the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Extreme carbon fluxes may result from autochthonous particulate organic carbon regulated by the interactions between picophytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria in river-reservoir systems
Abstract. Freshwater is a significant natural source of atmospheric methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) while also receiving significant amounts of particulate organic carbon (POC) from various origins. The variation in carbon (CH4 and CO2) fluxes in freshwater systems is heavily influenced by the sources of POC. The trophic interaction between picophytoplankton (PP) and heterotrophic bacteria (HB) plays a vital role in the carbon cycle within the aquatic system. However, the contributions of different sources of POC to the concentrations and fluxes of CH4 and CO2 are still unclear. Here, we explored the contribution of POC from different sources to extreme carbon emission and the interaction between PP and HB. The evidence from isotope analysis further proved that the extreme carbon fluxes were strongly influenced by autochthonous POC rather than allochthonous POC. Network analysis showed that the positive interaction strength between phytoplankton and bacterioplankton in extreme carbon groups was higher than in normal carbon groups. The results of the structure equation modeling analysis also highlighted that the PP-HB interaction strongly drove the extreme carbon values. This study first introduced the probability statistics method to identify and classify high or low extreme carbon values. These findings also highlight the importance of PP and HB in carbon extreme emissions, and we hope our study can provide an important implication for integrating PP-HB interaction into predicting extreme carbon emissions in the river-reservoir ecosystem.
- Preprint
(1552 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1734 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 11 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-156', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Mar 2025
reply
General comments:
Luo et al examined how the source of particulate organic carbon impacts the fluxes of carbon dioxide and methane from a freshwater ecosystem. They observed that internally produced carbon is more associated with extreme flux of CO2 and CH4 (rather than externally produced carbon) and that interactions between primary producers and heterotrophs were likely important for extreme fluxes.
This study contains and presents interesting data but lacks context throughout. The CO2 and CH4 concentration and flux data are not presented in light of previous studies. As such, the reader has no context for these values unless they are familiar with specific studies themselves. There are loads of studies on CO2 and CH4 fluxes, concentrations, etc and the authors could shorten the current Discussion which is overly speculative in some areas (particularly the amplicon data which is only DNA, not related to function or activity, etc) to make room to discuss the actual values here and how they compare to other studies. There is no need to write so much about r- vs. K-strategists or correlation networks when the data only support correlations and not in situ activity that can be directly linked to fluxes or concentrations.
The Abstract lacks context to what is studied. Extreme fluxes are not described until Line 67 — well into the introduction. One could assume this means a one time event rather than over the course of an algal bloom. Adding a brief description would provide valuable context for the reader. Similarly, it is awkward to say river-reservoir without providing this detail earlier in the abstract. It would be useful to specifically state earlier what your study system is.
Sometimes the paper uses acronyms for samples, other times it does not. This adds confusion to the writing. I would choose one and stick with that style throughout.
Specific Comments:
Line 80: providing significant
Line 81: This is an awkward statement that could be re-phrased. Also is there any specific quantitative information you can provide other than “more CO2”? Related — the next statement is about picophytoplankton generally and not blooms specifically so you might consider reorganizing here for clarity.
Line 86: Why is tiny here? Are these smaller than “defined by a cell size of 0.2-2 μm”?
Line 89: In water? Or in all environments?
Line 108: autotrophic
Line 115: Why the quotes for “physical interactions”? Do you need to define this? Does it mean something other than what is stated?
Line 128: Why the quotes again?
Line 137: Reference needed?
Line 139, Line 142, Line 154: As I mentioned above, a definition of extremes is needed.
Line 142: Can you provide specific numbers for what is high or low?
Line 148: The hypotheses — is this about concentration and flux?
Line 154: these hypotheses
Line 216, Line 243: Acidification has been show to impact 15N signals.
Line 230: Do you mean from duplicate samples or what was duplicated here?
Line 329: Doesn’t the previous statement imply the opposite — low, July, high, November. This is very confusing as presented.
Line 277: Why introduce Ext_h, Nor here but not use it before?
Line 391: What do you mean by certain influence?
Line 484: accounts for a large proportion of the POC
Line 580: Correlation is not the same thing as causation. Especially from 16S rRNA (DNA) data. These statements should reflect that this is only a correlation in the network analyses.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-156-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhe Li, 08 Apr 2025
reply
Dear Editor and Referee,
We sincerely thank Referee #1 and the editor for reviewing and evaluating our manuscript entitled “Extreme carbon fluxes may result from autochthonous particulate organic carbon regulated by the interactions between picophytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria in river-reservoir systems” (ID: egusphere-2025-156), and for providing us with valuable and constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript according to Referee #1’s comments and provided detailed point-by-point responses to the comments. Please find the enclosed document containing our responses to Referee #1's comments.
In this document, Referee #1’s comments are shown in blue, and our responses are presented in black. The corresponding revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
We hope that our efforts will improve the quality of the manuscript and meet the journal’s requirements.
Yours sincerely,
Zhe Li, on behalf of all authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhe Li, 08 Apr 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
103 | 25 | 7 | 135 | 23 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 103
- PDF: 25
- XML: 7
- Total: 135
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 44 | 33 |
China | 2 | 38 | 29 |
France | 3 | 5 | 3 |
United Kingdom | 4 | 5 | 3 |
South Korea | 5 | 4 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 44