the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Factors controlling spatiotemporal variability of soil carbon accumulation and stock estimates in a tidal salt marsh
Abstract. Tidal salt marshes are important contributors to soil carbon (C) stocks despite their relatively small land surface area. Although it is well understood that salt marshes have soil C burial rates orders of magnitude greater than those of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a wide range in storage rates among spatially distributed marshes. In addition, wide ranges in C storage rates also exist within a single marsh ecosystem. Tidal marshes often contain multiple species of cordgrass due to variations in hydrology and soil biogeochemistry caused by microtopography and distance from tidal creeks, creating distinct subsites. Our overarching objective was to observe how soil C concentration changes across four plant phenophases and across three subsites categorized by unique vegetation, hydrology, and biogeochemistry, while also investigating dominant biogeochemical controls on soil C concentration. We hypothesized that subsite biogeochemistry drives spatial heterogeneity in soil C concentration, and this causes variability in soil C concentration at the marsh scale. In addition, we hypothesized that soil C concentration and porewater biogeochemistry vary temporally across the four plant phenophases (i.e., senescence, dormancy, green-up, maturity), causing further variation in marsh soil C that could lead to uncertainty in soil C estimates. To test these hypotheses, we quantified soil C concentrations in 12 cm sections of soil cores (0–48 cm depth) across time (i.e., phenophase) and space (i.e., subsite), alongside several porewater biogeochemical variables including dissolved organic carbon (DOC), EEMs/ UV-VIS, redox potential, pH, salinity, reduced iron (Fe2+), reduced sulfur (S2-), and total porewater element (Fe, Ca) concentrations in three distinct subsites. Soil C concentration varied significantly (p<0.05) among the three subsites and was significantly greater during plant dormancy. Soil S, porewater sulfide, redox potential, and depth predicted 44 % of the variability in soil C concentration. Our results show that soil C varied spatially across a marsh ecosystem up to 63 % and across plant phenophase by 26 %, causing variability in soil C storage rates and stocks depending on where and when samples are taken. This shows that hydrology, biogeochemistry, and ecological function are major controls on saltmarsh C content. It is, therefore, critical to consider spatial and temporal heterogeneity in soil C concentration when conducting blue C assessments to account for soil carbon variability and uncertainty in C stock estimates.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1483 KB)
-
Supplement
(176 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1483 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(176 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2627', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2627/egusphere-2023-2627-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Angelia Seyfferth, 27 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2627', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Feb 2024
Main comment
The authors provide important insights into soil carbon variability based on the biogeochemical characterisation of the study site. The results are interesting and valuable for the ‘blue carbon community’ and emphasise the thorough investigations needed to assess carbon stocks in tidal marsh habitats accurately. Some clarifications would benefit the manuscript.
- Most blue carbon stock and sequestration rate studies focus on Total Organic Carbon concentrations. The manuscript focuses on total soil carbon (assuming this is the term the authors use for both organic and inorganic components). Organic and inorganic carbon fractions in soil can react differently under redox conditions. It’s important to make this distinction.
- There seems to be some confusion regarding the terminology relating to carbon stocks vs concentrations. The methodology section covers soil C % calculations. However, the core stock calculations are missing and are only mentioned in section 4.4. If other data is used from previous publications to calculate soil carbon stocks, this should be detailed in the methodology.
- The statistical methods chosen in the manuscript need more clarification, perhaps in the supplementary materials. Were the assumptions of equal variance and normality met before proceeding with ANOVA? What criteria were used for the subset of predictors in the stepwise regression model? Why was the stepwise regression model chosen over partial least squares regression?
- In the conclusion sections of the manuscript, the authors make sampling recommendations for carbon stock assessments. It would be useful to briefly compare with existing sampling guidance e.g., Howard et al., 2014 and Bansal et al., 2023. These guidance documents recommend sampling based on marsh zonations and at the time of highest plant biomass (late summer). Given that most guidance documents aim to provide sampling for quantification of long-term TOC carbon pools, perhaps it’s better to emphasise the importance of sampling from multiple locations within the marsh, rather than seasonal sampling.
Other comments
Please check the manuscript for consistency with abbreviations e.g., 12 cm vs 12cm vs 12-cm.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2627-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Angelia Seyfferth, 27 Feb 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2627', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2627/egusphere-2023-2627-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Angelia Seyfferth, 27 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2627', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Feb 2024
Main comment
The authors provide important insights into soil carbon variability based on the biogeochemical characterisation of the study site. The results are interesting and valuable for the ‘blue carbon community’ and emphasise the thorough investigations needed to assess carbon stocks in tidal marsh habitats accurately. Some clarifications would benefit the manuscript.
- Most blue carbon stock and sequestration rate studies focus on Total Organic Carbon concentrations. The manuscript focuses on total soil carbon (assuming this is the term the authors use for both organic and inorganic components). Organic and inorganic carbon fractions in soil can react differently under redox conditions. It’s important to make this distinction.
- There seems to be some confusion regarding the terminology relating to carbon stocks vs concentrations. The methodology section covers soil C % calculations. However, the core stock calculations are missing and are only mentioned in section 4.4. If other data is used from previous publications to calculate soil carbon stocks, this should be detailed in the methodology.
- The statistical methods chosen in the manuscript need more clarification, perhaps in the supplementary materials. Were the assumptions of equal variance and normality met before proceeding with ANOVA? What criteria were used for the subset of predictors in the stepwise regression model? Why was the stepwise regression model chosen over partial least squares regression?
- In the conclusion sections of the manuscript, the authors make sampling recommendations for carbon stock assessments. It would be useful to briefly compare with existing sampling guidance e.g., Howard et al., 2014 and Bansal et al., 2023. These guidance documents recommend sampling based on marsh zonations and at the time of highest plant biomass (late summer). Given that most guidance documents aim to provide sampling for quantification of long-term TOC carbon pools, perhaps it’s better to emphasise the importance of sampling from multiple locations within the marsh, rather than seasonal sampling.
Other comments
Please check the manuscript for consistency with abbreviations e.g., 12 cm vs 12cm vs 12-cm.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2627-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Angelia Seyfferth, 27 Feb 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
177 | 81 | 20 | 278 | 24 | 14 | 14 |
- HTML: 177
- PDF: 81
- XML: 20
- Total: 278
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Sean Fettrow
Andrew Wozniak
Holly Michael
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1483 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(176 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper