the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Desalinization-driven deep microbial reactivation destabilizes iron-bound carbon in coastal wetland restoration
Abstract. Tillage- and mulching-based interventions are increasingly used to control invasive plants and modify soil hydro-salinity, but their effects on subsoil carbon (C) stabilization are poorly quantified. We conducted an 18-month field experiment in a Spartina alterniflora–invaded estuarine wetland to compare plastic mulching (PM) and deep tillage (DT) and to resolve microbial–mineral controls on C across the 0–100 cm profile. PM induced pronounced, profile-wide desalinization (43–53 % lower salinity) and a redistribution of microbial activity, increasing microbial biomass C in 30–100 cm soils by 25–61 % while reducing activity in surface horizons. Relative to DT, PM was associated with much larger C depletion, with total C declining by 19–35 % and the strongest SOC losses occurring at depth (up to ~65 %). Carbon losses co-varied with weakened mineral protection, including 30–50 % decreases in poorly crystalline Fe oxides (Feo) and 35–50 % reductions in iron-bound organic carbon (Fe–OC). Amino-sugar biomarkers indicated coherent shifts in microbial necromass C with Fe–OC dynamics, suggesting vulnerability of long-lived, microbially derived subsoil C under rapid desalinization. Depth-resolved partial least squares path modeling showed contrasting dominant linkages by horizon: surface microbial communities aligned with SOC retention, whereas deep microbial properties covaried with iron mobilization and net C loss. Integrated across 0–100 cm, PM resulted in a net soil C decline of 65 ± 12 Mg C ha⁻¹ over 18 months. These results highlight that mulching and tillage practices can have divergent subsoil C outcomes and that reactive Fe–C metrics are valuable for evaluating management impacts beyond the plough layer.
- Preprint
(4024 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(15185 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-180', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Mar 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
Dear Referee #1,
Thank you very much for your careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We highly appreciate your positive assessment and your valuable suggestions.
We have prepared a detailed point-by-point response to all comments and provide it in the attached supplement. We will revise the manuscript accordingly and clarify several important points, including the discussion of carbon–nitrogen coupling, the interpretation of carbon destabilization, the temporal scope of the study, and the consistency between the Abstract, Methods, and Results.
Please find our detailed responses in the attached PDF supplement.
Sincerely,
On behalf of all co-authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-180', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-180/egusphere-2026-180-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-180/egusphere-2026-180-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
Dear Referee #2,
We sincerely thank you for your careful, thorough, and highly constructive review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your positive evaluation of the depth-resolved framework, the relevance of the PM versus DT comparison, and the overall potential of this study.
We have prepared a detailed point-by-point response to all of your comments and provide it in the attached supplement. In the revised manuscript, we will carefully address the issues you raised, including clarification of the experimental framing and field layout, moderation of the interpretation of deep microbial reactivation, removal of unsupported amino-sugar / microbial necromass statements, improved transparency in carbon stock calculations, more cautious interpretation of the PLS-PM analysis, and correction of internal inconsistencies in figure references, variable labels, and wording.
Please find our detailed responses in the attached PDF supplement.
Sincerely,
On behalf of all co-authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-180', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Mar 2026
General Comments
This manuscript investigates the deep-soil biogeochemical responses to Spartina alterniflora eradication, comparing plastic mulching (PM) and deep tillage (DT) over an 18-month period. The study's evaluation of the 0-100 cm soil profile addresses a relevant gap in coastal wetland restoration assessments, which often restrict their focus to the top 30 cm. The finding that PM-induced desalinization increases deep-soil microbial biomass and destabilizes iron-bound organic carbon (Fe-OC) provides useful mechanistic insights into subsoil carbon dynamics. Overall, the manuscript presents valuable data. However, several areas require further clarification and deeper discussion before it can be recommended for publication.
Major Comments
- Coupling of Carbon and Sediment Nitrogen TransformationsThe manuscript details the depletion of soil carbon pools, noting that PM reduced total carbon (TC) by 19-35% and soil organic carbon (SOC) by 34-65%. Concurrently, the results indicate a significant restructuring of the nitrogen pools, with PM causing a 51%-74% loss in total nitrogen (TN) alongside altered distributions of ammonium and nitrate (Figure 2e-g). Given the stoichiometric coupling of carbon and nitrogen cycles in coastal wetland sediments, the impact of Spartina alternifloramanagement on sediment nitrogen transformation warrants more detailed discussion. Elaborating on how these shifts in inorganic nitrogen availability might regulate or interact with the deep microbial reactivation would strengthen the mechanistic interpretation of the observed decomposition dynamics.
- The Fate of Destabilized CarbonThe study reports a net soil C decline of 65 ± 12 Mg C ha⁻¹over 18 months under the PM treatment. As acknowledged in Section 4.2, the absence of pore water chemistry data makes it difficult to definitively partition the fate of the lost Fe-OC between complete microbial mineralization to greenhouse gases ($CO_2$ / $CH_4$) and the lateral export of dissolved Fe(II)-organic complexes via leaching. Consequently, references to "climate impacts" or "carbon emissions" in the introduction and abstract should be carefully moderated. Framing the results strictly around carbon "destabilization and potential loss" will align the conclusions more closely with the measured variables and avoid overextrapolating the findings.
- Temporal LimitationsThe 18-month timeframe captures the initial perturbation responses to the restoration interventions. Ecological restoration is a long-term process, and it remains uncertain whether these soil carbon losses will stabilize, decelerate, or continue over time. This temporal limitation should be explicitly stated earlier in the abstract and introduction to establish appropriate scientific expectations for the temporal scope of the findings.
Minor Comments
- Abstract Clarification:The abstract states that "Amino-sugar biomarkers indicated coherent shifts in microbial necromass C with Fe-OC dynamics". However, the methodology and results for these amino-sugar biomarkers are absent from the main text and methods section. Please include the relevant analytical protocols and data, or remove this statement if it falls outside the scope of the current manuscript.
- Carbon Stock Calculations:Section 2.5 mentions using both fixed-depth (FD) and equivalent soil mass (ESM) approaches to calculate SOC stocks. While the FD formula is provided (Equation 2), the results section must explicitly specify which method is being utilized when discussing the carbon stock depletions. Bulk density changes resulting from treatments like deep tillage (DT) can significantly skew interpretations if only fixed-depth calculations are applied without clear context.
- Figure Clarity:Ensure the resolution of Figure 1 is sufficient in the final production stage so that the text detailing the core schematic and measurement purposes is clearly legible.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-180-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
Dear Referee #1,
Thank you very much for your careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We highly appreciate your positive assessment and your valuable suggestions.
We have prepared a detailed point-by-point response to all comments and provide it in the attached supplement. We will revise the manuscript accordingly and clarify several important points, including the discussion of carbon–nitrogen coupling, the interpretation of carbon destabilization, the temporal scope of the study, and the consistency between the Abstract, Methods, and Results.
Please find our detailed responses in the attached PDF supplement.
Sincerely,
On behalf of all co-authors
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-180', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-180/egusphere-2026-180-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-180/egusphere-2026-180-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
Dear Referee #2,
We sincerely thank you for your careful, thorough, and highly constructive review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your positive evaluation of the depth-resolved framework, the relevance of the PM versus DT comparison, and the overall potential of this study.
We have prepared a detailed point-by-point response to all of your comments and provide it in the attached supplement. In the revised manuscript, we will carefully address the issues you raised, including clarification of the experimental framing and field layout, moderation of the interpretation of deep microbial reactivation, removal of unsupported amino-sugar / microbial necromass statements, improved transparency in carbon stock calculations, more cautious interpretation of the PLS-PM analysis, and correction of internal inconsistencies in figure references, variable labels, and wording.
Please find our detailed responses in the attached PDF supplement.
Sincerely,
On behalf of all co-authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 623 | 239 | 81 | 943 | 72 | 48 | 66 |
- HTML: 623
- PDF: 239
- XML: 81
- Total: 943
- Supplement: 72
- BibTeX: 48
- EndNote: 66
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General Comments
This manuscript investigates the deep-soil biogeochemical responses to Spartina alterniflora eradication, comparing plastic mulching (PM) and deep tillage (DT) over an 18-month period. The study's evaluation of the 0-100 cm soil profile addresses a relevant gap in coastal wetland restoration assessments, which often restrict their focus to the top 30 cm. The finding that PM-induced desalinization increases deep-soil microbial biomass and destabilizes iron-bound organic carbon (Fe-OC) provides useful mechanistic insights into subsoil carbon dynamics. Overall, the manuscript presents valuable data. However, several areas require further clarification and deeper discussion before it can be recommended for publication.
Major Comments
Minor Comments