Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Submarine landslides triggered by iceberg collision with the seafloor


Iceberg discharge influences ocean circulation, affects climate and increases global sea level. Icebergs are also known to gouge the seafloor in water depths limited by their keel depth, thus representing a hazard to subsea infrastructure. Here, we provide evidence that icebergs can affect the seafloor at depths greater than their keel depth by triggering submarine landslides. Using repeat bathymetric surveys from multibeam echo sounders, we investigate the cause of a submarine landslide that occurred in Southwind Fjord, Baffin Island, between September 2018 and September 2019. This landslide is shown to be closely associated with recently formed iceberg pits at its headscarp carved by an iceberg that grounded and that capsized in the fjord in early September 2018. Geotechnical data from a nearby sediment core indicate that the vertical loading induced by the iceberg grounding and capsizing is sufficient to trigger the observed landslide. These results imply that icebergs originating from the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica are hazards thousands of kilometres away from their original source and can affect continental slopes by triggering submarine landslides. This process represents an additional source of marine geohazards, especially if climate change leads to increased iceberg discharge.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Submarine landslide triggered in 2018 in Southwind Fjord and its association with newly formed iceberg pits.
Fig. 2: Triggering of a submarine landslide following the capsizing of an iceberg.
Fig. 3: Process by which vertical loading of an iceberg on the seafloor triggers a submarine landslide.
Fig. 4: Modern and Last Glacial Maximum distribution of icebergs originating from Greenland and examples of submarine landslides that have potentially been triggered by iceberg grounding or capsizing.

Data availability

The multibeam data are available from Amundsen Science ( and from the Geological Survey of Canada Expedition Database ( Online visualization of pre-landslide data can be done from the University of New Brunswick Ocean Mapping Group ( All other data are available from the Geological Survey of Canada Expedition Database ( under cruises 2018042 and 2019Nuliajuk or from the corresponding author. Satellite imagery is available at All other relevant data are provided as Supplementary Data 1 and 2.


  1. van den Broeke, M. et al. Partitioning recent Greenland mass loss. Science 326, 984–986 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rignot, E. & Kanagaratnam, P. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 311, 986–990 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andresen, C. S. et al. Rapid response of Helheim Glacier in Greenland to climate variability over the past century. Nat. Geosci. 5, 37–41 (2012).

  4. Schloesser, F., Friedrich, T., Timmermann, A., DeConto, R. M. & Pollard, D. Antarctic iceberg impacts on future Southern Hemisphere climate. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 672–677 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barnes, D. K. A. & Souster, T. Reduced survival of Antarctic benthos linked to climate-induced iceberg scouring. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 365–368 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Heller, V. et al. Large-scale experiments into the tsunamigenic potential of different iceberg calving mechanisms. Sci. Rep. 9, 861 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. MacAyeal, D. R., Abbot, D. S. & Sergienko, O. V. Iceberg-capsize tsunamigenesis. Ann. Glaciol. 52, 51–56 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dowdeswell, J. A. & Bamber, J. L. Keel depths of modern Antarctic icebergs and implications for sea-floor scouring in the geological record. Mar. Geol. 243, 120–131 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrie, J. V., Lewis, C. F. M., Parrott, D. R. & Collins, W. T. Submersible observations of an iceberg pit and scour on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Geo. Mar. Lett. 12, 1–6 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Talling, P. J. et al. Onset of submarine debris flow deposition far from original giant landslide. Nature 450, 541–544 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Heezen, B. C. & Ewing, M. Turbidity currents and submarine slumps, and the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake. Am. J. Sci. 250, 849–873 (1952).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carter, L., Milliman, J. D., Talling, P. J., Gavey, R. & Wynn, R. B. Near-synchronous and delayed initiation of long run-out submarine sediment flows from a record-breaking river flood, offshore Taiwan. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, 6–10 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mountjoy, J. J. et al. Earthquakes drive large-scale submarine canyon development and sediment supply to deep-ocean basins. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3748 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Piper, D. J. W., Cochonat, P. & Morrison, M. L. The sequence of events around the epicentre of the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake: initiation of debris flows and turbidity current inferred from sidescan sonar. Sedimentology 46, 79–97 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Urlaub, M., Talling, P. J. & Masson, D. G. Timing and frequency of large submarine landslides: implications for understanding triggers and future geohazard. Quat. Sci. Rev. 72, 63–82 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Urlaub, M. et al. Gravitational collapse of Mount Etna’s southeastern flank. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat9700 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Parrott, D. R., Lewis, C. F. M., Banke, E., Fader, G. B. J. & Sonnichsen, G. V. in Current Research Part B: Eastern and Atlantic Canada Paper 90, 43–48 (Geological Survey of Canada, 1990).

  18. Clark, J. I. & Landva, J. Geotechnical aspects of seabed pits in the Grand Banks area. Can. Geotech. J. 25, 448–454 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dowdeswell, J. A., Villinger, H., Whittington, R. J. & Marienfeld, P. Iceberg scouring in Scoresby Sund and on the East Greenland continental shelf. Mar. Geol. 111, 37–53 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hill, J. C. & Condron, A. Subtropical iceberg scours and meltwater routing in the deglacial western North Atlantic. Nat. Geosci. 7, 806–810 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Normandeau, A. et al. Retreat pattern of glaciers controls the occurrence of turbidity currents on high-latitude fjord deltas (eastern Baffin Island). J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 124, 1559–1571 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ghienne, J. et al. The depositional signature of cyclic steps: a late Quaternary analogue compared to modern active delta slopes. Sedimentology 68, 1502–1538 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hughes Clarke, J. E. First wide-angle view of channelized turbidity currents links migrating cyclic steps to flow characteristics. Nat. Commun. 7, 11896 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hughes Clarke, J., Vidiera Marques, C. R. & Pratomo, D. in Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences, Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research (eds Krastel, S. et al.) 249–260 (Springer, 2014).

  25. Morgenstern, N. R. Submarine slumping and the initiation of turbidity currents. Mar. Geotech. 3, 189–220 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Holtz, R. D., Kovacs, W. D. & Sheahan, T. C. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering (Prentice-Hall, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  27. King, T. et al. Subsea risk update using high resolution iceberg profiles. Proc. Arctic Technology Conference 27398 (OnePetro, 2016).

  28. Bianchi, T. S. et al. Fjords as aquatic critical zones (ACZs). Earth Sci. Rev. 3, 103145 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Amundson, J. M. et al. Glacier, fjord, and seismic response to recent large calving events, Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L22501 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Brooks, G. R. Evidence of late glacial paleoseismicity from submarine landslide deposits within Lac Dasserat, northwestern Quebec, Canada. Quat. Res. (2016).

  31. Brooks, G. R. & Eyles, N. Deglacial record of palaeoearthquakes interpreted from mass transport deposits at three lakes near Rouyn-Noranda, north-western Quebec, Canada. Sedimentology 65, 2439–2467 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Piper, D. J. W. Late Cenozoic evolution of the continental margin of eastern Canada. Nor. Geol. Tidsskr. 85, 305–318 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Eidam, E. F. et al. Morainal bank evolution and impact on terminus dynamics during a tidewater glacier stillstand. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 125, e2019JF005359 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pérez, L. F. et al. Late Quaternary sedimentary processes in the central Arctic Ocean inferred from geophysical mapping. Geomorphology 369, 107309 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Marson, J. M., Myers, P. G., Hu, X. & Le Sommer, J. Using vertically integrated ocean fields to characterize Greenland icebergs’ distribution and lifetime. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 4208–4217 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Collins, A. K., Hannah, C. G. & Greenberg, D. Validation of a High Resolution Modelling System for Tides in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago Canadian Technical Report of Hydrography and Ocean Sciences 723 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011)..

  37. Burton, J. C. et al. Laboratory investigations of iceberg capsize dynamics, energy dissipation and tsunamigenesis. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 117, f01007 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This project was funded by the Program of Energy Research and Development of Natural Resources Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) Public Safety Geoscience programme, the Government of Nunavut and ArcticNet. The Fisheries and Sealing Division, Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut is thanked for their support through the use of the RV Nuliajuk. We also thank the crew and scientific staff of the CCGS Amundsen, RV Nuliajuk and CCGS Hudson. This is NRCan contribution number 20200001

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



A.N. and D.C.C. secured funding. A.N. designed the scientific cruises and collected all the data along with M.M., K.M., C.R. and D.B. M.M. and K.M. performed the geotechnical analysis. A.N. and V.M. examined the satellite imagery. G.P. processed MBES data and drafted Fig. 3. J.H.C. collected and processed the early 2013–2014 MBES data presented. All authors contributed to the writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre Normandeau.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Geoscience thanks Jenna Hill, Jason Amundson and Morelia Urlaub for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: James Super.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Timeline of events occurring in Southwind Fjord.

a, Multibeam echosounder (MBES) bathymetry surveys were completed in 2013, 2014, 2018, and 2019 (red bars indicate dates of MBES surveys, blue indicates interval of time during which the submarine landslide was triggered according to MBES surveys). The new landslide was observed between the 2018 and 2019 multibeam surveys. b, Timing of satellite images without cloud cover (red bars indicate dates of satellite imagery, blue indicates the interval of time during which the submarine landslide occurred according to satellite imagery) showing the iceberg in Southwind Fjord and its grounding. Between 1 and 4 September 2018, the iceberg grounded upslope of the headscarp. Between 4 and 9 September 2018, the iceberg appears to have capsized and broke into two pieces. The iceberg is then at the landslide headscarp. The iceberg then remained grounded at the landslide headscarp until 1–13 October 2018.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Comparison of multibeam imagery of the landslide area from 2013 to 2019.

a–c, Multibeam bathymetry images from 2013 (a), 2018 (b) and 2019 (c). d–f, Difference in elevation between 2013–2018 (d), 2018–2019 (e) and 2013–2019 (f). The difference in elevation shows the lack of seabed change between 2013 and 2018 and the erosion and deposition occurring between 2018 and 2019.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Satellite imagery showing iceberg drifting into Southwind Fjord on 27 August 2018 next to the CCGS Hudson.

(see inset of CCGS Hudson in (a). Subsequent images (c–f) show the iceberg grounded at the precise location where the submarine landslide was triggered.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Satellite imagery showing the iceberg entering and grounding in Southwind Fjord.

a, Sentinel 2 satellite imagery collected on 27 August 2018 showing the CCGS Hudson in Southwind Fjord and an iceberg to the north. b, Iceberg shown in A. c, Unammed Aerial Vehicle photography of the CCGS Hudson, its Fast Rescue Craft (FRC) and the iceberg illustrated in A. d, FRC next to the iceberg that serves as a scale to measure the approximate size of the iceberg (estimated at width of 35–40 m by 5 m high). These horizontal estimations were confirmed by satellite imagery dimension of the iceberg.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Geotechnical properties of sediment in Southwind Fjord.

Geotechnical properties of sediment in Southwind Fjord, illustrating that the factor of safety reaches 1.8 at 295 cm.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Consolidation plot for sample 2018042–035.

Consolidation plot for sample 2018042–035, 246.0–248.5 cm. P’c is the preconsolidation pressure.

Extended Data Fig. 7 The additional ice loads required for the sediment to fail.

a, Effective overburden stress at each depth approximated using the depth to effective stress relationship from core 35. A normalized strength ratio of 0.3 was used to calculate the undrained shear strength at each depth for normally consolidated sediments b, Additional ice loads required for the sediment to fail calculated for failure depths of 5–15 m and slope angles of 5–15°. Equation 3 was used to estimate the additional load required to fail the sediments.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Examples of at least 16 submarine landslides along the eastern Canadian continental margin likely triggered by iceberg collision with the seafloor.

a, Multibeam bathymetry image of the Scotian Slope showing iceberg pits at the headscarp of submarine landslides. b,e,h, Multibeam bathymetry data of landslides 8, 15–16, 7, showing iceberg pits at the headscarp of submarine landslides. c,f,i, Downslope profiles of the landslides, illustrating the iceberg pits at the headscarps. d,g,j, Along-slope profiles of the iceberg pits at the headscarp and the failure depth of the landslides, illustrating their similar depth. The similar depth between the failure plane and the iceberg pits indicates that iceberg grounding or capsizing, as well as glacier calving, are a reasonable interpretation for the generation of these submarine landslides.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Video 1

Animation of icebergs entering Southwind Fjord in 2018 and triggering a submarine landslide.

Supplementary Data 1

Raw multibeam bathymetric data before and after the landslide.

Supplementary Data 2

Data to accompany the FS calculations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Normandeau, A., MacKillop, K., Macquarrie, M. et al. Submarine landslides triggered by iceberg collision with the seafloor. Nat. Geosci. 14, 599–605 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing