the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Annual and seasonal CO₂ flux in a temperate north-Patagonian peatland exposed to varying intensities of commercial Sphagnum moss harvesting
Abstract. Peatlands hold the largest carbon (C) reserves worldwide and therefore play a fundamental role in climate change mitigation. In the Southern Hemisphere, peatlands distributed in the Patagonia represent the principal extratropical C sink. Nevertheless, increasing anthropogenic pressures, such as the commercial harvesting of Sphagnum moss, threaten their capacity to regulate CO₂ fluxes, a situation that has been scarcely studied.
We conducted a field study that quantified and analyzed the annual and seasonal CO₂ fluxes in a North Patagonian peatland subjected to varying intensities of commercial Sphagnum harvesting: high, moderate, and undisturbed. Using closed chamber techniques, we measured the components of the CO₂ flux over the course of one year, while also identifying the predominant environmental drivers influencing these fluxes.
The results showed that moss harvesting intensity was directly correlated with net ecosystem exchange (NEE) fluxes. The high-intensity extraction site acted as a net CO₂ source (375.7 g CO₂-C m⁻² yr⁻¹), the moderately harvested site was approximately carbon neutral (10.2 g CO₂-C m⁻² yr⁻¹), and the undisturbed site functioned as an annual CO₂ sink (−167.1 g CO₂-C m⁻² yr⁻¹). Seasonal fluxes revealed that disturbed sites emitted more CO₂ in summer and acted as sinks in spring, while the undisturbed site sequestered CO₂ year-round. In winter, all three sites functioned as CO₂ sinks due to environmental conditions that favored productivity and minimized respiration.
Photosynthetically active radiation was the key bioclimatic driver regulating gross primary production and NEE, while air and soil temperature primarily influenced ecosystem respiration. These findings provide relevant evidence for understanding carbon dynamics in peatlands affected by commercial Sphagnum harvesting and underscore the need for sustainable management regulations to preserve their role as carbon sinks in Chilean Patagonia.
- Preprint
(3038 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1252 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3190', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Aug 2025
This preprint appears to reuse the same dataset, objectives, and structure, with several sections closely resembling the published version in Science of the Total Environment (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178566). Notably, the manuscript does not acknowledge the prior publication, which raises concerns about transparency and ethical standards in scholarly communication.
Although the figures are not entirely duplicated (except for Fig. 1), the authors appear to be reusing familiar analytical frameworks. In my view, the manuscript would benefit from a more distinct presentation and interpretation of the data to clearly differentiate it from the prior publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3190-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Patricio Pacheco-Cancino, 23 Aug 2025
We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s comments and the opportunity to clarify the relationship between the present manuscript and our previous publication in Science of the Total Environment (STOTEN). We acknowledge that the submitted version did not explicitly state that this work is a follow-up study that expands upon a previous analysis. We accept that this may have raised concerns regarding transparency, and we are grateful for the opportunity to address this.
We would like to emphasize that, although both studies were conducted at the same experimental sites and share part of the measurement period, the scope, objectives, and analytical approach of the present manuscript differ substantially from those of the previously published article.
The article published in STOTEN focused exclusively on the vegetation growing season (November 2021 – April 2022) and evaluated net CO₂ exchange and environmental drivers during that limited period.
In contrast, the present manuscript provides, for the first time, a comprehensive annual and seasonal assessment of CO₂ fluxes (November 2021 – November 2022), including the partitioning of CO₂ components and the identification of the main environmental drivers at the annual scale. This broader perspective offers essential insights into the seasonal variability of carbon dynamics in peatlands subjected to commercial Sphagnum harvesting, which has significant practical and scientific implications crucial for the development of sustainable harvesting schemes and the conservation of the environmental services provided by these ecosystems. Therefore, we contend that the submitted manuscript makes a highly relevant and novel scientific contribution.
To ensure full transparency and clearly distinguish both studies, we propose the following:
- Include in the Introduction an explicit reference to the previously published article in STOTEN, indicating that it reported fluxes during the growing season, whereas the present study addresses annual and seasonal patterns. The added value of this study will also be highlighted.
- Add a clarification in the Materials and Methods section stating that part of the measurement period overlaps with the previous article (partial overlap of measurement periods), along with an explanation of the additional data and analyses conducted in this study.
- Revise the Discussion to emphasize the novel contributions of this manuscript in relation to previous work and to avoid any perception of redundancy.
We once again thank the reviewer for the valuable comments, which help us improve the clarity and originality of our work. We are confident that the proposed revisions will make the novel scientific contributions and added value of our study fully evident.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3190-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Patricio Pacheco-Cancino, 23 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3190', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Sep 2025
That said, I remain concerned that the novelty of this manuscript is marginal. The dataset, study design, and overall analytical framework are essentially the same as those in the STOTEN article, with the main difference being the inclusion of additional months of data beyond the growing season. While the extension to a full annual cycle is valuable, one could argue that such an analysis might reasonably have been included in the original paper. As it stands, the current manuscript risks being perceived as an incremental extension (“salami slicing”) rather than a truly independent contribution.
To strengthen the case for publication, the revised manuscript must:
-
Clearly highlight scientific insights that could not be derived from the growing-season analysis alone (e.g., unique winter/spring dynamics, mechanistic interpretation of seasonal drivers).
-
Reframe the Discussion so that the reader understands this is not just a longer dataset, but a study that advances knowledge in a distinct way.
-
Explicitly acknowledge the partial dataset overlap and justify why a separate publication is warranted.
If the manuscript succeeds in reframing itself as a stand-alone scientific contribution, then it could merit consideration. However, unless these revisions are made convincingly, the paper risks redundancy with the prior publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3190-RC2 -
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
272 | 44 | 19 | 335 | 20 | 7 | 12 |
- HTML: 272
- PDF: 44
- XML: 19
- Total: 335
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1