the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Riverine dissolved organic matter responds to alterations differently in two distinct hydrological regimes from Northern Spain
Abstract. Iberian rivers are characterized by flow regimes with high seasonal flow variation. They also host one-fifth of Europe’s reservoirs for hydropower generation, irrigation or water supply needs, and thus many rivers have heavily altered flow regimes. Such flow conditions, also alter the natural dynamics of Dissolved Organic Matter (DOM), with likely implications for carbon cycling due to changed conditions for transformation, transportation and storage of carbon. Here we looked into the effects of flow alteration on the “DOM regime”, i.e. the seasonal variation of DOM concentration and composition, in 20 rivers belonging to two different hydrological classes (i.e., Mediterranean and Atlantic) in Northern Spain. To further investigate which flow regime components influence DOM properties, we linked the turnover of DOM composition to a range of hydrological indices.
We found that Atlantic rivers with a natural flow regime have on average lower DOC concentration than their altered equivalents, but this is not mirrored in Mediterranean rivers. Moreover, we did not observe much difference in annual DOM composition due to flow alterations in either hydrological class. However, the turnover of DOM composition is higher in natural Atlantic rivers compared to the altered ones. We linked this turnover in DOM composition to the effects of upstream-located reservoirs, creating flow regimes with homogenized or even reversed seasonality. Our results suggest that Mediterranean rivers may have higher resistance to flow alterations, at least in the sense of not showing unusual DOM behaviour, while Atlantic rivers affected by flow alterations lose their naturally high annual variability of DOM composition.
- Preprint
(3249 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(947 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2772', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Oct 2024
reply
Review report
Title: Riverine dissolved organic matter responds to alterations differently in two distinct hydrological regimes from Northern Spain
This study examines the effects of anthropogenic flow alterations, primarily caused by dams, on DOM concentration and composition in Spanish rivers of the Atlantic and Mediterranean region. This research compares rivers with natural and altered flow regimes and looks at how different flow components impact the DOM regime, such that altered Atlantic rivers generally show lower DOM composition shifts compared to natural ones, while Mediterranean rivers appear more resistant to flow alterations, maintaining relatively consistent DOM characteristics.
The study is overall well conducted, relies on a sound empirical basis and uses advanced statistics to identify patterns. The authors introduce the topical background excellently. In that sense I think this is definitely publishable and interesting to the EGU readership. However, there are several issues that I think need some close attention to increase the accessibility and clarity of the study. There are, in my opinion, terminology and reasoning aspects that needs improvement. I hope my suggestions in this regard are helpful.
General comments
Regarding the study concept and abstract, and even for someone who works with DOC, the goals and findings of the study are not easy to grasp. I think this has partly to do with the comprehensive aspiration: the authors do not only want to look into DOM “regime” shifts after flow alterations, but also compare these shifts in two different river system types, and seek for the system properties that are statistically connected to response. This is tough to comprehend, and it does not help that the terminology is at times imprecise and self-defined: DOM “Turnover” is used here differently than in most other contexts (where it essentially means transformation and/or mineralization) – is “compositional shifts” not clearer? I also have problems to understand was is meant by “annual DOM composition” (L12), “temporal turnover indicators” (L256) and several other derivatives of the DOM-related language. I suggest to revisit the part of the work that introduces the terminology use in general, and specifically the analysis goals, concepts and expectations, and harmonize the language related to these. One headline in the results “Linking DOM regimes to flow regimes” could for example be used more often.
Specific comments
L30-32: “This highly reactive fraction…” a reference is needed.
L34 but also temporally (Catalán et al., 2016)… not an adequate citation in that context, because that work really looks at spatial differences of a time-reated property
L53 This rather general model of a DOM regime´s reaction to damming needs fine-tuning… quite a colloquial language for the central part of the study motivation
L55 inflowing DOM concentration: not really the concentration but the amount
L56 I don’t agree that “all” these biotic factors are “associated” with the natural flow regime
L 58, the term “compositional turnover of DOM” needs to be clearly defined, see above general comment.
L63 two naturally defined hydrological classes,.. this is the first appearance outside of the Abstract and the relevance of this concept demands appropriate introduction on first appearance
L65 We expect the effect of flow regime alterations on the DOM regime to depend on certain characteristics of the natural flow regime. … this is an unintuitive research goal, what “characteristics" could this be?
L 161-163, the authors state that the sampling dates to the centroid of a river serves as a measure of temporal turnover of DOM and it is computed as a dispersion. There is not a clear explanation of what this dispersion precicely means and how it is derived. More explanation would be useful.
L259, what are the “temporal turnover indicators”? These indicators are not explicitly defined.
L309 blurry but more encompassing… not sure I understand what you mean here
L 361, “hydropeaking” may need definition or referencing
L477-479, sentence quite long, consider dividing
Fig 2 add aM irrigation
Table 4 sample n and frequency may be a useful information here
Figure 7 flow properties: these should be introduced at one point earlier in the text. Maybe revise the image altogether because it is hard to read and unexpectedly complex for this stage of the manuscript. Why not for example instead of grouping by category, sort by influence, or withdraw from showing *all* influences and select the most significant/important ones. I believe this would increase the interaction with the information massively.
494 subscript CO2
Citations of the Xenopoulos review show up several times. Maybe it is useful to cite original study in some cases?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2772-RC1
Data sets
Chemical Dataset Selin Kubilay https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13354316
Model code and software
Data analysis and Visualisations Selin Kubilay https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13354231
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
86 | 16 | 129 | 231 | 11 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 86
- PDF: 16
- XML: 129
- Total: 231
- Supplement: 11
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1