the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Delivery of aged terrestrial organic matter to the Laptev Sea during the last deglaciation
Abstract. Arctic warming is causing rapid thawing of permafrost, which holds about 1.25 times as much carbon as currently is present in the atmosphere. The ongoing Arctic warming and projected sea level rise are expected to accelerate permafrost thaw, leading to the reintroduction of ancient, previously frozen organic carbon into the contemporary carbon cycle. The degradation of permafrost and the consequent release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are considered one of the most significant positive climate feedback mechanisms that could potentially intensify global warming trends. Studying carbon release from permafrost thawing during the last deglaciation provides a perspective that can help refine the anticipated climate-permafrost feedback. However, the regional variations, timing and rate of carbon release from thawing permafrost remain elusive, primarily because of the limited number of deglacial records that document carbon mobilization occurrences. In the present study we analyzed a high-resolution marine sediment record from off the Lena River outflow located on the Laptev Sea continental slope, close to the paleo-shoreline during the Last Glacial Maximum, and we provided a continuous record of the last 16 kyr. Biomarkers and radiocarbon dating of terrestrial materials have been used to reconstruct deglacial permafrost thaw events. We integrated mass accumulation rate data from the core site with the depositional ages of terrigenous biomarkers to identify the occurrence of past massive permafrost degradation and mobilization. We found that the highest accumulation of strongly pre-aged terrigenous biomarkers coincided with peaks in rapid sea-level rise, suggesting thatpermafrost carbon delivered to the core site was mobilized mainly by coastal erosion. Superimposed on the coastal signal, a significant freshwater discharge event was documented at about 13 kyr BP, characterized by low mass accumulation rates of terrigenous biomarkers and relatively young pre-depositional ages compatible with surface runoff-derived terrigenous material. This study further adds to the limited datasets on the age of deglacial permafrost-derived carbon accumulating on the Arctic shelves and offers valuable insights into the future behavior of permafrost carbon soils in the context of a warming climate.
Competing interests: One of the co-authors is currently working as the editorial manager for EGU.
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 preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(1193 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(449 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-744', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Mar 2025
reply
The manuscript by Nicholas et al. provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of ancient carbon mobilization in the Laptev Sea over the last 16,000 years. Through the combination of high-resolution terrigenous biomarkers and compound-specific 14C dating of n-alkanoic fatty acid methyl esters, the authors trace the contribution of pre-aged organic carbon to the marine environment. The comprehensive use of multiple proxies enhances the robustness of their interpretations.
General comments:
- In the abstract, you provide the following statement: “However, the regional variations, timing and rate of carbon release from thawing permafrost remain elusive, primarily because of the limited number of deglacial records that document carbon mobilization occurrences.”You need to state more clearly and consistently throughout the manuscript, which of these knowledge gaps this study is addressing (timing/rate/mechanisms?).
- The structure of 3.2 of the methods section is currently quite confusing and missing some significant information. It requires restructuring to make it flow and to clearly explain to the reader which biomarkers were extracted, how they were extracted (which fractions they came from), and then to clearly but briefly explain the use of each biomarker in this study.
- Some of the language is quite colloquial and would benefit from being changed to more formal terms, and ensure there is consistency i.e. sea ice/sea-ice
Detailed comments:
Line 25: for clarity and formality, rephrase “from off the Lena River outflow”
Line 44: joining the two sentence together will make it flow better - “global average temperatures (Rantanen et al., 2022) and future warming”
Line 46: change ‘in part’ to ‘partially’
Line 47-48: change ‘might’ to ‘could’
Line 51: remove ‘during’
Line 56: and the mechanisms are also poorly constrained? Is this not also one of the research areas?
Line 60-63: “Moreover, the degree to which mobilized permafrost OM is remineralized is not well constrained either, and the available estimates differ widely (Bröder et al., 2018; Ruben et al., 2024; Tanski et al., 2019; Vonk et al., 2012)” This statement may be unnecessary as it is outside of the scope of this study?
Line 67: which was amplified
Line 68: Remove “The”
Line 70: References needed
Line 73: References needed
Line 79: There is an abrupt shift from the topic of the last paragraph to this one. The paragraph on the last deglaciation would benefit with a brief conclusion of why this period is important for providing insight into your study aim and you can then use this to flow back to the permafrost topic.
Line 103: Briefly define Ice Complex Deposits
Line 106: Remove “were” thawed
Line 107-109: This sentence needs rearranging, so it is clear you are referring to the last deglaciation
112: “well-dated”- mention that it’s 14C dating
119: More detail on the information you are providing- magnitude/timing/mechanisms?
133: change probably to likely- less colloquial
133: Are there any estimations of regional sea levels during the last deglaciation that can be included?
Line 150-152: be clearer about the type of isotope analysis you are referring to here. Is this in reference to the biomarker compound-specific isotope analysis or the analysis conducted for the age model?
Line 154: It is unclear in this paragraph that this is a previously published age model. This needs to be explicit in the first sentence, then describe the methods in more detail
Line 175: change to: “apolar and polar (including GDGTs)”
Line 202: State what you are using to assess biomarker content- peak area?
204-205: Explain what the BIT index is used for
Line 205: State briefly why 6-methyl brGDGTs have been included
Line 210: Add reference- Sinninghe Damste et al., 2002
Line 212-214: Hard to follow the sudden mention of n-alkanoic acids without any reference to their use in this study. Also, when referencing long-chain leaf wax lipids, state which chain-lengths you are referring to.
Line 214: The information on brGDGTs here is confusing- this part needs to go before the BIT index calculation.
Line 223: There needs to be a clear explanation of what RI-OH is- mention that it is based on hydroxylated isoprenoid glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers, their source, and refer to other key references.
Line 300: State the laboratory where this was conducted
Lines 375-381: References to regional SLR
Line 386: The BIT index does not follow the pattern of your other terrestrial markers during the YD. It might be beneficial to explore the potential of in situ production of brGDGTs complicating this signal- either here or in the discussion (i.e. Sinninghe Damsté et al., 2009, GCA; De Jonge et al., 2024, GCA).
Line 469: Change similarly to similar
Line 480: Check spelling
Line 552: It is good to see the Fahl & Stein, 2012 sea-ice record in your supplementary figures, but it might be worth showing some of the other records that are frequently mentioned throughout the discussion
Line 506 and 587: Reference figure S1
Line 595: Especially
Line 657: References to regional SLR
Line 692: Here you refer to it as ICD, but in the introduction you primarily use Yedoma- try to make it consistent throughout
Figures 2 & 3: Really clear and well-produced figures
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-744-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
123 | 32 | 4 | 159 | 16 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 123
- PDF: 32
- XML: 4
- Total: 159
- Supplement: 16
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 38 | 24 |
China | 2 | 29 | 18 |
Germany | 3 | 25 | 16 |
France | 4 | 14 | 9 |
United Kingdom | 5 | 5 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 38