the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Variability of CO2 and CH4 in a coastal peatland rewetted with brackish water from the Baltic Sea derived from autonomous high-resolution measurements
Abstract. Rewetting peatlands is an important measure to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use change. After rewetting, the areas can be highly heterogeneous in terms of GHG exchange and depend on water level, vegetation, previous use, and duration of rewetting. Here, we present a study of a coastal peatland that was rewetted by brackish water from the Baltic Sea and thus became part of the coastal shallow Baltic Sea water system through a permanent hydrological connection. Rewetting suppresses carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by preventing aerobic decomposition of organic matter. Conversely, the anoxic conditions in the soil lead to an increase in methane (CH4) emissions, which counteracts CO2 mitigation effects. Unlike to rewetting with freshwater, the effects of rewetting with brackish, sulfate-containing water are less studied, although positive effects are expected as sulfate-reducing bacteria may become established and might out-compete methane-producing archaea (methanogens) for substrates, resulting in lower CH4 emissions. Both aspects, environmental heterogeneity and the brackish water column formation, require improved quantification techniques to assess local sinks and sources of atmospheric GHGs. We conducted nine weeks of autonomous and high-resolution, sensor-based bottom water measurements of marine physical and chemical variables at two locations in a permanently flooded peatland in summer 2021, and derived GHG fluxes. Results show considerable temporal fluctuations of CO2 and CH4, expressed as multi-day, diurnal and event-based variability and spatial differences for variables dominantly influenced by biological processes. The multi-day variability resulted in a pronounced magnitude of measured GHG partial pressures during the deployment ranging between 295.0–8937.8 µatm (CO2) and 22.8–2681.3 µatm (correspond to 42.7–3568.6 nmol L−1; CH4), respectively. In addition, the variability of the GHGs, temperature, and oxygen was characterized by pronounced diurnal cycles, resulting e.g., in a mean daily variability of 4066.9 µatm for CO2 and 1769.6 µatm for CH4. The diurnal variability led to a pronounced discrepancy between the measurements during the day and at night as well as depending on the location, resulting in CO2 and CH4 fluxes that varied by a factor of 2.1–2.3 and 2.3–3.0, respectively. The rewetted peatland was further impacted by fast system changes (events) such as storm, precipitation and major water level changes, which impacted biogeochemical cycling and GHG partial pressures. The derived average GHG exchange amounted to 0.12 ± 0.16 g m−2 h−1 (CO2) and 0.51 ± 0.56 mg m−2 h−1 (CH4), respectively. These fluxes are high (CO2) to low (CH4) compared to studies from temperate peatlands rewetted with freshwater. Comparing these fluxes with the previous year (i.e., results from a reference study), the fluxes decreased by a factor of 1.9 and 2.6, respectively. This was potentially due to a progressive consumption of organic material, a suppression of CH4 production, and aerobic and anaerobic oxidation of CH4, indicating a positive evolution of the rewetted peatland into a site with moderate GHG emissions within the next years.
- Preprint
(3164 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3246', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Dec 2024
The article is well written, very complete, and the general concepts and theories are well described. As the article presents a large dataset, consistent of many different variables, it sometimes gets overwhelming. However, the authors have tried their best to present the main results only, but still make other details and results available in the different Appendixes. I have only one larger comments, which I am confident that the authors can follow up on. Other smaller comments are given in the list below.
Unclear balance between technical and scientific aspect of paper
The paper mostly reads as a technical paper, and describes these parts very well (technical aspects and comparison between methods). Nevertheless, the authors also claim that they want to assess a scientific question (last sentence of Introduction). This part however seems a little lit snowed under in the Discussion. A little bit more context on this in the Introduction as well as in the Discussion would be nice.For example: can the authors place their results in a clearer/ broader perspective ? I am aware that there are limited studies on brackish ecosystems, but a comparison can be made between concentrations and fluxes of different (rewetted) peatlands, not only of brackish systems, and maybe a quick number of surroundings seas and rivers as well. Place the results into perspective: if moving from the terrestrial area (rivers and/or dry peatlands) to the sea, what is the gradient of fluxes, and how do your results fit in? Also, a table (maybe in Appendix) might be a nice way to present the different flux magnitudes of different (rewetted) peatland studies, which will help the reader placing the results in perspective. Also, are your results specific for this climate region? These climate rewetting activities are mostly active in Europe, but would it be possible to make a reference to a same situation in a tropical region?
Overall, I think that the interpretation of the scientific part needs to be elaborated. Nevertheless, the comments above serve only as ideas, feel free to find a different way to place your results in a broader perspective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller commentsLine 30) The diurnal variability led to a pronounced discrepancy between the measurements during the day and at night as well as depending on the location, resulting in CO 2 and CH4 fluxes that varied by a factor of 2.1–2.3 and 2.3–3.0, respectively.
The sentence is not fluent, and discrepancy might sound too negative for what you are describing.
Line 74) However, the effects of brackish water on GHG emissions are still unclear, although
beneficial effects such as lower CH4 emissions compared to rewetting with freshwater are likely due to the availability of sulfate (SO42−)One sentence to explain here why SO4 is beneficial would be good.
Line 92) Is it possible to add one sentence, somehow describing what a lander is? Most people wont be familiar with this term. Is it a floating device? Ankered to the ground? Does it move around within a certain area? Approx size? I know that it is described in more detail later, but it helps readers to have a little bit of an idea already.Line 105: In the Introduction, twice a reference to an earlier study is made (Pönisch and Breznikar et al., 2023). Since your study seems to be a follow up study of this earlier study, maybe the reader can be informed briefly what were the main findings of the first study were, and how your set up/goals were different (maybe more details in discussion, but maybe already 1 or 2 sentences in the Introduction). In this way, your article is readable without forcing the reader to look up the othr article.
Line 146: wrong reference formatting. This is visible at more places in article, please check this. (for example, line 433:Moreover, we used the published data from (Pönisch and Breznikar et al., 2023)
instead of
Moreover, we used the published data from Pönisch and Breznikar et al., (2023)
Line 164: The CONTROS HydroC® CO2 only goes to 1000 uatm. I assume that the authors have ordered a different version/adaptation? Specify that.
Line 171: The resolution of data acquisition was set to 5 minutes (min) for lander 1 and 10 min for lander 2:Why the difference? Add a sentence to clarify this.
Line 314 (and other places): it is unclear which instrument measures pCH4 (ppm) and which measure cCH4 (nmol L), and which formula is used to convert between both. Add a reference or formula.
Line 497: white space missing
Line 565: Clear comparison to literature for fluxes. But why is this not done a little bit for concentrations pCH4 and pCO2. Are these concentrations high compared to sea water? Or (German) rivers? As also mentioned in the first general comment, place your results better in perspective.Line 596: The most important ones are. → sentence incomplete
Line 600: The comparison suggests that the CO2 and CH4 fluxes in the second summer after inundation were lower by a factor of1.9 and 2.6, respectively compared to the first (Table 2).
These are interesting numbers. Can they be compared to numbers from other studies? Could such a reduction of 1.9 to 2.6 really be real? The authors bring these numbers back in the Conclusion, so it is an important number. Discuss better.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3246-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3246', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Dec 2024
General comments
The article presents interesting new data from an understudied ecosystem. It is well written and graphs are well presented and appropriate, while data and observed phenomena are well described. However, it is insufficiently placed within the context of the ecosystem measured and the potential wider implications of the ecosystem processes revealed. The emphasis of the article is overly weighted towards the measurement technique which is not claimed as novel. As I read it, the interest here is instead in presenting high resolution data from this particular ecosystem. Detail about “the landers” is placed ahead of the ecosystem in question throughout the article. The analysis of the data is there but it is not sufficiently presented in contrast with existing literature on ecosystem GHG production, fluxes and the processes that drive them.
The data and analysis presented here are certainly worthy of publishing, but I would say the article needs a substantial restructuring to change the focus, starting with a stronger emphasis on the research questions relating to the ecosystem.
Technical comments
Line 19 – “to” is not an appropriate connector in “unlike to rewetting” and to make a subtler point there is a logical inconsistency in saying “unlike x, y is less studied”, either of these alternatives would be more natural: "compared with x, y is less studied" or "unlike x, y remains understudied".
Line 67 – grammar errors in “considered as one of the potent measure”. “Considered to be” is the appropriate construction here and “measure” should be plural. But it would be more appropriate to use an indefinite article eg. “considered to be a potent measure”.
Line 105 – I have not seen this double author et al. style before. It seems you want to give equal credit to the first two authors? In any case, this is a question for the editors.
Line 108 - Perhaps a different term to ‘lander’ could be used since this term is not likely familiar to more terrestrial peatland ecologists.
Line 113 – “customized deployments”? What information is meant to be conveyed here?
Line 119 – is the indent necessary?
Line 125 – annual cycle of what?
Line 204 – “bottle data” is not the most appropriate term to refer to the manually collected dissolved gas concentration data, perhaps another phrase could be found.
Line 206-207 – these 2 sentences are unnecessary.
Line 234 – GHGs should be CO₂ and CH₄
Line 240 – perhaps more could be said about the Schmidt number and the linear interpolation.
Line 242 - Is Utö the most appropriate data source for atmospheric GHG concentrations? I presume the authors chose it because it is also situated in a Baltic coastal setting, however it is 800 km away. If this is the most appropriate measurement site for atmospheric concentrations, some justification for its choice could be included
Line 245 - awkward reference to the previous work here, consider rephrasing
Line 248 – no need to mention the results table in methods.
Line 251 - could there be a clearer way to explain this?
Line 258 – since this data is presented before the fluxes should this section on the methods go before ASE
Line 260 – presumably “descried” is a typo here.
Line 261 – for what scientific purpose were the correlations conducted?
Line 262 – save figure references for results.
Line 277 – no unit for salinity?
Line 295 – unnecessary clause
Line 299 – “short-term”; not sure what is meant by “d; Sect. 3.2, Table 1”; how low are “lower values”.
Line 303 – “strong negative correlation”
Line 304 – the results might start with this comparison and also the part on the same comparison for CH₄
Line 313 – rather than always referring to the landers, the locations could be used, since the location is what is of interest. This point applies throughout.
Line 352 – Short-term variability of what?
Line 355-357 - This sentence belongs in methods.
Line 364-366 – These 2 sentences also to methods
Line 378 - why not just say hourly?
Line 379 – why switch between quantile and percentile?
Line 385 – “shared observation” is not really the right phrase here
Line 408 – What caused this outflow? Some explanation would be interesting if there is one; the phrasing about the water level relative to the sensor is a little clumsy.
Line 416-419 – Is this not already in methods, if not it should be moved there.
Line 429-436 – this table heading seems more like a section of the methods.
Line 439 – tell the variables
Line 442 – A claim including the phrase “covering a comparable study area” is problematic when the study only includes measurements from 2 points, consider rephrasing.
Line 518 - remove sentence starting “The effect of this…”
Line 583-586 – this section is a little clunky
Line 596 – Grammar
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3246-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
187 | 72 | 8 | 267 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 187
- PDF: 72
- XML: 8
- Total: 267
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1