The carbon balance of a pristine subarctic river in northern Fennoscandia
Abstract. Carbon emission estimates from riverine ecosystems at high northern latitudes are rarely assessed, resulting in significant uncertainty in the carbon budgets of this region. To close this gap, we determined chamber-derived carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) fluxes alongside surface partial pressure measurements within the Teno river catchment. The Teno river represents an undisturbed, natural ecosystem at the border between northern Finland and Norway. Chamber measurements were conducted on the water and at river banks (i.e. vegetation-free parafluvial and partially vegetated areas) and yielded predominantly low fluxes. Water-air CO2 fluxes amounted to 0.25 ± 0.27 μmol m−2 s−1 (mean ± standard deviation), and water-air CH4 fluxes to 1.77 ± 3.19 nmol m−2 s−1. Soil-air CO2 fluxes from banks reached 1.45 ± 1.38 μmol m−2 s−1 for ecosystem respiration (Reco), and 0.55 ± 1.34 μmol m−2 s−1 for net ecosystem exchange (NEE), while corresponding CH4 fluxes were 1.03 ± 3.14 nmol m−2 s−1. Using hydrographic datasets, we upscaled our observations for water-air fluxes from the river channel and for soil-air fluxes from the banks. Accordingly, the total vertical carbon emissions amounted to 3,017 tC yr−1 for CO2 and 3.3 tC yr−1 for CH4, while banks overall were estimated to emit more than four times the amount of CO2 than the river channel. Furthermore, we determined the lateral carbon export of the river towards the ocean and estimated a total annual export of roughly 70,000 tC yr−1 from Teno river, mostly in the form of dissolved organic carbon and bicarbonates. As a result, the river network acted as a small carbon source to the atmosphere and the ocean. Carbon dioxide dominated the net carbon balance of the river, while CH4 emissions were minimal. Although the measured fluxes and the carbon balance of the river network were small in comparison with the landscape-scale carbon balance, the study provides important baseline data for pristine, subarctic rivers, a data-poor ecosystem in current literature. As previous flux measurement sites may be biased towards high-emission ecosystems, it is important to highlight the significance of carbon dynamics for low-emitting sites in order to achieve a balanced understanding. In addition, this study provides insight into the land-water-atmosphere carbon dynamics of northern rivers, and can be used as benchmark for Earth System and process-based models.
The manuscript by Vogt et al. assesses the carbon balance of a pristine subarctic river in northern Fennoscandia based on three campaigns conducted in 2023 and 2024. The dataset collected from this pristine subarctic catchment is undoubtedly valuable. However, I have several major concerns about the current form of the manuscript. Please see below.
Specific comments:
Ln 6-9: What is the averaging period of these estimates?
Ln 11: The previous sentence says bank Reco and NEE are 5.8 and 2.2 times the water-air CO2 flux, respectively. As you have Reco and NEE, you can also report GPP data for the river banks both in the abstract and figure.
Ln 14: How should I understand the magnitude here, ranging from 3.3 t C yr-1 to 70000 t C yr-1? Why is it a small carbon source? Could you provide the area-normalized flux values for these components?
Ln 15: Please include the NECB value in the abstract. I don’t see the dominant role of CO2 in NECB. Instead, DOC and bicarbonates were greater.
Ln 87-91: The authors are trying to answer seven research questions in the study. However, these questions are verbal and redundant. Please summarize and reorganize them.
Ln 105: A parenthesis is missing here.
Ln 226-227: The difference between NEE and Reco represents total CO2 uptake, not NET CO2 uptake.
Ln 299-305: It is not clear to me how the catchment-level fluxes were upscaled from the site-level measurements. More detailed method description is required.
Ln 308: Please include the unit for each variable listed in the equation.
Ln 393: You haven’t reported the CO2 fluxes of this study so far, thus making no sense to make this comparison to the Tibetan plateau yet.
Ln 383-410: This part repeats the information provided in Table 2, which reads a bit redundant and merely a comparison to the literature rather than an analytical discussion. It could be shortened.
Ln 410-413: Discussion on how much CH4 fluxes attributed to bubbling should be added based on previous similar studies, if any.
Fig 1: Please add the scale and north arrow on each map.
Table 3: How robust was it to use August measurements to estimate the annual export? References are required in the relevant method part.