tidal signals
are not limited to diurnal and semidiurnal signals, but also include the fortnightly oscillation
(Gudmundsson 2006). The MSf component has stronger influence on ice flow velocity (up to 20% speed
variation (Gudmundsson 2011)) than the diurnal and semidiurnal components (3–5% for diurnal signals
and 4–12% for semidiurnal signals when MSf has 10-12% (Aðalgeirsdóttir et al. 2008)). However, the
vertical amplitude of MSf is not important when compared with the diurnal and semidiurnal vertical
amplitudes (Gudmundsson 2006; Gudmundsson 2011).
In order to find relevant MSf signal, we conducted T_TIDE analyses on simple (first) derivative
time series (better results for MSf) and expanded the length of the analysis windows from 15 days to at
least 2 lunisolar synodic cycles. Like the case studies, the new analysis windows/time intervals were
selected from areas on full-length time series CWT scalograms with 0.95 confidence level against red noise
and with the highest values of the power spectrum in the semidiurnal bandwidth. For the selected gauges,
we found time intervals with significant (0.95 confidence level) MSf signal in the T_TIDE analysis: 4
intervals (out of 9) for Wolverine, 6 intervals (out of 19) for Phelan, 4 intervals (out of 12) for Surprise and
16
4 intervals (out of 11) for Icy. The average length of the time intervals with significant MSf was: 2.91 MSf
for Wolverine, 2.68 MSf for Phelan, 2.95 MSf for Surprise and 3.79 MSf for Icy (for all streams: the longest
time interval was 5.08 MSf, while the shortest was 2.01 MSf). The temporal position and length of the
analysis windows was done manually (the chosen length of each time interval was set to be the maximum
available that indicate significant MSf – this signal is also sensible to noise and appears as not significant
on longer analysis windows). The amplitude of MSf is weaker than that of the diurnal and semidiurnal
signals (Fig. 9) and seems to be the equivalent of the vertical amplitude of MSf in Antarctic glaciers;
however, the comparison is rather formal due to the different nature of the analyzed MSf.
The diurnal and semidiurnal components found in Antarctic ice streams when MSf is present are
K1, O1, M2 and S2 (Gudmundsson 2006; Gudmundsson 2007; Aðalgeirsdóttir et al. 2008) - all the authors
used the T_TIDE analysis. A more comprehensive list is provided by Murray et al. (2007)(which includes
both the velocity response and the vertical amplitude): O1, P1, K1, M2, T2, S2, R2 and K2 (obtained by
using T_TIDE). With the exception of R2 (smaller solar elliptic tidal component), all components can be
found in our T_TIDE analysis results (Fig. 3, Supplementary Figs. 1-4).
We verified if significant MSf can be found for the entire time series of the selected river gauges
when using another calculation of the confidence limits in T_TIDE. The default calculation used by all cited
authors and in this study is based on bootstrapped confidence intervals obtained from an uncorrelated
bivariate colored-noise model (Pawlowicz et al. 2002). We have found MSf for the full-length time series
and in some of the annual time series of the Wolverine Creek by using another calculation based on
linearized error analysis that assumes an uncorrelated bivariate colored noise model (Pawlowicz et al.
2002)(Supplementary Fig. 10). While this calculation is supposed to be slightly less rigorous, it has the
advantage of eliminating the manually sized (and small) analysis windows by using classical windows
instead (annual scale or entire time series). This new calculation has positive results only for Wolverine
Creek which, probably not incidentally, had the best percentage (44.4%) of time intervals with significant
MSf when using the previous calculation method.
Conclusions
The tidal signals found in proglacial streamwaters indicate that the subglacial drainage of some inland
glaciers is influenced by orthotides. The mechanics of the orthotidal potamology explain the observed
oscillations.
The statistical significance of the observed diurnal and semidiurnal tidal signals found in this study
was tested by using three methods: the continuous wavelet analysis (CWT) of the full-length and case
study time series (testing against red noise), the wavelet coherence analysis (WTC) of the case study time
series (testing the similarity with signals in other real time series) and the T_TIDE analysis of the full-length
and case study time series (testing the presence of the known tidal components). Moreover, the 5 gauges
in Table 2 also have similar profiles of their tidal constituents (Fig. 3, Supplementary Figs. 1-4) even if they
have different geographic positions (Fig. 2) and elevations (Table 1).
The tidal constituents found in the analyzed streamflows are: O1, PI1, P1, S1, K1, PSI1, M2, T2, S2,
K2 and MSf. These signals are caused by earth, groundwater and atmospheric tides. Various T_TIDE
analyses indicated the high occurrence of MSf, which might be used as a tidal indicator in time series with
strong noises.
The explanation of the small oscillations in the gauge height/discharge of proglacial rivers will be
useful for obtaining high resolution forecasting hydrographs and for better understanding the factors that
17
regulate river discharge. More future analyses are necessary for better understanding the observed
phenomena.
Acknowledgements The methodology of this study was partly developed within the research project
entitled “Field studies in orthotidal potamology”. This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian
National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-
2014-4-2900.
The supplementary material can be found at:

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10661-018-6513-
x/MediaObjects/10661_2018_6513_MOESM1_ESM.doc
References
Acworth, R. I., & Brain, T. (2008). Calculation of barometric efficiency in shallow piezometers using water
levels, atmospheric and earth tide data. Hydrogeology Journal, 16, 1469–1481.
Aðalgeirsdóttir, G., Smith, A. M., Murray, T., King, M. A., Makinson, K., Nicholls, K. W., & Behar, A. E. (2008).
Tidal influence on Rutford Ice Stream, West Antarctica: observations of surface flow and basal
processes from closely spaced GPS and passive seismic stations. Journal of Glaciology, 54, 187.
Anandakrishnan, S., Voigt, D. E., & Alley, R. B. (2003). Ice stream D flow speed is strongly modulated by
the tide beneath the Ross Ice Shelf. Geophysical Research Letters, 30, 7, 1361.
Bartholomaus, T. C., Anderson, R. S., & Suzanne P. A. (2008). Response of glacier basal motion to transient
water storage. Nature Geoscience, 1, 33-37.
Bower, D. R. (1983). Bedrock fracture parameters from the interpretation of well tides. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 88, 5025–5035.
Bredehoeft, J. D. (1967). Response of well-aquifer systems to Earth tides. Journal of Geophysical Research,
72, 3075-3087.
Briciu, A.-E. (2014). Wavelet analysis of lunar semidiurnal tidal influence on selected inland rivers across
the globe. Scientific Reports, 4, 4193.
Camuffo, D. (2001). Lunar influence on climate. Earth Moon Planets, 85–86, 99–113.
Cerveny, R. S., Svoma, B. M., & Vose, R. S. (2010). Lunar tidal influence on inland river streamflow across
the conterminous United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L22406.
Chapman, S., & Lindzen, R. S. (1970). Atmospheric Tides. D. Reidel, Norwell, Mass.
Dehant, V., Defraigne, P., & Wahr J. (1999). Tides for a convective Earth. Journal of Geophysical Research,
104, B1.
Gribovszki, Z., Szilágyi, J., & Kalicz, P. (2010). Diurnal fluctuations in shallow groundwater levels and
streamflow rates and their interpretation – A review. Journal of Hydrology, 385, 371–383.
Gribovszki, Z., Kalicz, P., & Szilágyi, J. (2013). Does the accuracy of fine-scale water level measurements by
vented pressure transducers permit for diurnal evapotranspiration estimation? Journal of Hydrology,
488, 166–169.
Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., & Jevrejeva, S. (2004). Application of the cross wavelet transform and wavelet
coherence to geophysical time series. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 11, 561–566.
Gudmundsson, G. H. (2006). Fortnightly variations in the flow velocity of Rutford Ice Stream, West
Antarctica. Nature, 444, 1063-1064.
18
Gudmundsson, G. H. (2011). Ice-stream response to ocean tides and the form of the basal sliding law. The
Cryosphere, 5, 259–270.
Gudmundsson, G. H. (2007). Tides and the flow of Rutford Ice Stream, West Antarctica. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 112, F04007.
Hagan, M. E., Forbes, J. M., & Richmond, A. (2003). Atmospheric Tides. Encyclopedia of Atmospheric
Sciences, ed. J. R. Holton, Academic Press.
Harper, J. T., Bradford, J. H., Humphrey, N. F., & Meierbachtol, T. W. (2010). Vertical extension of the
subglacial drainage system into basal crevasses. Nature, 467, 579–582.
Hsieh, P. A., Bredehoeft, J. D., & Farr, J. M. (1987). Determination of aquifer transmissivity from earth tide
analysis. Water Resources Research, 23, 10.
Jasonsmith, J. F., Macdonald, B. C. T. & White, I. (2017). Earth-tide-induced fluctuations in the salinity of
an inland river, New South Wales, Australia: a short-term study. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 189(4), 188. doi: 10.1007/s10661-017-5880-z.
Kulessa, B., Hubbard, B., Brown, G. H., & Becker, J. (2003). Earth tide forcing of glacier drainage.
Geophysical Research Letters, 30(1), 1011.
Kümpel, H. J. (1989). Verformungen in der Umgebung von Brunnen. Habilitationsschrift für das Fach
Geophysik an der Mathematisch - Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts -
Universität Kiel, Deutschland.
Kümpel, H.-J. (1997). Tides in Water Saturated Rock. Tidal Phenomena, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences,
66, 277-291.
Labat, D. (2010). Cross wavelet analyses of annual continental freshwater discharge and selected climate
indices. Journal of Hydrology, 385, 269–278.
Labat, D. (2005). Recent advances in wavelet analyses: Part 1. A review of concepts. Journal of Hydrology,
314, 275–288.
Melchior, P. (1983). The Tides of the Planet Earth. 2nd edn. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Merritt, M. L. (2004). Estimating hydraulic properties of the Floridan aquifer system by analysis of earth-
tide, ocean-tide, and barometric effects, Collier and Hendry Counties, Florida. US Geological Survey
Water Resources, 03–4267, 1-70.
Murray, T., Smith, A. M., King, M. A., & Weedon, G. P. (2007). Ice flow modulated by tides at up to annual
periods at Rutford Ice Stream, West Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L18503.
Ng, E. K. W., & Chan, J. C. L. (2012). Geophysical applications of partial wavelet coherence and multiple
wavelet coherence. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 29, 1845–1853.
Parker, B. B. (2007). Tidal Analysis and Prediction. NOAA Special Publication NOS CO-OPS 3,
NOAA/NOS/Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, Silver Spring, MD.
Pawlowicz, R., Beardsley, B., & Lentz, S. (2002). Classical tidal harmonic analysis including error estimates
in MATLAB using T_TIDE. Computers and Geosciences, 28, 929-937.
Peters, N. E., Freer, J., & Aulenbach, B. T. (2003). Hydrological dynamics of the Panola Mountain research
watershed, Georgia. Ground Water, 41, 973–988.
Rennermalm, A. K., Smith, L. C., Chu, V. W., Forster, R. R., Box, J. E., & Hagedorn, B. (2011). Proglacial river
dataset from the Akuliarusiarsuup Kuua River northern tributary, Southwest Greenland, 2008-2010.
Earth System Science Data Discussions, 4, 71-97.
Richon, P., Moreau, L., Sabroux, J.-C., Pili, E., & Salaün, A. (2012). Evidence of both M2 and O1 Earth tide
waves in radon-222 air concentration measured in a subglacial laboratory. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 117, 1-9.
Robinson, T. W. (1939). Earth tides shown by fluctuations of water levels in wells in New Mexico and Iowa.
Transactions American Geophysical Union, 20, 656–666.
19
Rojstaczer, S., & Riley, F. S. (1990). Response of the water level in a well to earth tides and atmospheric
loading under unconfined conditions. Water Resources Research, 26, 8.
Sang, Y.-F., Wang, D., Wu, J.-C., Zhu, Q.-P., & Wang, L. (2009). The relation between ‘periods’ identification
and noises in hydrologic series data. Journal of Hydrology, 368, 165–177.
Schulz, W. H., Kean, J. W., & Wang, G. (2009). Landslide movement in southwest Colorado triggered by
atmospheric tides. Nature Geosciences, 2, 863–866.
Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. (1998). A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, 79, 61–78.
Waller, R. I., Murton, J. B., & Kristensen, L. (2012). Glacier–permafrost interactions: Processes, products
and glaciological implications. Sedimentary Geology, 255–256, 1-28.
Walters, R. A., & Dunlap, W. W. (1987). Analysis of time series of glacier speed: Columbia Glacier, Alaska.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 92, B9.
Weaver, J. (2003). Assessment of sub-permafrost groundwater conditions at the Red Dog Mine, Alaska.
Permafrost. Phillips, M. et al. (eds.), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.
Weeks, E. P. (1979). Barometric fluctuations in wells tapping deep unconfined aquifers. Water Resources
Research, 15, 1167-1176.
Wesseling, J. (1959). Transmission of tidal waves in elastic artesian basins. Netherlands Journal of
Agricultural Science, 7, 22–32.
Yusa, Y. (1969). The fluctuation of the level of the water table due to barometric change. Special
Contributions of the Geophysical Institute, Kyoto University, 9, 15-28.
20
View publication stats

BriciuAndrei Diurnalsemidiurnalandfortnightlytidalcomponentsinorthotidalproglacialrivers

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BriciuAndrei Diurnalsemidiurnalandfortnightlytidalcomponentsinorthotidalproglacialrivers

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See

Diurnal, semidiurnal, and fortnightly tidal

Article in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · March 2018

Field Studies In Orthotidal Potamology, funded by UEFISCDI as project PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2900 View

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Diurnal, semidiurnal, and fortnightly tidal components in

Keywords Potamology, Wavelet analysis, Glacier meltwater, Orthotides

Materials and methods

Table 1 River gauges of the studied inland proglacial rivers

Results and discussion

Table 2 The remaining river gauges for in-depth analyses

2 USGS 15236900 Wolverine Cr. nr May 1997- 60°22′14″N, 366 Wolverine

3 USGS 15478040 Phelan Cr. nr Aug. 1990- 63°14′27″N, 1125 Gulkana

5 08GE003 Icy Cr. nr the mouth, BC Feb. 1998- 51°08′41″N, 25 Ha-Iltzuk

Table 3 Details of the tidal constituents found by using T_TIDE analysis

The supplementary material can be found at:

View publication stats

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen