the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Temporal patterns of greenhouse gas emissions from two small thermokarst lakes in Nunavik, Canada
Abstract. Small thermokarst lakes, formed by the thawing of ice-rich permafrost, are significant sources of greenhouse gases (GHG). Most estimates of emissions rely solely on daily measurements, which may bias annual flux calculations. In this study, we combined GHG flux measurements from two intensive summer campaigns with nearly two years of continuous temperature, oxygen, and conductivity profiling in two small (<200 m2) thermokarst lakes in Nunavik (56°33'28.8"N, 76°28'46.5"W), Canada. One campaign occurred during a colder summer (0.7 °C above the seasonal mean) and the other during a warmer one (2.6 °C above the seasonal mean), with one lake being humic and sheltered and the other more transparent and wind-exposed. Average diffusive fluxes of CO2 (22.1 ± 20.5 mmol m–2 d–1; mean ± standard deviation) and CH4 (14.3 ± 14.2 mmol CO2-eq m–2 d–1) were consistent with values reported for similar thermokarst lakes, while N2O fluxes were negligible (–0.8 ± 1.3 mmol CO2-eq m–2 d–1). Emissions increased 4-fold during the warmer summer, alongside the emergence of a diel trend, where daytime (09:00–17:00) CO2 fluxes increased by 47 %, CH4 by 95 %, and negative N2O fluxes by 75 % relative to nighttime fluxes. Moreover, ebullitive CH4 fluxes were six times higher than diffusive fluxes in the humic, sheltered lake, reaching 117.0 ± 44.7 mmol CO2-eq m–2 d–1. Seasonal flux estimates indicate that emissions peaked in fall and spring, as they were almost four times higher than those in summer. Our findings highlight the importance of including both daytime and nighttime measurements, as well as storage fluxes (emitted in spring and fall), to improve the accuracy of GHG emission estimates from thermokarst lakes.
- Preprint
(5647 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1192 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1497', Matthias Koschorreck, 19 Apr 2025
reply
General remarks
The manuscript reports results from a) ca. 1.5 year continuous measurements of limnophysical and meteorological data and b) GHG data from 2 short and intensive summer campaigns in two Canadian thermokarst lakes. From these data the authors try to figure out how GHG emissions in the two lakes were regulated and come up with seasonal GHG budgets for the two lakes.
The topic of the study is important and interesting. GHG emissions from thermokarst lakes are relevant and not well studied. This is probably partly due to the logistic challenges connected with the topic. This makes the presented data very valuable. I appreciate the amount and quality of the dataset obtained under challenging logistic constraints.
However, I have 2 major concerns with the manuscript:
- In their third hypothesis they state that the study was conducted to estimate seasonal variability. However, the method approach is not suited to address seasonal variability of GHGs. Only measuring GHG concentrations and fluxes during two short summer campaigns does not allow to study seasonal dynamics. The authors try to circumvent the lack of seasonal GHG data by a clever combination of assumptions and limnophysical data. This is feasible, but cannot be a core element of the paper. Seasonal conclusions are not sufficiently supported by data. I recommend to adjust the aim of the paper and tone down the seasonal part of the paper accordingly. I recommend to focus more on the strong aspects of the paper: The combination of limnophyscial, meteorological and GHG data during the campaigns as well was the seasonal pattern of stratification and oxygen.
- The manuscript is rather long. This is partly because there are several redundancies between text and figures and tables (e.g. l.443, l.449) and also redundancy between discussion and results (see below). Also, the discussion is in large parts a repetition of the results and does not contain much new information. This is particularly true for section 4.1.. Also l.581-584 or l.590.
A strength of the dataset is that you not only calculated but also measured k600 (what not many people do). You hide in the supplement that both methods agreed fairly well. I recommend to exploit this more in the manuscript. Another chance you missed is: You quantified fluxes from k and concentration. Thus, you can exactly quantify the role of k versus concentration for flux dynamics (and not just write “likely” as in line 593 or “suggest” in l.629). See e.g. https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.12528.
Detailed remarks:
l.13: It’s a bit confusing that a colder summer had temperatures above long term average. Isn´t it more a hot versus a warm summer?
l.52.: “… ebullitive CH4 fluxes…”
l.120: They were not permanently anoxic in the bottom water. Maybe change to “with frequent anoxic conditions”
l.125: I doubt that Secchi depth can be measured at 1 cm precision. Remove “very”.
l.202: “Did you really deploy only one bubble trap per lake? As it becomes clear later in line 666 they indeed only deployed one trap. This is in my eyes not enough to come up with a robust estimate of ebullition.
l.215.: How were the exetainers vacuumed?
l.223.: It is not very common to use a (not very sensitive) TCD for this kind of study. This limits the precision of the concentration data. Please report detection limits and analytical precision for dissolved gas concentrations – not only ppm results.
l.225: Was the CO2 change during the chamber measurements linear? 30 min is a rather long time for these measurements. Can you prove that linear fitting is not under-estimating fluxes?
l.227: Was the inner volume of the analyzer and the tubes involved?
l.242: Maybe add position of the traps to figure 1.
l.247: A partial pressure is not dimensionless but has a pressure unit. What you probably mean is “volumetric mixing ratio [ppmv]”?
l.249: How was the molar volume obtained?
l.300…: use past tense for results.
l.334: I do not see a data gap in the figure.
l.375: It is not very clear what “vertical structure” means. Maybe “vertical structure of the water column”?
l.376-77: Remove sentence.
l.392: Reformulate “While surface remained similar”.
l.393: Can you calculate how the density effect of the conductivity change compare to the temperature induced density?
l.396: What do you mean by “tilting”? Tilting of the thermocline?
l.426: Change to “atmospheric equilibrium values”.
l.454: Why only “likely”. You quantified k, so you should know.
L458: Please report bubble CH4 content data.
Table 4 is redundant to Figure 7. The table can be removed to the supplement.
l.479: It looks as if concentrations were lowest 3 h after sunrise. Any explanation for this lag?
l.486: Why should concentration change when temperature changes. If you express concentration as %sat then yes. But absolute concentrations not. Maybe it makes more sense to use absolute concentration rather than saturation in Figure 8?
l.496: How was the standard deviation calculated?
Figure: Would be nice to have lines with wind speed or k in the plots.
l.560: is “heightend” the right wording?
l.595: How can this be done? Sample more lakes? Sample more site within a lake?
l.614: The temperature data are redundant and not needed here.
l.622: There are several other studies reporting diurnal pattern (e.g Golub, M., et al. (2023). "Diel, Seasonal, and Inter-annual variation in carbon dioxide effluxes from lakes and reservoirs." Environmental Research Letters and references therein)
l.647-649: This is not really a new conclusion. Maybe focus more on the special case of thermokarst lakes in the sense “not only in eutrophic warm lakes with a lot of biology but also in this peculiar thermokarst lakes diurnality needs to be considered”. Another interesting aspect of diurnality in high latitudes could be that (different to “normal” settings) there are periods without darkness in summer.
l.661: See also https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/22/1697/2025/ and
Table S2: Why not add the chamber flux data to this table?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1497-RC1
Data sets
Temporal patterns of greenhouse gas emissions from two small thermokarst lakes in Nunavik, Canada Amélie Pouliot et al. https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/KCX9KV
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
61 | 17 | 1 | 79 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
- HTML: 61
- PDF: 17
- XML: 1
- Total: 79
- Supplement: 4
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 34 | 43 |
Canada | 2 | 9 | 11 |
Germany | 3 | 6 | 7 |
Poland | 4 | 4 | 5 |
Australia | 5 | 3 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 34