the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Improving Seasonally Frozen Ground Monitoring Using Soil Freezing Characteristic Curve in Permittivity–Temperature Space
Abstract. Frozen ground, a key indicator of climate change, profoundly influences ecological, hydrological, and carbon flux processes in cold regions. However, traditional monitoring methods, which rely on a binary 0 °C soil temperature threshold, fail to capture the complexities of soil freezing, such as freezing point depression and transitional states where water and ice coexist. This study introduces a framework that fits a theoretical Soil Freezing Characteristic Curve (SFCC) in permittivity–temperature space to site- and cycle-specific in situ measurements. This approach enables the quantification of the degree of soil freezing and the classification of soil states as frozen, unfrozen, or in transition (partially frozen). We analyzed 135 freezing cycles from 87 sites, each equipped with permittivity-based soil moisture probes. These sites are part of eight monitoring networks spanning diverse Canadian landscapes, including eastern boreal forests (Montmorency Forest, La Romaine, James Bay, Chapleau), western boreal forests (Candle Lake), prairies (Kenaston), and tundra regions (Trail Valley Creek and George River). On average, eastern boreal forest sites exhibited prolonged unfrozen and transitional states due to high soil moisture retention and insulation from snow and vegetation cover (23 frozen days, 46 transitional days). In contrast, western boreal forest sites experienced more extensive freezing under drier conditions (73 frozen days, 76 transitional days). Prairie sites displayed equal durations of frozen and transitional states (71 days each), while tundra sites had the longest frozen periods (145 frozen days, 52 transitional days). Notably, transitional periods lasted as long as – or even longer than – frozen ones, underscoring the limitations of binary classifications. Furthermore, the traditional 0 °C threshold misclassified transitional soil states, overestimating frozen days by over 87 % in prairie and western boreal regions, and unfrozen days by 86 % in the eastern boreal forest. In tundra, the bias was more balanced, with 64 % and 36 % of transitional days misclassified as unfrozen and frozen, respectively. This SFCC-based framework enhances seasonally frozen ground monitoring, offering deeper insights into soil freeze-thaw dynamics. These advancements have implications for improving climate change assessments, refining carbon flux models, and training and validating remote sensing products. Additionally, the resulting database of soil states from this study provides a valuable resource for advancing frozen ground research, particularly in remote sensing and ecosystem modeling efforts.
- Preprint
(24032 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(330 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-620', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-620', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Sep 2025
I must confess I’ve had difficulties understanding the goal of the work presented in the manuscript. After having read what is presented as “advancement [that] addresses a critical gap in cold regions science”, I still do not know what new things I have learned, and what is the purported breakthrough. As the remote sensing community appears to be one of the target users of this innovation, what exactly should they do differently now, and how?
As far as I understood, one of the reported ‘novelties’ is that the soil moisture doesn’t switch from fully unfrozen to fully frozen at 0 degC. This is elementary knowledge in physics and in permafrost science. Additionally, I am presented with evidence that dielectric permittivity, which relates to unfrozen soil moisture fraction, changes gradually over a range of temperatures. Once again, what is the novelty of this?
The authors repeatedly make the claim that there exists so called “traditional binary approaches” to describing soil frozen state, and “traditional monitoring methods, which rely on a binary 0 degC soil temperature threshold”. I may not fully understand which approaches are referred to as “traditional”. In my knowledge, now for decades in permafrost science and monitoring, we have not been limiting the description of ground state to frozen or unfrozen and in fact, great efforts have been directed to quantitatively and accurately describe soil partially frozen state. I think this misunderstanding could be because the authors confound two distinct definitions used in permafrost context.
- To describe the frozen state of the soil, three terms - “frozen”, “partially-frozen” and “unfrozen” – are used (see e.g. French, 2017, page 72). Soil-specific freezing/thawing curves have been modeled using the power function (Lovell, 1057) to describe the non-binary state of a ground and the gradual transition between fully unfrozen and fully thawed states, for decades. The existence of the partially-frozen state of the ground has been practically reflected in use of soil-specific freezing/thawing curves e.g. in permafrost thermal and mechanical modeling applications. The terms “frozen vs. unfrozen” may be used as a shorthand, while it is specified that the term “frozen” encompasses the frozen and the partially-frozen ground states (Andersland & Ladanyi, 2004, section 2.3 Water-Ice Phase Relationships, p. 32 – authors’ own reference, cited improperly).
- When describing the thermal state of the ground, indeed, a binary classification is used: soil above 0 degC (non-cryotic) and soil below 0 degC (cryotic). Permafrost corresponds to permanently cryotic soil/portion of the ground. This binary ground thermal state classification makes no pretense of describing the frozen state of the ground, or in other words, the liquid water/ice proportions. Instead, it has the advantage of allowing definition of permafrost also in “dry ground”, where no significant moisture is present (e.g. bedrock with low degree of fracturation).
The authors seem to be unaware of evidence contradicting their assumptions about equal freezing and thawing curve patterns in in-situ measurements (Line 153-154). Field studies by Overduin et al. (2006) and Tomaškovičová & Ingeman-Nielsen (2024) showed very strong hysteresis effects in in-situ measurements of unfrozen soil moisture using dielectric permittivity sensors. It is possible that these effects may not be in fact related to real unfrozen water content difference between freezing vs. thawing branches of soil moisture curve at the same temperature (Wu, 2017), but nevertheless, the apparent hysteresis does affect in-situ soil moisture measurements based on electric principles.
Conclusion is made that the presented work will improve monitoring of permafrost, but it is unclear to me if this is for field or remote sensing monitoring. The authors mention only field measurements, and they don’t seem to make the link to the remote sensing applications. For improving field measurements, again, the claim seems stretched, especially when insisting on the "binary classification" of soil moisture state.
Another conclusion claims to be able to quantify the degree of soil freezing. However, I do not see evidence of quantitative analysis in the work which appears limited to the qualitative description of soil as unfrozen, transitional and frozen.
Additionally, there appear to be number of misconceptions, or perhaps poorly presented concepts, reiterated throughout the manuscript. E.g. the concept of zero curtain (isothermal process of phase change between water and ice) appears to be confounded with the transitional zone, which encompasses a wider temperature (and liquid water content) ranges, based on figures 6-10.
Notwithstanding these remarks, I do think that the dataset seems extremely interesting, and worthy of publication, if adequately exploited.
References:
Ladanyi, B., & Andersland, O. (2004). Frozen ground engineering. Wiley.
French, H. M. (2017). The periglacial environment. John Wiley & Sons.
Lovell Jr, C. W. (1957). Temperature effects on phase composition and strength of partially-frozen soil. Highway Research Board Bulletin, (168).
Overduin, P. P., Kane, D. L., & van Loon, W. K. (2006). Measuring thermal conductivity in freezing and thawing soil using the soil temperature response to heating. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 45(1), 8-22.
Tomaškovičová, S., & Ingeman-Nielsen, T. (2024a). Quantification of freeze–thaw hysteresis of unfrozen water content and electrical resistivity from time lapse measurements in the active layer and permafrost. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 35(2), 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2201
Wu, Y., Nakagawa, S., Kneafsey, T. J., Dafflon, B., & Hubbard, S. (2017). Electrical and seismic response of saline permafrost soil during freeze-thaw transition. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 146, 16-26.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-620-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
781 | 46 | 18 | 845 | 28 | 23 | 37 |
- HTML: 781
- PDF: 46
- XML: 18
- Total: 845
- Supplement: 28
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 37
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please find my comments in the attached pdf document.