the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 03 Apr 2025
Peatland development reconstruction and complex soil biological responses to permafrost thawing in Western Siberia
Abstract. Western Siberian peatlands are among the largest peatland complexes in the world and play a crucial role in regulating the global climate. However, a lack of long-term, multi-proxy studies comprehensively examining the interactions between permafrost thaw and peatland ecosystems in Western Siberia hinders the ability to predict their response to future climate change. This research covers two centuries of the Khanymei peatlands history, situated within the discontinuous permafrost zone. In this study, a multi-proxy analysis (testate amoebae, plant macrofossil, pollen, micro- and macrocharcoal, loss on ignition) was conducted on two peat cores – one from a peat plateau and another from the edge of a thermokarst lake. We inferred peatland drying from the end of the Little Ice Age. The elevated peat plateau facilitated the aggradation of permafrost, which began to thaw in recent decades due to rising air temperatures, releasing additional moisture. The lake edge was the most dynamic part of the peatland, where more notable changes in hydrology, vegetation, and microbial composition occurred. Thawing led to significant Sphagnum growth and a shift in the testate amoebae community structure. We reconstructed the effects of permafrost thawing that resulted in a substantial but short-term and local increase in peat and carbon accumulation and an increased abundance of fungal communities. We anticipate that further warming will contribute to the occurrence of these processes on a larger scale in Western Siberian peatlands, potentially significantly impacting ecosystem conditions and the global climate. Our study reveals that thaw-induced terrain subsidence was remarkably subtle, yet it underscores the intricate and multifaceted nature of permafrost degradation, which may potentially lead to dramatic consequences. The advantage of our research lies in the utilization of multi-proxy high-resolution palaeoecological techniques, enabling us to monitor even relatively minor permafrost transformations and identify early warning signals of climate-induced impacts on this invaluable ecosystem.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(13667 KB)
-
Supplement
(171 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13667 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(171 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1422', Yuri Mazei, 04 May 2025
The manuscript is devoted to the reconstruction of soil responces to the permafrost thaw under climate change during last two centuries in the Western Siberian Arctic based on two peat cores. The investigation is well designed, presents new findings on the realtions of climate change, permafrost thaw and carbon accumulation in soils. The manuscript is clear organised and well written. I suggest to accept the manuscript for publication in current state.
Hopw to see the paper published soon!
Yuri Mazei
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1422-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Agnieszka Halaś, 26 Jun 2025
We thank the reviewer very much for their generous and supportive assessment of our manuscript. We are pleased that the research design, clarity of presentation, and relevance of our findings were appreciated. It is especially encouraging to hear that the study was found to contribute new insights into the relationship between climate change, permafrost thaw, and carbon dynamics in Arctic peatlands.
We are grateful for the recommendation to accept the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1422-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Agnieszka Halaś, 26 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1422', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jun 2025
General comments
The revised manuscript “Peatland development reconstruction and complex soil biological responses to permafrost thawing in Western Siberia” represents high-quality and original study addressing an important question of permafrost mire dynamics in Wester Siberia of the last two centuries. This scientific question is relevant withing the scopes of BG journal. The authors present new paleoecological data and try to interpret them using original concepts. As a result, authors reach substantial conclusions on the dynamics of the studied permafrost mires revealing complex interactions among permafrost, fire regime, local surface wetness and vegetation. The dynamics is interpreted in the context of climate changes. The applied scientific methods and assumptions are valid and in most cases are clearly outlined. My main concern is that sometimes authors go beyond their results in the interpretations and conclusions (see my specific comments), but this can be easily corrected by more precise phrasing or by removal speculative parts (which are not numerous). The structure and the language of the manuscript can be also improved to more concise (see my specific comments). The same concerns the title and the abstract of the manuscript. I think that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revisions.
Specific comments
Title “soil” is quite unexpected here. It would be better to stick to one term here permafrost soils or permafrost mires. I think the latter is more relevant to the study. The word "soil" can be completely removed from the title.
Abstract
“an increased abundance of fungal communities” I do not see such data in the ms.
“Our study reveals that thaw-induced terrain subsidence was remarkably subtle, yet it underscores the intricate and multifaceted nature of permafrost degradation, which may potentially lead to dramatic consequences.” This sentence is very general.
Introduction
40 I do not really see the difference between these two ways. I think that you are trying to say that increased temperatures will lead to release of the organic materials either through it leaching/removal or decomposition. Why is this negative impact? Or negative for whom? It seems to be a positive relation, the greater the temperature the greater the loss of organic materials. Moreover, at 45-50 you say that increased temperatures lead to other changes in permafrost peatlands such as greater surface wetness and active layer thickness. Why are these effects are not counted in those “negative impacts”? I think that more precise phrases and structure of the introduction can easily solve the issue.
60 “The surface of permafrost peatlands often consists of microhabitats” It is not clear for what kind of living organisms these microhabitats. Perhaps, it would be better to refer to them here as “complex surface topography”. And then explain why this topography represent different microhabitats.
75 “Studied Khanymei permafrost peatlands are located between greening-dominated and browning-dominated zones of Western Siberia.” It does seem like a right place for this sentence because the readers do not know anything yet about the study site.
Study area
115 “precipitation patterns have altered significantly” perhaps have been altered?
Material and methods
Figure 2. Please give more detained descriptions of the cores, otherwise it is not clear from which part of the mire they were extracted (the reader needs to go back to the text). Please, check the other figure legends as well.
205 How the fresh sample volume was determined?
215 “For the peat core, Kh-K1, four (Kh1-A-D) and for Kh-K2, six zones (Kh2-A-F) were distinguished and used in the result description.” This sentence belongs to the Results section.
225 It is not clear why NMDS analysis was performed for one core only?
Results
240 Perhaps, it would be better to place the images of the unidentified testate amoeba to the supplementary materials, as this is not the main focus of the paper. I would recommend structuring the paragraph from the most reliable to the least reliable statements. It would be better to report the abundance and to interpret the hydrological preferences of well-known taxa first, and then mention the presence of the unidentified species. The reconstructed WTD should be reported after the description of testate amoeba assemblages. The same is for the descriptions of the other zones.
“Wetter conditions favoured bigger TA aperture size, higher shell biovolume, and more spherical shells.” The inversed logic here, because water conditions have been reconstructed on testate amoebae. You can say that the predominance of TA with large and spherical shells also indicate wet conditions.
“A less acidic pH (5.1) was reconstructed at the start of the record.” Less acidic compared to what?
330 “Peat plateaus with lichen-moss-shrub cover have been a characteristic feature of the Khanymei peatlands’ landscape in recent years (Volkova et al., 2019).” This sentence seems to belong to Discussion.
Discussion
410 “During this period, the dominance of Betula pollen in the region confirmed moist conditions. Betula is a pioneer species that prefers wetter environments but is sensitive to both floods and droughts (Beck et al., 2016; Lanta and Hazukova, 2005).” I agree that birch is a pioneer species, but I am not sure that it can indicate moist conditions. Why do you think so?
555 “releases additional moisture” Thawing permafrost can release additional water or increase substrate moisture
565 To my mind this paragraph is quite speculative and vague. I think it can be removed completely
610 “The described critical thawing zone (Fig. 8B) is dynamic and rapidly changing, and occurs in a small area most often perpendicular to the previously thawed and collapsed depression and is about 1-2 meters wide with much influence of lateral hydrological drainage (which is difficult to determine).” I do not any description of the critical zone in the text, it is just marked on the figure. Even from the figure I do not see that the zone is “perpendicular” to anything, so these spatial relationships are not persuasive for me. Overall this paragraph seems to be speculative. Are there any other studies, which would report similar patterns?
Technical corrections
180 Lycopodium should be in italic
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1422-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Agnieszka Halaś, 07 Jul 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1422', Yuri Mazei, 04 May 2025
The manuscript is devoted to the reconstruction of soil responces to the permafrost thaw under climate change during last two centuries in the Western Siberian Arctic based on two peat cores. The investigation is well designed, presents new findings on the realtions of climate change, permafrost thaw and carbon accumulation in soils. The manuscript is clear organised and well written. I suggest to accept the manuscript for publication in current state.
Hopw to see the paper published soon!
Yuri Mazei
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1422-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Agnieszka Halaś, 26 Jun 2025
We thank the reviewer very much for their generous and supportive assessment of our manuscript. We are pleased that the research design, clarity of presentation, and relevance of our findings were appreciated. It is especially encouraging to hear that the study was found to contribute new insights into the relationship between climate change, permafrost thaw, and carbon dynamics in Arctic peatlands.
We are grateful for the recommendation to accept the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1422-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Agnieszka Halaś, 26 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1422', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jun 2025
General comments
The revised manuscript “Peatland development reconstruction and complex soil biological responses to permafrost thawing in Western Siberia” represents high-quality and original study addressing an important question of permafrost mire dynamics in Wester Siberia of the last two centuries. This scientific question is relevant withing the scopes of BG journal. The authors present new paleoecological data and try to interpret them using original concepts. As a result, authors reach substantial conclusions on the dynamics of the studied permafrost mires revealing complex interactions among permafrost, fire regime, local surface wetness and vegetation. The dynamics is interpreted in the context of climate changes. The applied scientific methods and assumptions are valid and in most cases are clearly outlined. My main concern is that sometimes authors go beyond their results in the interpretations and conclusions (see my specific comments), but this can be easily corrected by more precise phrasing or by removal speculative parts (which are not numerous). The structure and the language of the manuscript can be also improved to more concise (see my specific comments). The same concerns the title and the abstract of the manuscript. I think that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revisions.
Specific comments
Title “soil” is quite unexpected here. It would be better to stick to one term here permafrost soils or permafrost mires. I think the latter is more relevant to the study. The word "soil" can be completely removed from the title.
Abstract
“an increased abundance of fungal communities” I do not see such data in the ms.
“Our study reveals that thaw-induced terrain subsidence was remarkably subtle, yet it underscores the intricate and multifaceted nature of permafrost degradation, which may potentially lead to dramatic consequences.” This sentence is very general.
Introduction
40 I do not really see the difference between these two ways. I think that you are trying to say that increased temperatures will lead to release of the organic materials either through it leaching/removal or decomposition. Why is this negative impact? Or negative for whom? It seems to be a positive relation, the greater the temperature the greater the loss of organic materials. Moreover, at 45-50 you say that increased temperatures lead to other changes in permafrost peatlands such as greater surface wetness and active layer thickness. Why are these effects are not counted in those “negative impacts”? I think that more precise phrases and structure of the introduction can easily solve the issue.
60 “The surface of permafrost peatlands often consists of microhabitats” It is not clear for what kind of living organisms these microhabitats. Perhaps, it would be better to refer to them here as “complex surface topography”. And then explain why this topography represent different microhabitats.
75 “Studied Khanymei permafrost peatlands are located between greening-dominated and browning-dominated zones of Western Siberia.” It does seem like a right place for this sentence because the readers do not know anything yet about the study site.
Study area
115 “precipitation patterns have altered significantly” perhaps have been altered?
Material and methods
Figure 2. Please give more detained descriptions of the cores, otherwise it is not clear from which part of the mire they were extracted (the reader needs to go back to the text). Please, check the other figure legends as well.
205 How the fresh sample volume was determined?
215 “For the peat core, Kh-K1, four (Kh1-A-D) and for Kh-K2, six zones (Kh2-A-F) were distinguished and used in the result description.” This sentence belongs to the Results section.
225 It is not clear why NMDS analysis was performed for one core only?
Results
240 Perhaps, it would be better to place the images of the unidentified testate amoeba to the supplementary materials, as this is not the main focus of the paper. I would recommend structuring the paragraph from the most reliable to the least reliable statements. It would be better to report the abundance and to interpret the hydrological preferences of well-known taxa first, and then mention the presence of the unidentified species. The reconstructed WTD should be reported after the description of testate amoeba assemblages. The same is for the descriptions of the other zones.
“Wetter conditions favoured bigger TA aperture size, higher shell biovolume, and more spherical shells.” The inversed logic here, because water conditions have been reconstructed on testate amoebae. You can say that the predominance of TA with large and spherical shells also indicate wet conditions.
“A less acidic pH (5.1) was reconstructed at the start of the record.” Less acidic compared to what?
330 “Peat plateaus with lichen-moss-shrub cover have been a characteristic feature of the Khanymei peatlands’ landscape in recent years (Volkova et al., 2019).” This sentence seems to belong to Discussion.
Discussion
410 “During this period, the dominance of Betula pollen in the region confirmed moist conditions. Betula is a pioneer species that prefers wetter environments but is sensitive to both floods and droughts (Beck et al., 2016; Lanta and Hazukova, 2005).” I agree that birch is a pioneer species, but I am not sure that it can indicate moist conditions. Why do you think so?
555 “releases additional moisture” Thawing permafrost can release additional water or increase substrate moisture
565 To my mind this paragraph is quite speculative and vague. I think it can be removed completely
610 “The described critical thawing zone (Fig. 8B) is dynamic and rapidly changing, and occurs in a small area most often perpendicular to the previously thawed and collapsed depression and is about 1-2 meters wide with much influence of lateral hydrological drainage (which is difficult to determine).” I do not any description of the critical zone in the text, it is just marked on the figure. Even from the figure I do not see that the zone is “perpendicular” to anything, so these spatial relationships are not persuasive for me. Overall this paragraph seems to be speculative. Are there any other studies, which would report similar patterns?
Technical corrections
180 Lycopodium should be in italic
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1422-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Agnieszka Halaś, 07 Jul 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 502 | 118 | 17 | 637 | 21 | 13 | 31 |
- HTML: 502
- PDF: 118
- XML: 17
- Total: 637
- Supplement: 21
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Mariusz Lamentowicz
Milena Obremska
Dominika Łuców
Michał Słowiński
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13667 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(171 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper