the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
From the Top: Surface-derived Carbon Fuels Greenhouse Gas Production at Depth in a Neotropical Peatland
Abstract. Tropical peatlands play an important role in global carbon (C) cycling but little is known about factors driving carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions from these ecosystems, especially production below the surface. This study aimed to identify source material and processes regulating C emissions from deep in a Neotropical peatland on the Caribbean coast of Panama. We hypothesized that: 1) surface derived organic matter transported down the soil profile is the primary C source for respiration products at depth and 2) high lignin content results in hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis as the dominant CH4 production pathway throughout the profile. We used radiocarbon isotopes to determine whether CO2 and CH4 at depth (measured to 2 m) are produced from modern substrates or ancient deep peat, and we used stable C isotopes to identify the dominant CH4 production pathway. Peat organic chemistry was characterized using 13C solid state nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (13C-NMR). We found that deep peat respiration products had radiocarbon signatures that were more similar to surface dissolved organic C (DOC) than deep solid peat. Radiocarbon ages for deep peat ranged from 1200 – 1800 yrBP at the sites measured. These results indicate that surface derived C was the dominant source for gas production at depth in this peatland, likely because of vertical transport of DOC from the surface to depth. Carbohydrates did not vary with depth across these sites, whereas lignin, which was the most abundant compound (55–70 % of C), tended to increase with depth. These results suggest that there is no preferential decomposition of carbohydrates, but preferential retention of lignin. Stable isotope signatures of respiration products indicated that hydrogenotrophic rather than acetoclastic methanogenesis was the dominant production pathway of CH4 throughout the peat profile. These results suggest, even C compounds that are typically considered vulnerable to decomposition (i.e., carbohydrates) are preserved deep in these tropical peats, highlighting the importance of anaerobic, waterlogged conditions for preserving tropical peatland C.
- Preprint
(2503 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1279', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jun 2024
The manuscript offers great insights into the carbon cycle in peat formation, degradation of carbon and GHG emissions. The hypothesis where lignin would be the feedstock seems mildly arbitrary compared to the results where carbohydrates are not the presumable carbon being used for methanogenesis, or at least the hydrogen. More clarity would be needed to elucidate how feedstocks migate down in hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis if carbohydrates are not the source.
Overall this manuscript is of great relevance for the understanding of peat carbon storage and emissions.
Minor comments for clarity:
21: measured to 2 meters, I do not understand this. Is this referring to the maximum depth studied, when in fact some samples reached 4 meters?
23: this line creates confusion when I go to line 318, when discussing lignin as a separate category to carbohydrates which did not change over depth but lignin did, seemingly, as it is stated as storage over depth. Then in the end there was preferential preservation which means there is preferential decomposition as lignin is not decomposed, or is this premise only applicable to all carbohydrate categories? The back and forth between categories creates difficulties to follow.
78: if depths have high DOC with enriched 14C signature, does this not contradict the lower activity that is at risk if conditions change? Seems as though, there is fast decomposition based on the deeper levels of the signature.
95: The premise of changes in availability of labile materials in the peat profile even at depths of 2 meters, is supported by disturbances from vegetation? How does new material deposits at depths to supply the protons needed and the carbon dioxide needed in the hydrogenotrophic pathway?
103: what is more advanced decomposition at depth? Advanced mechanisms or advanced rates of decomposition? Which brings me to the same question, if there is active decomposition at depths how does the lignin fit in this scenario where it accumulates meaning that this is the least degraded carbohydrate? Connects me to line 137.
135: Carbon Dioxide formula, has a 2 that should be subindex.
137: do the authors mean to say that decomposition occurs at the surface, and then products are transported to deeper layers? To serve as feedstocks for methanogenesis? So there is initial decomposition above 30 cm, at lest partially, but is not lignin that was partially degraded? I think this is the common doubt I have, to really see what is the DOC that is being discussed. Later it seems it is lipids, while there is discrimination to carbs usage as feedstock. If lipids are the source of hydrogen, is this decomposition happening in depths because methanogenic feedstocks would not migrate down, in particular VFAs and hydrogen.
144: I do not understand: “Peat cores from were collected”.
295: Do the authors mean that the recent signatures from newer material then age to older peat? I think this needs clarity, is the materials found at depths old or not old.
299: to address a wider audience that perhaps is not expert in the complexity of the methods and result presentation, “While microbial utilization of surface DOC deep in the soil profile was seen at our sites” needs further discussion, what was the evidence from all the results and correlations reported. Somehow, a short synthesis of what is striking for DOC substrates and how this evidence looks like, could help enrich the discussion value of the results for the readers.
313: “tree” instead of “treen”
322: It would be enriching if the authors were specific, what specific support do these results give in relation to what Girkin and Hoyos found, the paragraph states there is support but the items being supported are not explicit and calls for reading other research. Perhaps naming what indicators were supported by your results could be straightforwardly stated.
345: incomplete methane molecule.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1279-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1279', Helge Niemann, 31 Aug 2024
Dear Alexandra Hedgpeth et al.,
it is rather difficult to find reviewers for your manuscript (a common issue these days, so that is not related to your MS). I have thus also reviewed your MS, which touches upon an important rational of current research. It is in general well written and, genrally speacking warrants publication. In addition to the concerns raised by the anonymous reviewer 1, I have a few additional concerns that need to be taken into considereation in a revised version of the manuscript.The isotope systematics of methanogenesis and carbon dating need clarification: the d13C value as such is meaningless to determine a source/process but rather the diffference of substrate and product in isotopic composiition. Make sure that you explain well which substrates and products you’ve measured and thus which processes you can resolve (d13C-CO2 vs d13C-CH4 can in princiaple only resolve carbonate reduction but not acetoclastic Mog). Check throughout the manuscript that the use of D14C, d13C etc is used corectly (I’ve seen isolated uses of ‘14C’).
I’m missing discussion RE pro/contra the differennt MOg pathways addressing the questions: where is the H2 coming from (fermentation of… DOM? Or rahter solid state OM?). How does the DOM arrive at depth and why does that not disturb gas profiles (if it was via roots or other types of bioventilation processes). How can that be different at temperate zone peatlands? What are the implications for tropical peatlands in general (and how does that influence our view on GHG related questions)?
Further detailed specific comments
L36 better specify C as org C (OC, orgC or the like), needs adjustment throughout
the MSL110 ‘Ramsar site..’, define, is otherwishe meaningless for the broader community
L144 sentence crippled
L144 ‘Russian peat corer’ is misleading. Eijkelkamp is a Dutch company, the corer would be described as a gouge auger (also on Eijkelkamp’s web page).
L177 referencing wrong (…outlined by McNicol et al (2020)… would be corect.
L196 there is some unclarity regarding isotope systematics. Acetoclastic Mog follows:
CH3COO- + H+ CH4 + CO2, hence the sentences IDing substrate d13C and prod d13C to calc alpha are not right (only fit to carb red).L245 ‘14C value’ is unclear, D14C?
Best, Helge
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1279-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
248 | 75 | 74 | 397 | 29 | 27 |
- HTML: 248
- PDF: 75
- XML: 74
- Total: 397
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1