the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methane dynamics along the salinity gradient of the Scheldt estuary
Abstract. Estuaries are important natural sources of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. These transitional aquatic systems connect freshwater, brackish and fully marine environments. The pronounced salinity gradient, characteristic of estuaries, impose particular challenges to microbes and influence the biogeochemical processes they mediate. Salinity changes can inhibit methanotrophic activity. Here we analysed methane dynamics and microbial communities in the estuary of the Scheldt River, which flows through northern France, western Belgium, and the southwestern Netherlands, and finally discharges into the North Sea. During a research cruise conducted in June 2022 from the river mouth to Antwerp, water samples were collected at ten stations along the estuarine salinity gradient. We investigated water column CH4 inventory and stable carbon isotope dynamics, together with methane oxidation rates. Elevated CH4 concentrations of up to 110 nM with associated δ¹³C -values of about −46 ‰ were found in the freshwater zone of the upper estuary (in the area of the city of Antwerp). Rather than a gradual decrease in CH4 towards the North Sea, we observed a second maximum of 180 nM in the marine zone, with a contrasting isotopic composition of -66 ‰ indicating distinct methanogenic pathways and/or substrates in the estuary. Methane oxidation rates showed no clear relationship with the salinity gradient. In contrast, the composition of the methanotrophic community shifted markedly along the estuary and the salinity gradient, with Methyloparacoccus and Crenothrix prevailing in the freshwater zone Methyloceanibacter and PLTB-vmat-59 dominating in the mixing and marine zones. Our results thus demonstrate that the salinity gradient is not the primary control on estuarine methane oxidation capacity but the community composition of the methane oxidizing bacteria (MOB). In sediments, the MOB community composition mirrored the patterns observed in the overlying water column, indicating that estuarine sediments represent both a key habitat and an important recruitment source sustaining methanotrophic communities in the water column. Despite an active microbial filter, methane oxidation accounted for only a minor fraction of the estuaries’ CH₄ budget. Most methane (about 98 %) was lost through advection and diffusive fluxes to the atmosphere, while a smaller fraction was exported to the North Sea, contributing to sustained methane supersaturation in coastal waters.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial 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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(1062 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1582', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1582', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 May 2026
This submission suffers from a poor presentation of results, incorrect referencing of literature, imprecise wording. This comes as a surprise considering some of the co-authors are widely recognized in the scientific community, and do not seem to have provided the necessary guidance to the first author.
GENERAL COMMENT
This submission suffers from a poor presentation of results, incorrect referencing of literature, imprecise wording.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
P1 L 10 : “Estuaries are important natural sources of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere”. Word “important” is meaningless. Quantitatively CH4 emissions from estuaries (0.2 TgCH4/yr) are negligible (=0.4%) compared to freshwater wetlands (150 TgCH4/yr) and inland waters (rivers+lakes+reservoirs) (77 TgCH4/yr) according to Rosentreter et al. (2022).
Statement P1 L 13 “Salinity changes can inhibit methanotrophic activity” is an over-simplification of available literature. This statement should be re-phrased or removed from abstract.
A more correct account of literature is given in P2 L33: “Several studies have shown that increasing salinity in estuaries is associated with reduced methane oxidation rates (de Angelis & Scranton, 1993;Osudar et al., 2015; Sherry et al., 2016).”
Osudar et al. (2015) and de Angelis & Scraton (1993) show indeed that specific MOX rates (or turnover time) decreased (or increased) along the salinity gradient of estuaries. However, as discussed by Osudar et al. (2015) this pattern is difficult to interpret because a lot of factors that can affect MOX co-vary with salinity such as nutrients, suspended matter, O2. Experiments of adding salt to a freshwater sample of sediment (Sherry et al., 2016) or of water (De Anglis & Scraton 1993) leads to a decrease of MOX. This is not surprising has there is an enormous osmotic stress to freshwater methanotrophs over a short time-period, as would be the case of any other type of freshwater micro-organism. This cannot be translated by an “inhibition of methanotrophic activity”. Osudar et al. (2017) shows that a gradual increase of salinity allows some of the more halotolerant methanotrophs to overcome the salinity stress, not leading to a collapse of MOX.
Some studies that looked into sediments with stable salinity conditions across sites with variable salinity. These studies do show that community composition of methanotrophs and rates of MOX are indeed different in response to salinity (Zhang et al. 2023).
The real question is if there is an interference at cellular level of salinity on methanotrophs (osmotic stress, enzymatic disruption) or are just marine conditions less favourable than freshwater to methanotrophs, due to dilution of microbial populations, of substrates (CH4), and of other potentially limiting factors (macro- and micro-nutrients)?
P2 L36: The work of Zhang et al. (2023) is mis-cited here. Their Figures 2 and 3 show very important changes with salinity in methanotroph community composition, as well as MOX rates.
P11 L 8 : “our data, together with previous results, challenge the paradigm that CH₄ and salinity are anticorrelated in estuaries.” Such paradigm never existed, and if it did exist, then it was already shattered almost 25 yrs ago by Middelburg et al. (2002) who showed in several European estuaries all kinds of shapes in profiles of CH4 vs salinity. Same comment applies for sentence L11-13. No previous publication has concluded naively that “ CH4 dynamics (...) are only governed by a two-endmember mixing”
P11L 23: The work of Poffenbarger et al. (2011) deals with fluxes of CH4 from sediments to the atmosphere in saltmarshes not MOX, there’s not a single measurement of MOX in this paper.
P11 L23: The work of HO et al. (2018) deals with methanotrophs in rice paddy soils. This seems irrelevant for discussing methanotrophy in the water column of an estuary.
P11 L 25: “In contrast, we found relatively high rates of MOx (up to 5 nM d⁻¹) throughout the entire estuary, apparently independent of salinity” There’s no plot of MOX vs salinity. Figure 3 only shows MOX vs station number. It is necessary to plot variables such as MOX and CH4 vs salinity and not just vs station number.
P11 L 15-33: Here are discussed MOX rates, however, it is well established that MOX depends primarily on CH4 availability (in oxygenated conditions). Hence, MOX and CH4 should co-vary, and it is advisable to normalize for CH4 and look into the variations of specific MOX (MOX:CH4) or turnover (CH4:MOX). For example the work of De Anglis & Scraton (1993) shows a very distinctive decrease of specific MOX as a function of salinity.
Based on the current analysis of MOX, it is difficult to understand what are the drivers of methanotrophy, it is then advisable to plot specific MOX as a function of other potential drivers.
P11 L 31-33: the paper of Zhang et al. (2023) shows very clearly in their Fig. 2 “changes in the composition of the MOB community as a function of salinity”. This is what you do seem to state in P12L7 : “These shifts are likely driven by the differential sensitivity of MOB groups to a range of salinities, which was discussed to shape community composition of MOB (Osudar et al., 2017, Zhang et al., 2023)”
P12L21: “However, despite the differential water column MOB community composition, overall MOx was not substantially affected by salinity (see previous section), but instead followed MOB abundances.” This statement is not supported by the data. Figure 3 shows that MOX rates change by a factor of 10 between stations 3 and 9. It would be useful if you actually plot MOX and specific MOX (MOX:CH4) vs the abundance of methanotrophs.
This would allow to actually test the hypothesis given in the following sentence “This suggest that salinity may indeed exert a selection pressure on the composition of the MOB community but that system-level MOx is determined by the abundance of MOB rather than their identity”.
I actually agree with this statement (CH4 will always be oxidized by whoever is present) but it would be nice you could actually test this with the data by plotting MOX or specific MOX vs the methanotroph abundance.
P12 L 26 : “week” ?
P12 L11 : “MOB abundance primarily governs overall MOx” this is wishful thinking, it is necessary to test this rigorously with the data rather than giving a vague account of patterns in Figure 3.
P12 L 31 “Considering the current velocity of the Scheldt (~95 km d-1, Meire et al., 2005), a typical doubling time of MOB (~9 days, Mayr et al., 2020) and the length of the estuary investigated here (87 km) it seems unlikely that shifts in MOB composition are primarily driven by growth within the water column.” This statement is incorrect. 95km/d should correspond to the average of tidal currents per day (or something equivalent). The residence time of water in this estuary is 1-3 months (de Brye et al. 2012) and not 0.9 days (=87/95).
P12 L35: The sediment and water are tightly linked in such an environment. In the Scheldt, sediment deposition and resuspension are strongly tidally driven, with large amounts of fine sediment alternately eroded, suspended, and deposited during each semidiurnal tide (Baeyens et al. 1997). So there is very active exchange benthic-pelagic of particles (and attached micro-organisms).
A simple way to test this is to plot specific MOX versus TSM.
P12 L 37: “bubbles peculating” ?
Section 4.4. Another consideration is that the sediments might transfer different quantities of CH4 with similar 13C/12C ratios at different sites in the estuary. So the source isotopic signature might be the same but the resulting concentration variable. On top of that there’s fractionation by MOX. This makes the interpretation of water column d13C-CH4 extremely tricky.
P15 L12 : “Similarly, considering the river’s discharge (110 m3s-1, Rijkswaterstaat) and our measured CH4 concentration of 71 nM (station 1), CH4 export into the North Sea (Fout) is ~674 mol CH4 d⁻¹”.
This is not correct and makes little sense. The concentration at the mouth of the estuary results from mixing of mostly seawater and a little bit of upstream water and you cannot simply multiply this concentration by the freshwater discharge to compute the outgoing flux.
Let’s take an element that is only present in seawater and absent in freshwater such as SO42-. The river input is 0. If you apply your computation, then the outflow from the estuary to the ocean would be massive, because the SO42- concentration would be very high at the mouth. But such large outflow does not make sense because the river input is zero, and there’s no generation of SO42- in the estuary. What is really happening is that you have an inflow of SO42- from the ocean to the estuary at the mouth. This can be computed using a simple box model, such as the LOICZ approach (initially developed for phosphate but can be applied to any element).
REFS
Baeyens et al. (1997) General description of the Scheldt estuary. Hydrobiologia 366, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003164009031
de Brye et al. (2012) Water renewal timescales in the Scheldt Estuary, Journal of Marine Systems, 94, 74-86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2011.10.013
Osudar et al. (2017) Effect of salinity on microbial methane oxidation in freshwater and marine environments, Aquatic Microbial Ecology 80(2) https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01845
Rosentreter et al. (2021) Half of global methane emissions come from highly variable aquatic ecosystem sources, Nature Geoscience, 14, 225-230 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00715-2
Zhang et al. (2023) Salinity significantly affects methane oxidation and methanotrophic community in Inner Mongolia lake sediments. Front. Microbiol. 13:1067017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1067017
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1582-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 442 | 156 | 31 | 629 | 30 | 47 |
- HTML: 442
- PDF: 156
- XML: 31
- Total: 629
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 47
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript „Methane dynamics along the salinity gradient of the Scheldt
Estuary“ by Annalisa Delre et al. Is overall well written ms on relevant topic.
I have added minor comments directly into the pdf file and major comments are listed below:
Methods and Results:
Discussion: