the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Spatial heterogeneity of sedimentary organic carbon in fjords around Stavanger, Norway – implications for upscaling
Abstract. Fjords are steep sided glacially carved troughs that have been inundated by the sea. Several global assessments have aimed to establish the role of fjords in the carbon cycle. According to these studies, fjords bury 18 Tg of organic carbon per year, 55 % to 62 % of that organic carbon is terrestrially sourced and 61 ± 16 % of the organic carbon in fjord sediments is thermally labile. Such quantitative estimates, while important for understanding the role of fjords in the global carbon cycle, often rest on data compilations that might not be representative for fjord environments as a whole and assumptions that might not hold. To test such assumptions, we present a local case study from fjords around Stavanger (Norway). Based on detailed investigations, we show that the seabed is heterogeneous in terms of substrate types covering the full grain-size spectrum from mud to boulders. Seabed areas where fine-grained sediment, and hence organic carbon, accumulates account for 50 % of the area while the remainder is characterised by coarse-grained sediment indicating erosion and transport. In depositional areas, rates of organic carbon accumulation vary between 18.7 g m−2 yr−1 and 82.6 g m−2 yr−1 and stocks from 0.1 kg m−2 and 1.37 kg m−2. The fraction of labile organic matter varies between 19 % and 44 %, while δ13C-values of the organic carbon fraction range from −27.44 ‰ to −21.23 ‰, indicating a strong variability of the sources of organic carbon over a comparatively small area. Taken together, these results attest to high environmental variability and spatial heterogeneity in the study site, putting several assumptions used in global assessments into question. We suggest steps to achieve more realistic results when upscaling from local studies to a higher level. Using available data on organic carbon accumulation rates from Norwegian coastal areas, we demonstrate how local results could be upscaled in a more robust way. We arrive at a tentative estimate of 0.41 –3.68 Tg yr−1 of organic carbon accumulating in surface sediments (upper 10 cm) of fjords in mainland Norway.
- Preprint
(2942 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1117 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-108', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Feb 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-108/egusphere-2026-108-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-108-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-108', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Feb 2026
The authors present a study of a fjord system around Stavanger, Norway, aimed at improving estimates of sedimentary organic carbon stocks and composition. Building on samples collected at randomised stations, they use spatial predictions to scale up to the fjord scale and assess the impact of biased selection of sampling sites. The authors conclude by discussing the implications of upscaling methodology at the global scale, stating that sedimentary organic carbon stocks/burial in fjords are overestimated, and suggest a method for improved estimates.
I very much enjoyed reading this manuscript, which I believe makes an important point. The text is generally well written, yet would benefit from a few clarifications and structural changes.
Detailed comments:
Section 2.1: Please give a more extensive description of the fjords. What does the catchment area look like? Riverine input? Oxygen conditions (this is only mentioned briefly in the discussion)?
Section 2.4: Were the bottom-water conditions measured, i.e., oxygen, salinity and temperature?
L123: How was it determined which sites would have cores collected for dating?
L127-128: Was any inorganic carbon removed before analysis, or do these samples represent the total carbon rather than organic carbon?
L140: The abbreviation “COM” is only used twice in the text; I suggest writing calcium oxalate monohydrate instead.
Section 2.5: I find this section hard to follow and suggest it be reorganised. It is currently hard to follow why and how the predictor variables were chosen. Could you expand on the mechanistic reasoning? While the magnitude of oxygen's impact on organic carbon preservation is debated, I would have expected this factor to be included in the analysis. How come it is not?
L259-260: Why was sediment mixing so low across much of the area? Are the bottom waters low in oxygen, or is this a normal feature of the benthic faunal communities in these fjords?
Sections 3.4-3.6: What is the mechanistic rationale for using different predictor variables for organic carbon stocks, d13C and organic carbon reactivity? I would expect the three to be linked in general (as suggested by Figure 5). While I understand that different predictors may be motivated, some discussion on this topic would be useful.
Section 3.5: d13C notation uses '13' in both superscript and normal script.
L324-327: Could the authors expand on why there is such a difference in organic carbon stocks between Stavanger and those observed in Scotland and Ireland? What environmental, hydrological, and bathymetric conditions lead to the much higher organic carbon stocks in the latter areas?
Section 4.3: While I believe the authors are correct that site selection can skew carbon stock estimates considerably, I wonder whether there is support in previous studies for this. Could the data spread in previous studies be further explored?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-108-RC2
Data sets
Input data to spatially predict organic carbon stocks, carbon reactivity index and delta 13C in fjords around Stavanger, Norway M. Diesing and C. Smeaton https://zenodo.org/records/18172827
Model code and software
Stavanger_organic_carbon M. Diesing https://github.com/diesing-ngu/Stavanger_organic_carbon
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 171 | 52 | 18 | 241 | 39 | 14 | 24 |
- HTML: 171
- PDF: 52
- XML: 18
- Total: 241
- Supplement: 39
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1