the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ecosystem respiration during snowmelt and soil thaw leads to a rare annual CO₂ net loss in a boreal fen
Abstract. Although boreal peatlands play a critical role in the global carbon cycle, their year-round carbon dioxide (CO₂) dynamics — and particularly the contribution of the non-growing season (NGS) — remain poorly constrained in annual balance estimates. Using 17 years (2005–2021) of eddy covariance measurements from a fen in southern Finland, we first quantified the magnitude, timing, and interannual variability of CO₂ fluxes. We then examined in greater detail the NGS, with particular emphasis on soil temperature dynamics and the role of thermal legacy effects. On average, the NGS accounted for 60 % of the year (226 ± 27 days), ranging from mid-September to late April, and offset 57 % of the subsequent growing season’s (GS) CO₂ uptake. NGS emissions declined from autumn to spring, with the highest carbon emissions occurring across September–December and the lowest in January–February. Soil temperature—both concurrent and lagged up to four months—was the main control of CO₂ fluxes during November–December and spring thaw, while photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) dominated during the onset of the NGS. Variability in annual CO₂ balances was large, and in two years (2016 and 2018) the fen switched from a net CO₂ sink to a source. Finally, we focused on 2016 in detail: an exceptional six-week CO₂ release during April–May released 84 g C m⁻², offsetting 38 % of the following GS CO₂ uptake. This event was linked to unusually warm late-autumn soils, minimal snow insulation, and subsequent rapid surface freezing, which likely enhanced CO₂ accumulation and stimulated CO₂ release during thaw. Our results demonstrate that short-lived but intense NGS events can determine the annual peatland CO₂ balance and therefore significantly affect the annual carbon budget of boreal peatlands.
- Preprint
(836 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(751 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 11 Feb 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5778', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jan 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 222 | 74 | 13 | 309 | 28 | 12 | 14 |
- HTML: 222
- PDF: 74
- XML: 13
- Total: 309
- Supplement: 28
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Särkelä et al. describe the carbon balance of the Siikaneva wetland from 2005 to 2021, focusing on the role of the non-growing season. They find that while this fen is in principle a sink for CO2, that it became a source in 2016 due to an unexpected large release of CO2 at the end of the cold season, and they attribute this to the release of CO2 built-up during the winter that remained trapped due to the frozen soil. I find this study well-written and focused, and the proposed mechanism for the large release of CO2 late in the cold season makes sense to me. I have a few suggestions for improvement, but most of them are minor.
My main concern is the use of the word growing and non-growing season, because I’m not sure that the term is correctly used here when using NEE as a threshold. For example, the authors mention that the non-growing season already started on July 30th back in 2018. However, this is a famously warm year with an extensive drought which of course stimulated ecosystem respiration. This is also clear from Figure S3. Did the plants really stop growing in the middle of summer, or did ecosystem respiration simply outweigh GPP? The authors refer to Körner et al. for their definition, but that paper suggests a different term when using NEE as a threshold: the productive season. This is of course an easy terminological fix, and I suggest using the productive season – or productive growing season if need be – to avoid confusion. The term non-growing season would have to be altered accordingly, because the same issue applies there.
Also, it would be good to see what the meteorological growing season would look like. For this, it would be very helpful if a figure similar to Figure 2 could be made that shows air temperature instead of NEE, which is much clearer than what’s shown in Figure S1. Similarly, it would be helpful to have such figures for GPP and Reco as well.
Otherwise, the event that occurred in early 2016 is very reminiscent of the conditions of a frost drought. This can lead to extensive shrub and tree damage. While the sedges, rushes and mosses present at Siikaneva are probably quite resilient to such events, it is possible that some vegetation got damaged and that this delayed the uptake of carbon after snowmelt. Was the onset of GPP later than in other years when comparing to, for example, growing degree days or a simple temperature sum?
Detailed remarks:
Line 68: “no-growing” should be “non-growing” (or non-productive)
Line 100: This looks like a sentence remnant that should be removed.