the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Gradual drying of permafrost peat decreases carbon dioxide in drier peat plateaus but not in wetter fens and bogs
Abstract. Permafrost thawing of northern peatlands can cause local collapse of peat plateaus into much wetter thermokarst bogs and fens, dominated by Sphagnum mosses and graminoids, respectively. However, permafrost thaw can also improve landscape drainage and thus lead to regional drying of peatlands. How gradual drying of these thawing permafrost peatlands affects the subsequent microbial production of carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) is uncertain because of landscape heterogeneity in moisture, peat quality, and vegetation. Here, we collected near-surface peat samples (5–20 cm) from Alberta, Canada, across transects representing a thaw gradient from peat plateaus to a fen or bog. We incubated the samples for two weeks at either field moisture conditions or under gradual drying, which reduced moisture by ~80 %. Only the fen sites, which had high moisture and % total N, produced N2O (0.06−6.7 μg N2O-N g-1 dry peat) but were unaffected by the drying treatments. Peat CO2 production was greatest from the fen and the youngest stage of the thermokarst bog despite having the most water-saturated field conditions, likely reflecting their more labile plant inputs and, thus more decomposable peat. We found that CO2 respiration was enhanced by drying in relatively wet sites like the fens and young bog but was suppressed by drying in relatively drier peat plateaus. Further, gradual drying increased 13C-CO2 respiration, suggesting a possible shift to more decomposed, older C being lost with peat drying. Our study thus suggests that future peat CO2 and N2O production from peatlands will depend on whether peat plateaus thaw into fens or bogs and on their diverging responses of peat respiration to more moisture-limited conditions.
- Preprint
(1725 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(545 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2248', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Oct 2024
reply
Reviewer repot on manuscript by Spiller et al., titled “Gradual drying of permafrost peat decreases carbon dioxide in drier peat plateaus but not in wetter fens and bogs”
GENERAL COMMENTS
This manuscript reports CO2 and N2O production rates from a drying experiment with permafrost peatlands samples representing different thawing stages and field moisture contents. Permafrost thaw causes hydrological changes in both directions: it can cause either increased wetness or improved drainage. These changes in hydrology will impact greatly the soil GHG budget. The effect of increased wetness has been studied much more than the effect of drying, partly because the previous one is much easier to achieve. The drying approach chosen here is simple but effective, I really like it. Overall, this is a nice and compact, carefully planned and conducted study with clear results: N2O production from nutrient-rich sites with little moisture effect, and differential moisture effect depending on the initial moisture content and carbon quality. The experimental and statistical methods are suitable for the goals of the experiment, report is well written, all figures and tables are of a good quality and relevant, and the conclusions are well supported by the data. I have only minor suggestions, listed below.
MINOR COMMENTS
line 60: With regards to methane, you should acknowledge that well-drained peatlands are known for their capacity to consume atmospheric CH4 (Voigt et al. 2017, Voigt et al. 2024). I do not see it as a serious shortcoming that this flux was not measured here, but it would be good to mention this for a complete picture about peatland GHG budget.
Voigt, C. Marushchak, ME. Mastepanov, M. Lamprecht, RE. Christensen, TR. Dorodnikov, M. Jackowicz-Korczynski, M. Lindgren, A. Lohila, A. Nykänen, H. Oinonen, M. Oksanen, T. Palonen, V. Treat, CC. Martikainen, PJ. Biasi, C. (2019). Ecosystem carbon response of an Arctic peatland to simulated permafrost thaw. Global change biology, 25 (5) , 1746-1764. 10.1111/gcb.14574.
Voigt, C., Virkkala, AM., Hould Gosselin, G. et al. Arctic soil methane sink increases with drier conditions and higher ecosystem respiration. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 1095–1104 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01785-3
line 161 -> Since mineral N forms nitrate and ammonium are in a key role for N2O emissions, and you have actually measured these species, it would be good to discuss those results here a bit more. Was there any difference in mineral N content between landscape features? Did you observe increase or decrease in mineral N pools during the incubations? Also, you could comment the temporal pattern – was the N2O production rate stable throughout the experiment, or were there changes? On lines 164-166 you suggest that the N2O emissions in your experiment would origin from nitrification rather than denitrification. Is this in line with the lack of moisture effect, would not you then expect that the emissions would be lower in the dried peat?
lines 171-174: While I do agree with this, it is important to acknowledge that by excluding the plant N uptake in the incubations, you enhance the N availability for microbes. Fen sites often have high productivity, when the plant cover is undisturbed, the plants will most likely take up most of the mineralized N. Please, acknowledge this in the discussion. However, your results are very relevant for the cold season and shoulder season when plant growth is low or absent.
lines 185: To me this expression sounds a bit complicated, how about "% peat moisture was negatively correlated with CO2 production" or "a decrease in % peat moisture was associated with increasing CO2 production"
lines 187-191: Here, all the data series, independent on the landscape feature, seem to extend up to 100% peat moisture, although on row 142 above you say that the original field moisture content was varying between 73-95%. The makes me wonder if you always refer to %H2O from FW with "% Peat moisture" or do you sometimes mean the moisture content relative to the original field moisture content? Please clarify this throughout the MS, it seems very important for the interpretation of the results.
lines 201-202: Does this mean that the rate was stable = the CO2 concentration was increasing linearly? Please clarify.
line 222. I am curious if you observed any temporal trend in the wet treatment?
line 204-> It is not completely clear which result you are explaining here. Do you mean the lower respiration rate observed in the dry landscape features at low moisture levels? I believe you are on the right track in that this is related to peat quality and nutrient status, which is in turn affecting the site productivity. So, the contrast between ombrotrophic bog and minerotrophic fen. Do you find any support from your results on peat chemistry?
line 217-220: This sentence is not so easy to understand, please check if you could rephrase/split into two sentences it to make it clearer?
line 237-239: Yes, this is true and interesting!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2248-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
198 | 66 | 40 | 304 | 30 | 7 | 9 |
- HTML: 198
- PDF: 66
- XML: 40
- Total: 304
- Supplement: 30
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1