the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Jul 2025
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: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3190', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Aug 2025
-
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 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Patricio Pacheco-Cancino, 12 Sep 2025
Agradecemos sinceramente los valiosos comentarios e inquietudes del revisor. Reconocemos el riesgo de que el presente estudio se perciba como una novedad marginal y agradecemos la oportunidad de aclarar las contribuciones únicas de este manuscrito.
Si bien existe una coincidencia parcial con nuestro artículo publicado previamente en Science of the Total Environment (noviembre de 2021 - abril de 2022), el presente estudio representa una ampliación sustancial tanto en su alcance como en sus objetivos. El trabajo anterior se centró exclusivamente en la temporada de crecimiento y los factores ambientales durante ese período limitado, mientras que el manuscrito actual proporciona, por primera vez, una evaluación anual completa (noviembre de 2021 - noviembre de 2022), que incluye la distribución estacional de los flujos de CO₂ y una interpretación mecanicista de los controles ambientales a lo largo de todo el año.
El enfoque adoptado en este manuscrito revela procesos que no pueden inferirse de un análisis restringido a la temporada de crecimiento, como la relevancia de la dinámica invernal y primaveral para determinar los balances anuales de carbono. El manuscrito reporta dinámicas estacionales de flujo de CO₂ (particularmente NEE) que difieren de las documentadas para las turberas del hemisferio norte, especialmente durante el período invernal, lo que representa una contribución novedosa no descrita previamente para este tipo de ecosistema. Creemos que estos hallazgos constituyen una contribución independiente y necesaria para comprender la variabilidad estacional y anual de los flujos de CO₂ en las turberas bajoEsfagnorecolección de musgo, con implicaciones directas para la gestión sostenible y adaptativa de estos ecosistemas.
De acuerdo con las sugerencias del revisor, revisaremos el manuscrito para: (i) reconocer explícitamente la superposición parcial de los conjuntos de datos, (ii) justificar claramente la justificación de una publicación separada, y (iii) fortalecer la discusión enfatizando los nuevos conocimientos derivados de la perspectiva anual y estacional, y (iv) fortalecer aún más la discusión identificando y describiendo los mecanismos subyacentes, es decir, las interacciones y dinámicas específicas de los impulsores estacionales asociados con los flujos de CO₂.
Agradecemos una vez más los comentarios constructivos del revisor, que nos ayudarán a mejorar la claridad, originalidad y contribución científica de nuestro trabajo.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3190-AC2
-
-
AC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3190 Correction for submitting a response in Spanish', Patricio Pacheco-Cancino, 12 Sep 2025
Dear Associate Editor and Reviewers,
I sincerely apologize for the inadvertent submission of one of the responses to Reviewer 2 in Spanish instead of English. This was an unintentional error, most likely caused by an automatic translation setting in the browser at the time of submission. I regret any inconvenience this may have caused and truly appreciate your understanding.
Please find below the response to Reviewer 2 translated into English
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments and concerns. We acknowledge the risk of the current study being perceived as having only marginal novelty, and we welcome the opportunity to clarify the unique contributions of this manuscript.
While there is a partial overlap with our previously published article in Science of the Total Environment (November 2021 – April 2022), the present study represents a substantial extension in both scope and objectives. The earlier work focused exclusively on the growing season and the environmental drivers during that limited period, whereas the current manuscript provides, for the first time, a full annual assessment (November 2021 – November 2022) including the seasonal partitioning of CO₂ fluxes and a mechanistic interpretation of the environmental controls across the entire year.
The approach adopted in this manuscript reveals processes that cannot be inferred from an analysis restricted to the growing season, such as the relevance of winter and spring dynamics in determining annual carbon balances. The manuscript reports seasonal CO₂ flux dynamics (particularly NEE) that differ from those documented for Northern Hemisphere peatlands, especially during the winter period, which represents a novel contribution not previously described for this type of ecosystem. We believe these findings constitute an independent and necessary contribution to understanding the seasonal and annual variability of CO₂ fluxes in peatlands under Sphagnum moss harvesting, with direct implications for the sustainable and adaptive management of these ecosystems.
In line with the reviewer’s suggestions, we will revise the manuscript to: (i) explicitly acknowledge the partial overlap of datasets, (ii) clearly justify the rationale for a separate publication, and (iii) strengthen the discussion by emphasizing the novel insights derived from the annual and seasonal perspective, and (iv) further strengthen the discussion by identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms, namely the specific interactions and dynamics of the seasonal drivers associated with CO₂ fluxes.
We are grateful once again for the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which will help us improve the clarity, originality, and scientific contribution of our work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3190-AC3
Status: closed
-
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 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Patricio Pacheco-Cancino, 12 Sep 2025
Agradecemos sinceramente los valiosos comentarios e inquietudes del revisor. Reconocemos el riesgo de que el presente estudio se perciba como una novedad marginal y agradecemos la oportunidad de aclarar las contribuciones únicas de este manuscrito.
Si bien existe una coincidencia parcial con nuestro artículo publicado previamente en Science of the Total Environment (noviembre de 2021 - abril de 2022), el presente estudio representa una ampliación sustancial tanto en su alcance como en sus objetivos. El trabajo anterior se centró exclusivamente en la temporada de crecimiento y los factores ambientales durante ese período limitado, mientras que el manuscrito actual proporciona, por primera vez, una evaluación anual completa (noviembre de 2021 - noviembre de 2022), que incluye la distribución estacional de los flujos de CO₂ y una interpretación mecanicista de los controles ambientales a lo largo de todo el año.
El enfoque adoptado en este manuscrito revela procesos que no pueden inferirse de un análisis restringido a la temporada de crecimiento, como la relevancia de la dinámica invernal y primaveral para determinar los balances anuales de carbono. El manuscrito reporta dinámicas estacionales de flujo de CO₂ (particularmente NEE) que difieren de las documentadas para las turberas del hemisferio norte, especialmente durante el período invernal, lo que representa una contribución novedosa no descrita previamente para este tipo de ecosistema. Creemos que estos hallazgos constituyen una contribución independiente y necesaria para comprender la variabilidad estacional y anual de los flujos de CO₂ en las turberas bajoEsfagnorecolección de musgo, con implicaciones directas para la gestión sostenible y adaptativa de estos ecosistemas.
De acuerdo con las sugerencias del revisor, revisaremos el manuscrito para: (i) reconocer explícitamente la superposición parcial de los conjuntos de datos, (ii) justificar claramente la justificación de una publicación separada, y (iii) fortalecer la discusión enfatizando los nuevos conocimientos derivados de la perspectiva anual y estacional, y (iv) fortalecer aún más la discusión identificando y describiendo los mecanismos subyacentes, es decir, las interacciones y dinámicas específicas de los impulsores estacionales asociados con los flujos de CO₂.
Agradecemos una vez más los comentarios constructivos del revisor, que nos ayudarán a mejorar la claridad, originalidad y contribución científica de nuestro trabajo.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3190-AC2
-
-
AC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3190 Correction for submitting a response in Spanish', Patricio Pacheco-Cancino, 12 Sep 2025
Dear Associate Editor and Reviewers,
I sincerely apologize for the inadvertent submission of one of the responses to Reviewer 2 in Spanish instead of English. This was an unintentional error, most likely caused by an automatic translation setting in the browser at the time of submission. I regret any inconvenience this may have caused and truly appreciate your understanding.
Please find below the response to Reviewer 2 translated into English
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments and concerns. We acknowledge the risk of the current study being perceived as having only marginal novelty, and we welcome the opportunity to clarify the unique contributions of this manuscript.
While there is a partial overlap with our previously published article in Science of the Total Environment (November 2021 – April 2022), the present study represents a substantial extension in both scope and objectives. The earlier work focused exclusively on the growing season and the environmental drivers during that limited period, whereas the current manuscript provides, for the first time, a full annual assessment (November 2021 – November 2022) including the seasonal partitioning of CO₂ fluxes and a mechanistic interpretation of the environmental controls across the entire year.
The approach adopted in this manuscript reveals processes that cannot be inferred from an analysis restricted to the growing season, such as the relevance of winter and spring dynamics in determining annual carbon balances. The manuscript reports seasonal CO₂ flux dynamics (particularly NEE) that differ from those documented for Northern Hemisphere peatlands, especially during the winter period, which represents a novel contribution not previously described for this type of ecosystem. We believe these findings constitute an independent and necessary contribution to understanding the seasonal and annual variability of CO₂ fluxes in peatlands under Sphagnum moss harvesting, with direct implications for the sustainable and adaptive management of these ecosystems.
In line with the reviewer’s suggestions, we will revise the manuscript to: (i) explicitly acknowledge the partial overlap of datasets, (ii) clearly justify the rationale for a separate publication, and (iii) strengthen the discussion by emphasizing the novel insights derived from the annual and seasonal perspective, and (iv) further strengthen the discussion by identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms, namely the specific interactions and dynamics of the seasonal drivers associated with CO₂ fluxes.
We are grateful once again for the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which will help us improve the clarity, originality, and scientific contribution of our work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3190-AC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 377 | 59 | 26 | 462 | 24 | 10 | 16 |
- HTML: 377
- PDF: 59
- XML: 26
- Total: 462
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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.