the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Mire edge is not a marginal thing: Assessing the factors behind the formation, vegetation succession, and carbon balance of a subarctic fen margin
Abstract. Peatlands are the most dense terrestrial carbon storage and recent studies have shown that the northern peatlands have continued to expand to new areas to this day. However, depending on the vegetation and hydrological regime in the newly initiated areas, the climate forcing may vary. If these new areas develop as wet, fen-type peatlands with high methane emissions they would initially have a warming effect on the climate. On the other hand, if the development starts as dry bog-type peatlands, these new peatland areas would likely act as a strong carbon sink from early on. However, although some research has concentrated on the expansion of the new northern peatland areas, there remains a significant lack of studies on the successional development of the newly initiated peatland frontiers. In this research, we combined palaeoecological, remote sensing and hydrological modeling methods to study the expansion and successional pathway dynamics in a subarctic fen margin in Finnish Lapland and discussed possible implications for carbon balance of these margin peatland areas. Our results showed that the studied peatland margins had started to develop ca. 2000 years ago and have continued to expand thereafter, and this expansion has occurred in non-linear fashion. In addition, the wet fen-type vegetation persisted in the studied margin for majority of the development history and only the dryer conditions after the Little Ice Age instigated the fen-to-bog transition. However, a notable part of the fen margins in the Lompolovuoma and Lompolojänkkä basins has remained as a wet fen-types, and their persistence was likely caused by the hydrological conditions in the peatland and in the surrounding catchment. Our findings show a large variation in the peatland expansion and succession dynamics even within a single peatland basin. Although changes in climate conditions had initiated the fen-to-bog process in some margins, some had remained in the wet, fen stage showing resilience to allogenic forcings. Thus, when estimating the peatland carbon stocks, and predicting the future trajectories for peatland development, this heterogeneity should be taken into account to avoid errors caused by over-simplification of peatland lateral expansion dynamics.
- Preprint
(3102 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2792 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2102', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2024
reply
The reviewed manuscript is well-written and explores the interesting topic of lateral expansion of subarctic mires. The interpretations are based on 3 transects, each with 3 short peat profiles. Moreover, the representation of three main vegetation types in the mire margins was explored by remote sensing method and the hydrological processes were studied by hydrological modelling. Generally, I like the study and its results, but I have some comments and questions, which could point to some problematic or unclear parts of the research and could be discussed in more detail. I suggest publishing this manuscript after Minor revision.
General comments and questions:
Line 96: I would like to ask how the places for transects were selected and especially how the distances between particular profiles within the particular transects were assessed. I noticed in figures 2a-c, that the length of transects differed and distances among particular profiles as well. This information could be added.
Line 158: It should be added a reference to the LOI method.
Line 162: “limnotelmatic Equisetum peat” – does it mean that there are shallow lakes or aapa flarks at the bottom of the mire? Maybe this could be more explained in the manuscript.
Line 203-204: I don’t fully understand what is meant by “prior values” and how they were modified. Maybe it is a matter of terminology. Could it be better explained?
Table 1: Looking at Table 1 with all radiocarbon dates, one question came to my mind. The material used for dating in the basal sample was, in many cases, wood. The difference between the age of the basal (wood) sample and the next sample is mostly high (about 1000 years), even if the difference between these two samples is sometimes only a few centimetres e.g. T1Si 30-31 cm is dated 1250 BP and T1Si 27-28 cm 315 BP (935 years in 2-3 cm). Didn´t you consider the presence of a hiatus? Or cannot be another interpretation that the age of basal wood is the age of woodland before lateral spread started? Did you identify the wood? Was it tree or dwarf shrub wood? This is unclear to me. Moreover, you interpret the initial basal stage of mire as a wet stage. Why was the peat accumulation so low in the wet stage? I would expect the opposite, quick accumulation of peat. As you write on lines 294-295, the peat in this stage was strongly decomposed; it would also indicate a rather dry stage, not wet.
Line 302: What do you mean by “varying degree of Ericaceous vegetation”? Percentages or changing species composition?
Line 365-366: Do you think the lateral spread was regular? As you discussed later, the separate small peat bodies were later connected with the main mire body. Thus, the question arises, does calculating the lateral expansion rate make sense?
Line 409: I would like to ask if the modelling of groundwater table elevation changes is based on the recently measured water tables. It is not clear to me.
Line 440-441: What could be the reason that some mire margins stayed wet? Couldn´t be the stronger discharge of groundwater the reason? How much the mire-margins are influenced by groundwater? Did you measure the pH and conductivity of groundwater to assess the mineral richness of the groundwater? It could be important for Sphagnum's establishment.
Line 446: You state that the lateral spread of mire was not slowed down during the last 2000 years. Do you have information from the literature on what was the spread rate before (in an older period than the last 2000 years)?
Line 462-463: You consider the slope 0.5° and higher as a steep slope not suitable for peat accumulation. I am not sure if I understand it well, but it seems to me that 0.5° is a very low value. I think the mires can origin also in steeper slopes in Central Europe and elsewhere in the mountains. Please explain in more detail the mechanism of why the peat cannot accumulate under such conditions.
Lines 485-486: You state here that no charcoal was found in basal layers, but looking at the table with dating, I see that in the basal layer of T1Sp (40-41 cm), the charred wood was dated as well as in the case of T3Sm (19-20 cm). It indicates that some fires maybe influenced the mire margin development in some places in the past.
Line 497-498 (524-525): Here is the indication of C-E stage wetness contradictory: Pleurozium and Cenococcum sclerotia speak for dry conditions and Cyperaceae for wet – but maybe Eriophorum vaginatum can also grow under drier or more fluctuating conditions. Maybe the conditions were really rather dry, and therefore, sphagna did not colonise it – there are many sphagnum species which are able to grow in the water (S. riparium, majus, fallax etc.) but it depends on the alkalinity and mineral richness. Do you know the parameters of the groundwater?
Line 515: Wouldn´t be better to plot Eriophorum vaginatum separately from other Cyperaceae in the diagrams? Did you identify tissues or spindles?
Lines 541: What about the changes in the catchment area? Drainage and deforestation? Couldn´t they also influence the shift to drier bog vegetation? You write that it is good for the climate colling in the next chapter (lines 583-584), but I am afraid that this process will continue, and later, the decomposition will start and maybe even prevail. Maybe you should also discuss this possibility.
Line 608: Just an idea – couldn´t also play some role the relief below the mire? It could somehow influence the water flow and cause some margins to stay wet and others not.
Minor and technical comments:
Line 123: Empetrum nigrum – do you mean s.str. or s.lat including E. hermaphroditum? And between Andromeda polifolia and Vaccinium vitis-idaea is erroneously in italics – it is typing error.
Line 293 and in other places in the manuscript: The terms Cyperaceous and Ericaceous vegetation. I don´t think that using the declension of the Latin names (in italics) is OK. I think you should use the term “Cyperaceae- and Ericaceae-dominated vegetation” or cyperaceous and ericaceous vegetation without italics and with small letters. It is the same as like Sphagnum species or sphagna (not Sphagna).
Lines 295-296: Cyperaceous-Ericaceous-Sphagnum vegetation: I suggest using Cyperaceae-Ericaceae-Sphagnum instead.
Line 297: Sphagnum sect. Acutifolia – also Acutifolia should be in italics.
Line 343: Sphagna should not be in italics.
Line 349: Word sclerotia should not be in italics.
Line 491: “Sphagna is frequently found” – it should be “sphagna are …”
Line 511: Sphagnum mosses – Sphagnum should be in italics.
Line 571: The heading of the paragraph should be in bold.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2102-RC1
Data sets
Peat core properties and analysis data Teemu Juselius-Rajamäki, Sanna Piilo, Susanna Salminen-Paatero, Emilia Tuomaala, Tarmo Virtanen, Atte Korhola, Anna Autio, Hannu Marttila, Pertti Ala-Aho, Annalea Lohila, and Minna Väliranta https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25941493.v1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
213 | 58 | 55 | 326 | 32 | 7 | 9 |
- HTML: 213
- PDF: 58
- XML: 55
- Total: 326
- Supplement: 32
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1