Denitrification as the predominant process in nitrous oxide production in the water column of two eutrophic reservoirs

Leon-Palmero, Elizabeth; Frey, Claudia; Ward, Bess B.; Morales-Baquero, Rafael; Reche, Isabel

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003

Preprints

29 Oct 2025

| 29 Oct 2025

Denitrification as the predominant process in nitrous oxide production in the water column of two eutrophic reservoirs

Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, Claudia Frey, Bess B. Ward, Rafael Morales-Baquero, and Isabel Reche

Abstract. Reservoirs are important sites for nitrogen cycling and a significant global source of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N₂O) to the atmosphere. They receive nitrogen inputs from agriculture and urban sources, boosting the production of N₂O by nitrification, denitrification, and photochemodenitrification. However, existing estimates of N₂O production in reservoirs are uncertain because previous studies have mainly focused on N₂O in rivers or lake sediments, often overlooking the water column of lentic systems. Here, we employed stable isotope tracer incubations alongside analyses of in situ natural abundance of nitrogen pools and functional genes involved in nitrification (amoA) and denitrification (nirS), to study N₂O production in the water column of two eutrophic reservoirs with contrasting morphometries. We used ¹⁵N-NH₄+ and ¹⁵N-NO₃^- tracers to quantify rates of N₂O production, nitrification, and nitrate reduction at the beginning and the end of the stratification period. Notably, nitrate concentration decreased by up to 49 % over the two months. N₂O production from ammonium ranged from 0.02 to 48.6 nmol-N L^-1 d^-1, while N₂O from nitrate varied from 0.2 to 61.0 nmol-N L^-1 d^-1. High rates of nitrification, nitrate reduction to nitrite, and rapid nitrite turnover were observed, with total N₂O production significantly correlated with the abundance of the nirS gene. A strong positive correlation was found between δ¹⁵Ν-NO₂^- and both N₂O concentration and nirS abundance. Overall, these findings suggest that reservoirs are active sites for N₂O production and N loss, with denitrification playing a significant role in the water column.

Received: 09 Oct 2025 – Discussion started: 29 Oct 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1798 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (1798 KB)

Supplement (544 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

12 Jun 2026

| Highlight paper

Denitrification as the dominant process in nitrous oxide production in the water column of two eutrophic reservoirs

Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, Claudia Frey, Bess B. Ward, Rafael Morales-Baquero, and Isabel Reche

Biogeosciences, 23, 3887–3905, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-3887-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-3887-2026, 2026

Short summary Editorial statement

Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, Claudia Frey, Bess B. Ward, Rafael Morales-Baquero, and Isabel Reche

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5003', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Dec 2025

In this manuscript, the authors report nitrous oxide production pathways in two eutrophic reservoirs using ¹⁵N tracer incubations, natural-abundance isotopes, and functional gene quantification. The methodologies are well-established and proven effective in clarifying nitrous oxide production in aquatic systems; the datasets add valuable observations to the community; and the analyses generally support the claim that denitrification dominates water‑column nitrous oxide production. The manuscript is suitable for target journal when properly revised. Note: line numbers and pages from authors’ PDF file.
My main concern is in the title. The authors argue that denitrification could be the predominant process regulating nitrous oxide production, and in the Discussion section, the authors present evidence about higher nirS abundance and isotopic patterns associated with denitrification. However this argument may be weakened by the fact that, denitrification was generally absent at the oxygenated surface water (figs. 2 & 3), and the N₂O consumption potential inferred from natural abundance isotopic data. The authors acknowledged that nosZ was quantified only at the deepest depths (n=4) and therefore cannot constrain N₂O reduction within the entire reservoir (line 270–275; p.12 figure caption). I suggest the authors reframe the argument/statement to better characterize the novelty of their work.
Some minor comments below:
Line 31 – 33: These global estimates of increased N2O emissions from inland waters are often with large uncertainties. Better to state as “mean ± uncertainty”
Line 35 – 37: There are increasing number of literatures about GHG emission from reservoirs (doi: 10.5194/bg-11-5245-2014; 10.1016/j.watres.2025.123420; 10.3390/su132111621 )
Line 52 – 54: Should clarify about low but not zero oxygen promoting partial denitrification and thus net N2O production.
Line 103: Filtrate passing through 0.7 μm GF/F filter may not be suitable to characterize DOC; 0.45μm filter is recommended.
Line 110 – 120: Should mention the pore size of filter collecting molecular samples. Because genetic materials were collected from water pre-filtered through 3 μm, there may be bias toward underestimating particle‑attached nitrifiers or denitrifiers (as stated line 370 – 371).
Line 122: It is better to specify the criteria for selecting the three depths in the main text. And specify when the N2O concentration or isotope samples were measured at which facility. Preservation using mercuric chloride is generally not recommended for sample storage longer than 1 year.
Line 124: What was the volume of air headspace during oxic incubation?
Line 186: It seems the incubation timepoints for nitrification were different from those of N2O production; which two time points were analyzed for 15N-nitrate?
Line 152: The equation (1) by Santoro et al. will overestimate the N2O production from ⁴⁶N₂O signal. The equation proposed by Ji et al., 2018 GBC (doi: 10.1029/2018GB005887) is recommended.
Line 183 – 190: This section 2.8 about calculating N2O yields using two equations, (4) & (5); which one is used to represent data described in line 240 & 246?
Line 191 – 202: Authors should clarify the consistent amount of N injected into mass spectrometry to determine natural abundance. This is important because the concentrations of N species varied with depth. If varying amounts of N were injected, even for the same water sample, mass spectrometry will yield varying isotopic values.
Line 212: Apparently high DO at the surface (> 400 micromolar, ~2-fold saturation) suggests a very strong oxygen source that can only be supported by blooming algal activity. This was not evident from the chl-a concentration profiles (10 – 20 microgram per liter);
Line 318–323: The main text should clarify “sample #12 excluded as specified in the caption of Fig. 6f”

(as stated in caption L325–333).
Line 335 & 466: I am not sure about the statement “remove significant amount of N”. There could be possibility about the loss of nitrate due to algal assimilation, and the biomass being exported to the sediment. In addition, statements about reservoir‑level DIN loss described in Section 4.4 and the supplementary lack uncertainty estimates and assumptions (depth weighting, temporal representativeness, varying hydraulic retention time, etc). Please add a short paragraph enumerating assumptions and explain the possible caveats. Readers may realize that these DIN loss potential could be specific to the sampling period (Jul–Sep), not necessarily annual rates (L465–474 & Table 2).
Line 362 – 365: Authors should clarify the inconsistencies about anoxic depths with measurable amoA gene abundance (fig 3b), or ammonium oxidation rates (fig 2a).
Line 374 – 375: Where are the data for ammonia oxidation/nitrification, that can infer comammox?
Line 444: Are the authors suggesting denitrification potential in anoxic water column or the sediment? Please clarify.
Line 452 – 465: It is better to address the exact profiles shown in figures 2 & 3 when discussing oxycline turnover times and hypolimnetic storage, to help readers understand the statements.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, 19 Jan 2026
  
  Please see the attached PDF with the point‑by‑point responses to Referee 1.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5003', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Dec 2025
General Comment
This study aims to investigate N₂O production in two reservoirs and to distinguish its origin between nitrifying and denitrifying pathways. To achieve this, the authors combine natural-abundance isotopic analyses with rate measurements of N₂O production associated with partial and complete nitrification as well as denitrification, together with molecular tools to quantify and trace the relevant metabolic pathways at the genetic level. The authors find that denitrification appears to be the main source of N₂O, with consistently higher N₂O production rates and gene abundances than those associated with nitrification. The results highlight the value of combining isotopic and molecular approaches to understand nitrogen cycling in aquatic systems. The methodologies applied are well established. Overall, the manuscript addresses a timely and important topic in the context of climate change and contributes new insights into the origin of N₂O production in lakes. The text is generally well written, although I suggest a minor reorganization of some sections to improve the flow (see specific comments below).

Specific Comments
Materials and Methods
Reorganization of isotopic abundance section: I suggest moving the section on natural isotopic abundances so that it follows immediately after the “Vertical profiles and biogeochemical characterization” section and precedes the “Functional genes” section. Because isotopic abundances are part of the chemical characterization of the water column, presenting them earlier would improve the logical flow of the manuscript. If this restructuring is adopted, the corresponding results section should be reorganized accordingly, presenting the natural isotopic abundance results right after the physicochemical characterization and before the genetic characterization. While not essential, I believe this change would strengthen the overall structure.

Subsection “Statistical tests”: I recommend renaming this subsection to “Data analysis”, which would allow the authors to describe more clearly the analytical criteria and tools used (e.g., the numbering system in the figures, the δ¹⁸O:δ¹⁵N ratio, etc). Please also provide additional detail regarding the statistical procedures applied to linear and non-linear regressions. I assume that assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and independence were evaluated. Additionally, please specify the significance threshold used (e.g., p < 0.05).

Technical Comments
Line 90: Please could you provide more detail on where and how the vertical profiles were measured? How many profiles were obtained per reservoir and sampling date? Was the same sampling site used in July and September?
Line 118: Please specify which nosZ clade (I or II) was quantified.
Line 124: Which was the headspace volume used for the oxic samples? Please, indicate it.
Line 212: A concentration >800 µmol O₂ L^-1 is unusually high (>25 mg O₂ L⁻¹) … Considering the DO profiles shown, it may be worth double-checking the calculation. For instance, if 16 mg O were used instead of 32 mg O₂ for the conversion, this could partly explain the discrepancy. I kindly suggest verifying this value to ensure consistency.
Figure 1a: All N₂O concentration points for the Cubillas reservoir are the same color (orange). Additionally, the negative sign is missing from “-25” on the x-axis of the ¹⁵N–NO₂^-panel.
Line 244: Please review spacing between symbols and values here and throughout the manuscript.
Line 248: Please could you clarify more explicitly that these samples were excluded from the analysis?
Line 256: Since there is no statistically significant relationship between the two variables, please reconsider the use of the word “coupled.” “Accompanied by” would more accurately describe the pattern.
Lines 257–258: The formula and interpretation of NO₂^- turnover time (and N₂O turnover time) would be more appropriately placed in the Methods section rather than in the Results. Including this information earlier would help readers better follow the analyses and their interpretation.
Line 261: Consider using p > 0.05 for non-significant results, and report exact p-values only when results are marginally significant. (Same comment for lines 269, 270, and 275.)
Figures 2 and 3: What do the numbers displayed next to N₂O concentrations represent? Please clarify this in the figure caption. The colour coding is also confusing: orange is used both for July samples and for N₂O production, regardless of sampling date. Please consider selecting a different colour for N₂O production.
Line 290: The dark-gray sediment colour referenced in the caption is not visible in any panel of Figure 3. Please remove this part of the caption.
Figure 4: Please consider using a lighter colour (or open symbols) for the excluded data points. As currently displayed, they are somewhat difficult to distinguish.
Figure 5: Please explain what the numbers represent, ideally in the caption. Additionally, clarifying in the Methods how these numbered points relate to those in Figures 2 and 3 would help guide the reader through the Results and Discussion.
Figure 5a: Why is the segment connecting points 11 and 12 shown in red? I could not find an explanation in the text.
Figure 5c: There appear to be two red dotted lines. Which one is valid? Could you please specify and clarify this in the caption? I additionally suggest explaining the use of this ratio more clearly in the “Data analysis” section.
Line 314–315: Please could you provide a reference for the threshold defining suboxic conditions (DO < 10 µmol L^-1).
Line 317: The manuscript uses the term “relationship” for nirS vs. DO concentration, but “correlation” for nirS vs. cumulative Chl-a. Please use consistent terminology throughout.
Line 367–368: Given the lack of detection issues for AOA in the Cubillas reservoir in September, I am not fully convinced that the presence of AOB and Comammox can be dismissed as easily.
Line 375–376: Because no positive control for Comammox was available, the absence of amplification does not allow the rejection of the hypothesis that high nitrification rates without ammonium oxidation could be due to complete ammonia oxidation. I encourage the authors to consider this possibility.
Line 411–412: If the earlier suggestion is incorporated, this description should be moved to the “Data analysis” section.
Line 415: To support the interpretation, “which indicates net N₂O production” should specify by which process (i.e., denitrification, AOB, or Comammox).
Lines 417–418: The term “coupling” implies a relationship between variables that is not statistically supported. Please consider using “accompanied by” instead.
Lines 432–440: These results are very interesting, and the discussion provided here is excellent!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, 19 Jan 2026
  
  Please see the attached PDF with the point‑by‑point responses to Referee 2.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5003', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Dec 2025

In this manuscript, the authors report nitrous oxide production pathways in two eutrophic reservoirs using ¹⁵N tracer incubations, natural-abundance isotopes, and functional gene quantification. The methodologies are well-established and proven effective in clarifying nitrous oxide production in aquatic systems; the datasets add valuable observations to the community; and the analyses generally support the claim that denitrification dominates water‑column nitrous oxide production. The manuscript is suitable for target journal when properly revised. Note: line numbers and pages from authors’ PDF file.
My main concern is in the title. The authors argue that denitrification could be the predominant process regulating nitrous oxide production, and in the Discussion section, the authors present evidence about higher nirS abundance and isotopic patterns associated with denitrification. However this argument may be weakened by the fact that, denitrification was generally absent at the oxygenated surface water (figs. 2 & 3), and the N₂O consumption potential inferred from natural abundance isotopic data. The authors acknowledged that nosZ was quantified only at the deepest depths (n=4) and therefore cannot constrain N₂O reduction within the entire reservoir (line 270–275; p.12 figure caption). I suggest the authors reframe the argument/statement to better characterize the novelty of their work.
Some minor comments below:
Line 31 – 33: These global estimates of increased N2O emissions from inland waters are often with large uncertainties. Better to state as “mean ± uncertainty”
Line 35 – 37: There are increasing number of literatures about GHG emission from reservoirs (doi: 10.5194/bg-11-5245-2014; 10.1016/j.watres.2025.123420; 10.3390/su132111621 )
Line 52 – 54: Should clarify about low but not zero oxygen promoting partial denitrification and thus net N2O production.
Line 103: Filtrate passing through 0.7 μm GF/F filter may not be suitable to characterize DOC; 0.45μm filter is recommended.
Line 110 – 120: Should mention the pore size of filter collecting molecular samples. Because genetic materials were collected from water pre-filtered through 3 μm, there may be bias toward underestimating particle‑attached nitrifiers or denitrifiers (as stated line 370 – 371).
Line 122: It is better to specify the criteria for selecting the three depths in the main text. And specify when the N2O concentration or isotope samples were measured at which facility. Preservation using mercuric chloride is generally not recommended for sample storage longer than 1 year.
Line 124: What was the volume of air headspace during oxic incubation?
Line 186: It seems the incubation timepoints for nitrification were different from those of N2O production; which two time points were analyzed for 15N-nitrate?
Line 152: The equation (1) by Santoro et al. will overestimate the N2O production from ⁴⁶N₂O signal. The equation proposed by Ji et al., 2018 GBC (doi: 10.1029/2018GB005887) is recommended.
Line 183 – 190: This section 2.8 about calculating N2O yields using two equations, (4) & (5); which one is used to represent data described in line 240 & 246?
Line 191 – 202: Authors should clarify the consistent amount of N injected into mass spectrometry to determine natural abundance. This is important because the concentrations of N species varied with depth. If varying amounts of N were injected, even for the same water sample, mass spectrometry will yield varying isotopic values.
Line 212: Apparently high DO at the surface (> 400 micromolar, ~2-fold saturation) suggests a very strong oxygen source that can only be supported by blooming algal activity. This was not evident from the chl-a concentration profiles (10 – 20 microgram per liter);
Line 318–323: The main text should clarify “sample #12 excluded as specified in the caption of Fig. 6f”

(as stated in caption L325–333).
Line 335 & 466: I am not sure about the statement “remove significant amount of N”. There could be possibility about the loss of nitrate due to algal assimilation, and the biomass being exported to the sediment. In addition, statements about reservoir‑level DIN loss described in Section 4.4 and the supplementary lack uncertainty estimates and assumptions (depth weighting, temporal representativeness, varying hydraulic retention time, etc). Please add a short paragraph enumerating assumptions and explain the possible caveats. Readers may realize that these DIN loss potential could be specific to the sampling period (Jul–Sep), not necessarily annual rates (L465–474 & Table 2).
Line 362 – 365: Authors should clarify the inconsistencies about anoxic depths with measurable amoA gene abundance (fig 3b), or ammonium oxidation rates (fig 2a).
Line 374 – 375: Where are the data for ammonia oxidation/nitrification, that can infer comammox?
Line 444: Are the authors suggesting denitrification potential in anoxic water column or the sediment? Please clarify.
Line 452 – 465: It is better to address the exact profiles shown in figures 2 & 3 when discussing oxycline turnover times and hypolimnetic storage, to help readers understand the statements.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, 19 Jan 2026
  
  Please see the attached PDF with the point‑by‑point responses to Referee 1.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5003', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Dec 2025
General Comment
This study aims to investigate N₂O production in two reservoirs and to distinguish its origin between nitrifying and denitrifying pathways. To achieve this, the authors combine natural-abundance isotopic analyses with rate measurements of N₂O production associated with partial and complete nitrification as well as denitrification, together with molecular tools to quantify and trace the relevant metabolic pathways at the genetic level. The authors find that denitrification appears to be the main source of N₂O, with consistently higher N₂O production rates and gene abundances than those associated with nitrification. The results highlight the value of combining isotopic and molecular approaches to understand nitrogen cycling in aquatic systems. The methodologies applied are well established. Overall, the manuscript addresses a timely and important topic in the context of climate change and contributes new insights into the origin of N₂O production in lakes. The text is generally well written, although I suggest a minor reorganization of some sections to improve the flow (see specific comments below).

Specific Comments
Materials and Methods
Reorganization of isotopic abundance section: I suggest moving the section on natural isotopic abundances so that it follows immediately after the “Vertical profiles and biogeochemical characterization” section and precedes the “Functional genes” section. Because isotopic abundances are part of the chemical characterization of the water column, presenting them earlier would improve the logical flow of the manuscript. If this restructuring is adopted, the corresponding results section should be reorganized accordingly, presenting the natural isotopic abundance results right after the physicochemical characterization and before the genetic characterization. While not essential, I believe this change would strengthen the overall structure.

Subsection “Statistical tests”: I recommend renaming this subsection to “Data analysis”, which would allow the authors to describe more clearly the analytical criteria and tools used (e.g., the numbering system in the figures, the δ¹⁸O:δ¹⁵N ratio, etc). Please also provide additional detail regarding the statistical procedures applied to linear and non-linear regressions. I assume that assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, and independence were evaluated. Additionally, please specify the significance threshold used (e.g., p < 0.05).

Technical Comments
Line 90: Please could you provide more detail on where and how the vertical profiles were measured? How many profiles were obtained per reservoir and sampling date? Was the same sampling site used in July and September?
Line 118: Please specify which nosZ clade (I or II) was quantified.
Line 124: Which was the headspace volume used for the oxic samples? Please, indicate it.
Line 212: A concentration >800 µmol O₂ L^-1 is unusually high (>25 mg O₂ L⁻¹) … Considering the DO profiles shown, it may be worth double-checking the calculation. For instance, if 16 mg O were used instead of 32 mg O₂ for the conversion, this could partly explain the discrepancy. I kindly suggest verifying this value to ensure consistency.
Figure 1a: All N₂O concentration points for the Cubillas reservoir are the same color (orange). Additionally, the negative sign is missing from “-25” on the x-axis of the ¹⁵N–NO₂^-panel.
Line 244: Please review spacing between symbols and values here and throughout the manuscript.
Line 248: Please could you clarify more explicitly that these samples were excluded from the analysis?
Line 256: Since there is no statistically significant relationship between the two variables, please reconsider the use of the word “coupled.” “Accompanied by” would more accurately describe the pattern.
Lines 257–258: The formula and interpretation of NO₂^- turnover time (and N₂O turnover time) would be more appropriately placed in the Methods section rather than in the Results. Including this information earlier would help readers better follow the analyses and their interpretation.
Line 261: Consider using p > 0.05 for non-significant results, and report exact p-values only when results are marginally significant. (Same comment for lines 269, 270, and 275.)
Figures 2 and 3: What do the numbers displayed next to N₂O concentrations represent? Please clarify this in the figure caption. The colour coding is also confusing: orange is used both for July samples and for N₂O production, regardless of sampling date. Please consider selecting a different colour for N₂O production.
Line 290: The dark-gray sediment colour referenced in the caption is not visible in any panel of Figure 3. Please remove this part of the caption.
Figure 4: Please consider using a lighter colour (or open symbols) for the excluded data points. As currently displayed, they are somewhat difficult to distinguish.
Figure 5: Please explain what the numbers represent, ideally in the caption. Additionally, clarifying in the Methods how these numbered points relate to those in Figures 2 and 3 would help guide the reader through the Results and Discussion.
Figure 5a: Why is the segment connecting points 11 and 12 shown in red? I could not find an explanation in the text.
Figure 5c: There appear to be two red dotted lines. Which one is valid? Could you please specify and clarify this in the caption? I additionally suggest explaining the use of this ratio more clearly in the “Data analysis” section.
Line 314–315: Please could you provide a reference for the threshold defining suboxic conditions (DO < 10 µmol L^-1).
Line 317: The manuscript uses the term “relationship” for nirS vs. DO concentration, but “correlation” for nirS vs. cumulative Chl-a. Please use consistent terminology throughout.
Line 367–368: Given the lack of detection issues for AOA in the Cubillas reservoir in September, I am not fully convinced that the presence of AOB and Comammox can be dismissed as easily.
Line 375–376: Because no positive control for Comammox was available, the absence of amplification does not allow the rejection of the hypothesis that high nitrification rates without ammonium oxidation could be due to complete ammonia oxidation. I encourage the authors to consider this possibility.
Line 411–412: If the earlier suggestion is incorporated, this description should be moved to the “Data analysis” section.
Line 415: To support the interpretation, “which indicates net N₂O production” should specify by which process (i.e., denitrification, AOB, or Comammox).
Lines 417–418: The term “coupling” implies a relationship between variables that is not statistically supported. Please consider using “accompanied by” instead.
Lines 432–440: These results are very interesting, and the discussion provided here is excellent!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, 19 Jan 2026
  
  Please see the attached PDF with the point‑by‑point responses to Referee 2.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (23 Feb 2026) by Wei Wen Wong

AR by Elizabeth Leon-Palmero on behalf of the Authors (05 Mar 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (24 Mar 2026) by Wei Wen Wong

AR by Elizabeth Leon-Palmero on behalf of the Authors (06 Apr 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

12 Jun 2026

| Highlight paper

Denitrification as the dominant process in nitrous oxide production in the water column of two eutrophic reservoirs

Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, Claudia Frey, Bess B. Ward, Rafael Morales-Baquero, and Isabel Reche

Biogeosciences, 23, 3887–3905, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-3887-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-3887-2026, 2026

Short summary Editorial statement

Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, Claudia Frey, Bess B. Ward, Rafael Morales-Baquero, and Isabel Reche

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5003-supplement

Elizabeth Leon-Palmero, Claudia Frey, Bess B. Ward, Rafael Morales-Baquero, and Isabel Reche

Viewed

Total article views: 4,028 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
2,263	1,553	212	4,028	442	128	160

HTML: 2,263
PDF: 1,553
XML: 212
Total: 4,028
Supplement: 442
BibTeX: 128
EndNote: 160

Views and downloads (calculated since 29 Oct 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2025	315	30	15	360
Nov 2025	305	205	59	569
Dec 2025	480	428	60	968
Jan 2026	372	243	35	650
Feb 2026	309	289	23	621
Mar 2026	332	282	12	626
Apr 2026	90	38	4	132
May 2026	45	25	3	73
Jun 2026	15	13	1	29

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 29 Oct 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2025	315	30	15	360
Nov 2025	305	205	59	569
Dec 2025	480	428	60	968
Jan 2026	372	243	35	650
Feb 2026	309	289	23	621
Mar 2026	332	282	12	626
Apr 2026	90	38	4	132
May 2026	45	25	3	73
Jun 2026	15	13	1	29

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,982 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,982 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 13 Jun 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1798 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Reservoirs act as nitrogen sinks and emit nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas and major ozone-depleting substance. We studied two reservoirs and found that nitrification and denitrification produce nitrous oxide in the water column, but denitrification is the main source, fueled by fresh organic matter from phytoplankton. Our results also suggest that nitrous oxide is actively consumed. This study highlights the need to include reservoirs in global nitrous oxide budgets.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0