the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Deltaic Burial of Authigenic Calcite Modulates the Carbon Balance of Hardwater Lakes
Abstract. Inland waters play an important role in the terrestrial carbon cycle by burying carbon in aquatic sediments while simultaneously releasing CO2 to the atmosphere and laterally exporting carbon along the land-ocean aquatic continuum. Especially in hardwater lakes, where increased primary productivity can trigger CO2 outgassing via calcite precipitation, the interactions of processes influencing the balance between carbon burial and release remains incompletely constrained. To better understand these dynamics, we analyzed organic and inorganic carbon fluxes in a year long (June 2022 to June 2023) sediment trap study in Lake Geneva, the largest natural lake in Western Europe. Two sediment traps - one deployed in the subaqueous delta of the upper Rhône River, the other in the lake’s deepest basin - were sampled monthly. Analyzing the radiocarbon (14C) signatures of particulate organic and inorganic carbon, allowed us to resolve allochthonous (external) and autochthonous (internal) contributions to absolute carbon fluxes. We found that the flux of autochthonous particulate inorganic carbon in the river-proximal deltaic site was approximately four times higher than in the distal one. This is likely the result of calcite precipitation driven by increased fluvial supply of nutrients and suspended carbonate-bearing particles. Sediment core analysis in the same location suggests efficient preservation of this calcite over at least centennial timescales, which we conservatively estimate around 7-10 Gg C yr-1 lake-wide. This indicates at least partial offset of the CO2 released during calcite precipitation and is an important flux to be considered in mechanistic carbon cycle models.
- Preprint
(1374 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2891', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2891', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Aug 2025
In this manuscript, Mittelbach et al. present a novel approach employing sediment traps at two locations in Lake Geneva (France/Switzerland), a large peri-alpine lake. By analyzing particulate organic carbon (POC) and particulate inorganic carbon (PIC) from traps situated near and distant from the main river inflow, the authors convincingly demonstrate that calcite precipitation can significantly contribute to carbon sequestration in hardwater lakes.
The manuscript is clearly written, well structured, and methodologically robust. The results are effectively presented and offer valuable insights into carbon biogeochemical cycling in lacustrine systems. I particularly appreciate how a relatively simple sediment-trap setup can inform broader lake-scale carbon budgets and align well with longer-term perspectives derived from sediment cores. The methodology appears applicable to other systems to explore the role of pelagic calcite precipitation and dissolution in lake carbon cycling.
I commend the authors for this excellent contribution. I have only a few comments and questions, as the manuscript is nearly ready for publication in its current form. Please find my detailed feedback below.
Major Comments
Line 121: Were dissolution rates of settling calcite crystals considered? If estimable, could this affect the study's conclusions?
Line 154: The assumption that "PICAuto was assumed to derive from the lake’s DIC pool" excludes any calcite formation in the Rhône or other tributaries. Please clarify why this possibility was ruled out.
Lines 168–169: It appears the potential lateral transport of allochthonous material from the Rhône to the distal trap was not accounted for. How can we be confident that a significant portion of allochthonous POC is not laterally transported? Given the overlap between riverine particle input and peak primary productivity, please justify this methodological assumption and discuss any potential implications for the results and their interpretation.
Figure 4: Could the authors explain the abrupt increase in ΔPI14C observed in December 2022?
Minor Comments
Line 300: Please specify “calcite precipitation events” to avoid confusion with meteorological precipitation.
Line 311: Regarding "such as May 2023," is there supporting data or a reference confirming elevated primary productivity during this period?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2891-RC2
Data sets
Lake Geneva Sediment Traps 2022-2023, PO14C, PO13C and PI14C Benedict Mittelbach et al. https://zenodo.org/records/15387276
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
366 | 30 | 19 | 415 | 13 | 17 |
- HTML: 366
- PDF: 30
- XML: 19
- Total: 415
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is a very clear and nicely written manuscript. I have limited comments to make, mainly because the presentation is clear and the interpretations appear sound and based on a well treated dataset. A couple of very minor comments below:
L138. Should this be C2?
L164. Is there an advantage to using a flat distribution for the source end member (DIC) and a normal distribution (PIC) for the samples in the Monte Carlo simulation? If not, a sentence on the justification of this approach here would be useful.
Section 4.3. Are the values calculated here just scaled based on the surface area of the lake? I appreciate that this is delineated as a first order estimate, but is a simple areal scaling of these values appropriate? Some clarification/justification here would be appreciated to add a bit more veracity to this section, which is important to clarify the importance of the study’s findings.