mshinwell
commented
4 years ago This looks great.
One initial comment regarding dye tracing, which is something I've wondered about in the past: Becka forwarded an email from Robert Seebacher in 2018 saying that we shouldn't go doing our own dye tracing (partially because of concerns around dyes lingering around for a very long time in the karst drainage network), but that a comprehensive tracing study was planned for "the next few years". Getting involved with that sounds like something we should be doing.
Another sump that wasn't mentioned is that at the bottom of Razordance (bottom of Steinbrückenhöhle 1623/204), which is also a very interesting spot.
I like the idea of scientific projects that require fairly elementary forms of data collection -- those that with all likelihood the average caver can do, but with a pretty high chance of getting useful data. For example, taking photos of features that could be done with phones (or without specialist camera kit, anyway), or measurements that could be collected as a matter of course whilst surveying. We could get a high parallelisation factor for such data collection, leaving the potential bottlenecks (e.g. time from people here who are geologists) until later, maybe even until after the expedition has finished.
PhilipSargent
wobrotson
It's been suggested that the expedition could try and have more of a scientific focus in the future. I would love this, but we need to be realistic. For many, going on expo is more of an 'adventure holiday' than a 'scientific field project', and we don't want to alienate people who aren't so excited about understanding caves scientifically. Therefore, we need to keep things as simple as possible and make sure there is a role for everyone that wants one.
This has the added benefit that it will be science 'on the cheap': many cave geology projects (or at least the high-profile ones) involve expensive lab procedures to analyse speleothems, dripwater or sediments. We really don't need to be doing this to achieve some good science. Additionally, our cave system is huge and difficult enough to get accurate survey data for without having to lug expensive, damageable gear around.
Our approach to cave science, therefore, should be: collect simple data cheaply and record it well, without letting it take precedence over having fun together exploring new cave.
1. What should our scientific objectives be?
Here are my suggestions of what would constitute a good set of scientific objectives for the expedition to investigate, lifted from what I wrote in the GPF application. Most of these are of a geological bent because that is my area of study. I'd be really interested in hearing from biologists etc about what we could do in SMK, so drop me a message/email if you have any ideas.
1.1 Surveying and recording new cave to the best of our ability
An obvious one but worth stating. If you don't collect good quality survey data then your chances of using it well are small.
A primary scientific objective that we already agreed upon for 2020 is to check surveying accuracy in parts of the system believed to be inaccurately surveyed in Balkon and Tunnocks and to address these errors. The potential to connect Fischgesicht and Happy Butterfly offers a good chance to check the survey error in these caves and address errors if necessary.
However, I must add that we really shouldn't get too bogged down in the details of surveying for the sake of surveying. People don't need to draw every single boulder in a passage or mark every single mud formation for a survey to be adequate. It's much better to have surveyed some passage than to have not done so at all, even if the results are not entirely reproducible or if the elevation didn't get drawn in the notebook. If we began to survey more with electronic methods I think that the quality and interpretability of results would improve.
1.2 Improved recording of geological data underground
Something I would like to add to our cave surveying ethos is to place more emphasis on recording the cave geology. The kinds of data I'm thinking of are very simple to observe and record even for non-geologists. For example, simple measurements of the morphometric parameters of scallops on cave walls (which are present in many of the passages in the system) would allow us to deduce past flow velocities (Curl, 1974).
Similarly, recording passage shapes, the nature of cave sediment deposits, and the dimensions of bedding planes or other stratigraphy (approximate dip and strike data, thickness etc) would go a long way toward building a suite of observations that can be interpreted geologically. Fault planes are also easy to spot once you've seen a few, and good underground recording of these offer a unique insight into fault processes (you're 'inside the fault, and the scarp hasn't been anywhere near as eroded as it might be on the surface...)
To this end, something we really need to emphasize to people is the importance of carrying a camera underground and knowing how to take good scientific field photos (including direction and scale etc). On other scientific expeditions having your own camera was required personal gear and its much easier to show someone a picture than it is to describe it in words, and good cave photos allow extremely detailed analysis of many things (passage morphology for example). With the quality of modern cave lights you can take good cave photos on your phone... There are some really key parts of the cave which we have never photographed, such as the sumps in Hydra.
1.3 Improved workflow for prospecting and logging of surface features
On many of the expeditions I have been on, recording surface data was as important as recording underground data. We aren't great at doing this, partly because we have big teams and many of them are not tech-savvy scientists. However, we can build a good workflow for prospecting and recording surface data in tthe field using lightweight tech on phones, such as LocusGIS or even Google Earth. This requires us to set it up and make it as easy to use as possible, but it can be done. Austria has really great coverage of LiDAR and orthophoto data, meaning much of the scouting work can even be done remotely. Automating the initial steps of prospecting by using GIS would be a very worthwhile objective for nerds.
1.4 Improve our understanding of the cave hydrology and speleogenesis
A major knowledge gap for the SMK system is an understanding of the nature of the present and past underground drainage in the system. The drainage history of the Totes Gebirge is complex. Paleodrainage is thought to flow have flowed radially from the centre of the massif, though matching speleogenetic phases to paleo base-levels (ie the past elevations of the Traun river and Altausee) is problematic (Plan et al., 2009).
In recent years, we have made some finds of major hydrological importance in the SMK system, including two sumps at depth in Tunnocks (‘Loser Lido’ in 2017 and ‘Scum of the Earth’ in 2018) and vast networks of phreatic and epiphreatic conduits on several new levels (Hydra). A reassessment (or indeed 'an assessment') of our understanding of underground drainage on Loser would therefore be a good use of time.
As such, I would suggest that a major long-term expedition scientific objective could constitute a detailed dye tracing campaign on Loser. For this, we would need to do a lot of prior study of cave surveys and the local geology and topography, followed by a recce to inspect local resurgence points on the surface. The actual dye trace itself would be a very big undertaking, and given that the Austrians haven't done it for many other caves I'd say it would take us a very long time to get this in motion. Worth having as a long-term objective though.
Additionally, if a willing diver was found, I think that diving in these sumps would be an extremely worthwhile avenue to pursue from both an exploration and a scientific perspective. This would require some planning but we are certainly capable of it.
Another idea I had was to do some plastic pollution surveys (collecting dripwater and sediment samples). This is slightly more complicated than the other data collection objectives but is not too analysis-heavy, and the results could be very interesting as our understanding of microplastic distribution on land is tiny compared to what we know about the oceans.
1.5 Start to constrain the surface geomorphology and landscape history
Finally, improved recording and mapping of surface geomorphology should be employed to explore the interaction between surface and subsurface landscape evolution with time. This could involve morphometric analysis of doline populations (ties nicely into 1.3) and mapping of surface sediments: e.g. remnant deposits of the Augenstein Formation of Miocene age that exist on the Dachstein plateau (Frisch et al., 2001) are also likely to be found on Loser. This is more of an objective for pebble turnerss and rock gardeners like myself but if people get interested then thats great. If you're walking the plateau and you see something you think looks interesting, take a photo and record where you were.
2. What scientific results can we derive?
2.1 Improved understanding of how SMK system formed
Having good cave surveys with a lot of information in them gives us a good chance of understanding more about the speleogenesis (cave science word for 'formation history') of the SMK system. For an example of what can be achieved by doing some analysis of cave survey data, read the paper on other caves on Totes Gebirge to the east, written by Lukas Plan, Robert Seebacher and others (Plan et al., 2009). A similar paper focussing on the Swiss cave Siebenhengste (Filipponi et al., 2009)outlines a method of analysing cave system geometry within a GIS framework, allowing for detailed speleogenetic interpretations.
Mapping of distinct stratigraphic horizons (eg bedding planes, chert/shale beds) on which cave passage is developed will allow us to test the applicability of the inception horizon hypothesis (Lowe, 1992) to the SMK system. Put briefly, this hypothesis maps these 'stratigraphic horizons' (markers of geological time that are recognisable across an area) and uses the relationship between them and passage development in the cave to construct a history of cave development. Recording basic features like this allow us to understand a great deal with little extra effort needed.
Furthermore, a more detailed mapping and bedform analysis of the voluminous sediment deposits observed throughout SMK system will allow us to make inferences regarding the development of the cave system with time and to infer the influence of paragenetic processes on system speleogenesis (Farrant and Smart, 2011). Briefly, 'paragenesis' is when sediment fill in a passage diverts the water that was eroding the passage, causing the shape of the passage to change over time.
A really top notch that we noticed in Carrot Chamber, Ease Gill, while on a Lancs-Wretched trip at NCHECC. The notch was made when sediment filled the cave floor up to the base of the notch: the water could no longer erode downward, but instead eroded sideways instead. Another example of the kind of cave photo I think we could be taking at any time. Photo: Wassil Janssen, on his go-pro.
2.2 Improved understanding of the history of the Eastern Alps as a whole
Caves are a unique archive of landscape evolution, as they are not eroded by surface processes. This doesn't mean that the records they contain are easier to interpret, but combining surface and subsurface observations is key to understanding the landscape. Lukas Plan has built an entire career on this premise alone, so it must have some promise...
2.3 Improved hydrological understanding to inform protection of karst groundwater resources
The Austrians rely heavily on cave water for drinking, so any improvements to their understanding of it so it can be better protected are very much appreciated by them (on one of the expeditions Lukas runs every year, Vienna Water pay for a helicopter to carry up all the gear and food and pay some of the living costs). The university I worked at briefly in Graz had one of the best karst hydrogeology departments in Europe, so getting them involved could be a good way to facilitate this...
3. How do we achieve these objectives?
3.1 Train people in cave science before and during expo
We often run expo training weekends at the Farm, and Easegill is a really amazing cave scientifically. Why not run a weekend there for those who wish to better understand what we see in caves? This would cover what data to collect when you see a particular feature, how to take good field photos, and what we can learn from interpreting the cave environment. Similar to the GPF cave science weekend that Mike had been planning to run.
3.2 Have a vision
If we do want to pursue cave science, its been rightly pointed out that we need keen people to drive the project. In my experience, to keep such momentum you need to set goals. Maybe we want to publish the results in a journal or present them at a conference? Or do we want to make an awesome digital interactive feature on the website? Or do we want to make a video about SMK system? Either way, having a vision of the project is key to making it happen.
3.3 Engage with others and encourage new people
Collaboration is key to doing good science. The Austrians have expertise in good cave science (most cavers are scientists in some way). We should involve them. Additionally, where appropriate, we could reach out to universities to either provide expertise or logistical/financial support. For example, if an undergraduate or graduate student wants to study SMK in some way, we should enable it. BCRA and others can provide funding through grants if necessary (though getting it is a massive pain in the arse and is a lot of work, and they may take a long time to decide what to do...)
Additional reading
The references below are exact scientific ones. If you wnat something less heavy-weight then let me know and I will try and dig it out for you. I could also put together a library of materials (scientific literature etc) in expofiles or something if people felt that was a good idea.
Curl, R. L.: Deducing flow velocity in cave conduits from scallops, NSS Bull., 36(2), 1–5, 1974.
Farrant, A. R. and Smart, P. L.: Role of sediment in speleogenesis; sedimentation and paragenesis, Geomorphology, 134(1–2), 79–93, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.006, 2011.
Filipponi, M., Jeannin, P. Y. and Tacher, L.: Evidence of inception horizons in karst conduit networks, Geomorphology, 106(1–2), 86–99, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.09.010, 2009.
Frisch, W., Kuhlemann, J., Dunkl, I. and Székely, B.: The Dachstein paleosurface and the Augenstein Formation in the Northern Calcareous Alps - A mosaic stone in the geomorphological evolution of the Eastern Alps, Int. J. Earth Sci., 90(3), 500–518, doi:10.1007/s005310000189, 2001.
Lowe, D. J.: The origin of limestone caverns: An inception horizon hypothesis, Manchester Metropolitan University., 1992.
Plan, L., Filipponi, M., Behm, M., Seebacher, R. and Jeutter, P.: Constraints on alpine speleogenesis from cave morphology - A case study from the eastern Totes Gebirge (Northern Calcareous Alps, Austria), Geomorphology, 106(1–2), 118–129, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.09.011, 2009.