the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Effects of permafrost thaw on seasonal soil CO2 efflux dynamics in a boreal forest site
Abstract. Permafrost regions in subarctic and arctic areas harbor substantial carbon reserves, which are becoming increasingly vulnerable to microbial decomposition as soils warm. As the seasonally thawed active layer deepens and anthropogenic disturbances escalate, accurately predicting carbon fluxes from thawed permafrost requires a comprehensive understanding of soil respiration dynamics. This study aimed to investigate the impact of disturbance on soil respiration rates and identify the key environmental and geochemical factors influencing these processes in a boreal forest ecosystem near Fairbanks, Alaska. The disturbed site demonstrated an increase in mean annual soil temperatures, recorded at 0.60 ± 0.16 °C, along with a 14.4 % rise in mean annual microbial activity, which peaked at 20 % during the summer, in contrast to the undisturbed site, which had a mean annual temperature of -0.37 ± 0.08 °C. Furthermore, bacterial and fungal community composition differed significantly between the two sites, suggesting a potential mechanism underlying the variation in CO2 efflux. Our research underscores the essential importance of considering the rise in carbon emissions from anthropogenically disturbed soils in permafrost areas, which are frequently neglected in assessments of the carbon cycle. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex interactions governing soil respiration in thawing permafrost, ultimately informing more accurate predictions of carbon fluxes in these ecosystems.
- Preprint
(1124 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1067 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Aug 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1204', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jun 2025
reply
The topic and data are interesting. However, data analysis and presentation are poor. Therefore, substantial revisions throughout the manuscript are required. For example:
1) Why did the authors consider only microbial respiration when they measured total respiration, including plant root respiration?
2) Why did the authors evaluate only the linear relationships between soil CO2 efflux and environmental variables, when they can be related non-linearly to each other? I think the authors should present and describe relations between soil CO2 efflux and potentially important variables (i.e., temperature and VWC) in more detail before applying the simple analyses with linear correlations and random forest models.
3) How did the authors determine the microbial activity from microbial abundances based on DNA amplicon analysis? The amplicon analysis just provided microbial abundances but never microbial activity. Presenting data of microbial species composition in the main text but not in the supplemental is required.
4) Why did the authors refer only to carbon dynamics studies on non-permafrost regions in their introduction (L49-L60)? Referring to those studies on permafrost regions is essential to clarify the position of the present study within the scientific context of this research field.
It is super challenging to summarize concisely all the issues of the manuscript. Therefore, substantial self-efforts by the authors are essential in thoroughly revising the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1204-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
143 | 57 | 10 | 210 | 15 | 7 | 23 |
- HTML: 143
- PDF: 57
- XML: 10
- Total: 210
- Supplement: 15
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1