the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Preservation and degradation of ancient organic matter in mid-Miocene Antarctic permafrost
Abstract. The Antarctic environment is amongst the coldest and driest environments on Earth. The ultraxerous soils in the McMurdo Dry Valleys support exclusively microbial communities, however, 15 million years ago, a tundra ecosystem analogous to present-day southern Greenland occupied this region. The occurrence of ancient soil organic carbon combined with low input rates makes it challenging to differentiate between ancient and modern organic processes. Here, we document the additions of modern organic carbon, and the preservation and degradation of organics and lipid biomarkers, in a 1.4 m mid-Miocene age permafrost soil column from Friis Hills. The total organic carbon is low throughout the soils (< 1 % wt). The near-surface (upper 35 cm) dry permafrost has lower C:N ratios, higher δ13Corg values, higher proportion of iso-FAs relative to n-FAs, lower phytol abundance and higher contributions of low-molecular weight homologues of n-alkanes, than the underlying icy permafrost. Conversely, the icy permafrost contains higher molecular weight n-alkanes, n-fatty acids and n-alkanols, along with phytosterols (e.g., sitosterol, stigmasterol) and phytol (and its derivatives pristane and phytane) that are indicative of the contributions and preservation of higher-level plants. This implies that legacy mid-Miocene age carbon in the near-surface soils (c. 35 cm) has been prone to microbial organic matter degradation during times when the permafrost thawed, likely during relatively warm intervals through the late Neogene. Biomolecules found deeper in the permafrost have been preserved for millions of years. These results suggest that ancient organics preserved in permafrost could underpin significant ecological changes in the McMurdo Dry Valleys as Earth’s current climate warms in the coming decades and centuries.
Competing interests: One of the co-authors is on the editing board of Biogeosciences.
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
(3478 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2145 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-786', Emily Hollingsworth, 03 Apr 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-786/egusphere-2025-786-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-786', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2025
The manuscript by Verret and co authors examines a Miocene age sediment sequence from the Friis Hills in Antarctica, to explore the potential lipid biomarker and organic carbon evidence for both the original Miocene tundra soils and the subsequent diagenetic impact on the composition of the organic matter. Several techniques and metrics are applied, including a characterisation of a wide range of lipid distributions, carbon and nitrogen content, bulk carbon isotopes, pyrolysis and radiocarbon analysis. The authors argue that they show evidence for the original tundra organic inputs, of Miocene age, and a later diagenetic impact during warmer periods of Antarcticas past, when the formation of the active layer would likely have enabled microbial activity. The study is an interesting one, which also contains a rich set of data which has been carefully produced and presented.
I have two main concerns.
First, my main concern is about the framing of the temperature story. The authors argue that the soil temperatures that they reconstruct are indicative of “threshold temperatures” required to support microbial activity and thus organic matter degradation (E.g. line 63 and Section 5.4). They use the branched GDGT proxy to calculate the soil temperatures from each of their three sedimentary units. I am unclear why temperatures have to represent post depositional diagenesis, which the authors argue occurs perhaps millions of years after deposition, when branched GDGTs are found with a global distribution today including in the polar regions, and importantly including in tundra settings. Why are the brGDGTs not a contemporary signal of tundra soil temperature during the Miocene, with a potential cooling over time being represented moving upwards from unit 3 to 2 to 1? In line 253-254, for example, the text includes mention of the dominantly terrestrial origin of the brGDGTs in amongst text which refers to the lipid biomarkers being “…indicative of a terrestrial environment “. This is also how we would interpret brGDGTs in more recent sedimentary sequences: as a tool to explore temperature change in the context of co-recorded signals of environmental change. To me, a change in temperature over time (from 7•C deeper in the site to near zero near the top) is more easy to explain than how an activation temperature of 7•C is needed at depth if the surface is only recording 0•C? The authors seem to be suggesting that once the soil hits a single temperature, the microbes record only that temperature, even if it gets warmer than that afterwards?
Second, radiocarbon analysis seems under explored. The authors argue that the fraction modern carbon suggests less than 1% input of microbially produce carbon, but how this figure is arrived is unclear, when they only refer to the bulk date (line 378) and do not explore the range of values given by the RPO in figure 7. If microbial activity is using both Miocene (infinite age) and modern (atmospheric) carbon then I would expect a large imprint of the infinite age carbon on this signal, which might mean an underestimate of microbial activity. I think detail is needed here to explain how the authors reach this <1% figure.
General comments:
- it’s unclear why only one sample near the surface is analysed for pyrolysis, as repeating these measurements in units 2 and 3 might have shown what a less degraded horizon looked like
- I suggest that the authors think carefully about which graphs to include or on which order. Figure 2 is presented within the text early on, but the results section lists figures 3-5 before then, and the latter graphics contain a lot of detail which is confusing because the opening section says many of the lipids don’t show any change, so I’m unclear why all of these results are displayed in the main text.
Minor clarifications:
- line 113: there is a risk of organic matter degradation if samples are warmed up, so I’m not clear why the authors would not freeze dry these samples rather than exposing them to water and air at elevated temperatures?
- Also line 113: what is the evidence that this drying procedure didn’t introduce contamination? Were blanks included?
- Line 137: indicates that the polar fractions were derivatised with BSTFA, but later (line 158) the ions selected for the brGDGT analysis are given. Would they not have been impacted by the derivatisation?
- Line 170: this implies that odd numbered C chains are only created by diagenesis, but they are also found in plant waxes (as noted for section 3.4.2). Care needed here with phrasing.
- Section 3.6: there is no mention of the RPO experiments (figure 7 shows them), so these need to be included.
- Section 3.7: please check the readme file for chcluster, but I thought that this method explicitly included an acknowledgment of the ordering of the samples, so that the suggestion in line 240 that the statistics did the grouping (and found an anomalous sample) seems incorrect. Is the anomalous sample flagged as a 4th cluster, and was it statistically significant? The anomalous sample only stands out as being anomalous on figure 2.
- Line 243 flags two additional statistical tests which were performed but I have struggled to find where the results of this analysis are presented or used to inform the interpretations.
- Line 251 is the only time that the cholesterol / plant wax ratio is referred to. What is this showing, and what is the reason for the peak in unit 2?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-786-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
109 | 23 | 9 | 141 | 19 | 8 | 7 |
- HTML: 109
- PDF: 23
- XML: 9
- Total: 141
- Supplement: 19
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 56 | 38 |
China | 2 | 15 | 10 |
France | 3 | 10 | 6 |
United Kingdom | 4 | 9 | 6 |
New Zealand | 5 | 9 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 56