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: open (until 28 Apr 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-180', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', jingwen gao, 07 Apr 2026
reply
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
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-180', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Mar 2026
reply
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
reply
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
reply
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
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 109 | 36 | 11 | 156 | 12 | 10 | 11 |
- HTML: 109
- PDF: 36
- XML: 11
- Total: 156
- Supplement: 12
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 11
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