the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Anthropogenic activities significantly increase annual greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes from temperate headwater streams in Germany
Ricky Mwangada Mwanake
Gretchen Maria Gettel
Elizabeth Gachibu Wangari
Clarissa Glaser
Tobias Houska
Lutz Breuer
Klaus Butterbach-Bahl
Abstract. Anthropogenic activities increase the contributions of inland waters to global greenhouse gas (GHG; CO2, CH4, and N2O) budgets, yet the mechanisms driving these increases are still not well constrained. In this study, we quantified year-long GHG concentrations and fluxes, as well as water physico-chemical variables from 23 streams, 3 ditches, and 2 wastewater inflow sites across five headwater catchments in Germany contrasted by land use. Using mixed-effects models, we determined the overall impact of land use and seasonality on the intra-annual variabilities of these parameters. We found that land use was more significant than seasonality in controlling the intra-annual variability of GHG concentrations and fluxes. Agricultural land use and wastewater inflows in settlement areas resulted in up to 10 times higher daily riverine CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions than forested areas, as substrate inputs by these sources appeared to favor in situ GHG production processes. Dissolved GHG inputs directly from agricultural runoff and waste-water inputs also contributed substantially to the annual emissions from these sites. Drainage ditches were hotspots for CO2 and CH4 fluxes due to high dissolved organic matter concentrations, which appeared to favor in situ production via respiration and methanogensis. Overall, the annual emission from anthropogenic-influenced streams in CO2-equivalents was up to 20 times higher (~71 kg CO2 m-2 yr-1) than from natural streams (~3 kg CO2 m-2 yr-1). Future studies aiming to estimate the contribution of lotic ecosystems to GHG emissions should therefore focus on anthropogenically perturbed streams, as their GHG emission are much more variable in space and time.
Ricky Mwangada Mwanake et al.
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-683', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 May 2023
reply
This manuscript presents a year-long dataset of GHG concentrations and fluxes from 5 headwater catchments in Germany from streams, agricultural ditches, and WWTP outflows. It identifies controls on GHG dynamics using mixed-effects models and structural equation models. In addition, it upscales flux rates to calculate annual emissions in terms of global warming potential. The main finding, that anthropogenically impacted streams have higher and more variable GHG concentrations and fluxes, was well supported. Overall, the manuscript presents results that will be an important contribution to our understanding of GHG emissions from inland waters and I find the analysis and results novel and worthy of publication.
I have a few suggestions, although they mostly minor and easy to address.
Abstract:
-I don’t think that the analysis backs up the statements about separating in situ production of GHGs and direct inputs of GHGs (e.g., ln 27-28, 30-31). These statements should be removed or rephrased.
-I think the authors should more clearly state that anthropogenically impacted streams have not only higher, but also *more variable* GHG emissions than natural streams in the abstract. (i.e., give some sort of variability stats)
-I would consider mentioning some of the other main findings in the abstract (if possible within word count limits): 1) the break down of the expected stream-order patterns in impacted sites and 2) the finding that CO2 is the dominant contributor in terms of global warming potential
Methods:
-I don’t see temperature/seasonality or NH4 in the SEM results, even though these parameters are listed as input variables. Were they found insignificant and dropped? Please clarify.
Results:
F2. Consider using colors to represent major land-use classifications and shades to differentiate the sub-classifications. For example, crop, crop + settlement, and crop + settlement + WW inflow could be given different shades of the same color. Also, yellow is somewhat difficult to see on all these plots.
I don’t have the background to fully assess how the SEM analysis was applied but it seems to make sense and F5 is great.
I find the conclusion that typical stream order patterns break down in anthropogenically impacted streams interesting (L573-584). However, I don’t see the data presented in the results section. Please include it here (and perhaps add to the abstract as well).
Discussion:
Consider discussing the result that CO2 was the main contributor when emissions of all three gases are converted to CO2 equivalences (F6). I found this result to be interesting and perhaps it deserves more attention in the manuscript.
Conclusion:
L620 - It seems like CH4 is also higher in the anthropogenically impacted sites?
Minor:
L40 – “contributors to global greenhouse gas budgets” or “contributors of greenhouse gases”
L41 – Li et al., 2021 citation only refers to headwater streams
L52 – “in situ N2O production”
L70 – “where”
L260 – “May 31”
L369 – consider using uatm for N2O, instead of natm, as it is more commonly used
L375-376 - It looks like negative fluxes are actually presented in F3.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-683-RC1
Ricky Mwangada Mwanake et al.
Ricky Mwangada Mwanake et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
229 | 77 | 10 | 316 | 4 | 7 |
- HTML: 229
- PDF: 77
- XML: 10
- Total: 316
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1