the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Year-round methane cycling activity in a European alpine peatland with large spatial and temporal variability
Abstract. Peatlands are well-known emitters of methane (CH4). European alpine peatlands share certain characteristics with boreal peatlands, despite being located at temperate latitudes, such as a strong seasonality with snowfall in winter and a short summer and growing season. Unlike boreal peatlands, they experience relatively large temperature fluctuations between day and night and are more likely to be sloping. It is unknown how these factors affect CH4 dynamics. Furthermore, winter CH4 dynamics have rarely been studied. We quantified the soil-atmosphere CH4 flux at an alpine peatland in Austria (1670 m a.s.l), with a focus on the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in this ecosystem. In summer, CH4 emissions were high (0.7–206 mg m2 h-1), whereas in spring, shortly after snowmelt, both CH4 uptake and emissions were observed at different locations within the alpine peatland (ranging from -4 mg m2 h-1 to 11 mg m2 h-1). In winter, a local snow-free patch persisted at the peatland due to the year-round influx of 5 °C spring water. Both CH4 uptake and emission were observed in winter, with emissions also observed at snow-covered locations (fluxes ranging from -41 mg m2 h-1 to 6 mg m2 h-1). The spatial heterogeneity in summer was further investigated by high resolution chamber measurements and soil analyses of temperature, carbon and nitrogen content, and 16S rRNA analyses of the microbial community. These showed a grouping that likely resulted from the input of redox-active components by the spring water that entered the peatland in a non-uniform pattern, which was revealed by soil temperature measurements. Overall, our research shows that alpine peatlands are unique systems with complex spatial and temporal patterns, which have strong implications for soil microbiology and CH4 cycling.
- Preprint
(2220 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2750', Katharina Jentzsch, 08 Jul 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2750/egusphere-2026-2750-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-2750-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sigrid van Grinsven, 07 Aug 2026
We would like to thank Katharina Jentzsch for her time and effort in reviewing our manuscript, and for her helpful comments.
We will revise the manuscript based on your comments. Overall, our planned improvements include:
- A better visualisation and explanation of the locations of the measurements during the different field campaigns, including a discussion on how the choice of locations may have affected the measurement outcomes and the interseasonal variability.
- Scatterplots of the soil characteristics will be added. The planned maps (indicated at the bullet point above this one) should help illustrate that the soil and flux measurements are both spread out over the peatland site, but do not cover the exact same locations.
- We will add a conclusions section to the manuscript and add well-defined hypotheses to the introduction.
Furthermore, the reviewer indicated that water table depth could be of influence on the methane dynamics. This is indeed true, but measuring water table depth on an extremely fine scale (which would be required in this case), is unfortunately not possible without including a whole hydrology project. However, the gravimetric water content, which we have available, can be considered a measure of the water content of the soil in different locations. This data confirms that the peat soil is saturated at 5 cm depth in all peatland locations, indicating a uniformly shallow water table depth. In follow up grant proposals, we would be very keen to include a hydrology expert in our team, to install numerous water table loggers and have someone make a hydrological model of this site.
The changes indicated above will be included in the next version of the manuscript, as well as the smaller changes based on the minor comments by the reviewer, after communication with the editor (following the Biogeosciences reviewing structure).
We will also adapt the following, based on the comments by the other reviewer:
- Follow the reviewer’s suggestions regarding strengthening the text and data evaluation of the chamber fluxes and improving the methodological explanations. We are thankful for all the concrete tips that were given by this reviewer on how to make this dataset more convincing, by providing more information and statistical analyses. Both for the general chamber measurements as a whole, and the negative fluxes in particular.
- Adapt the wording of the manuscript regarding our hypotheses and findings. We will make a better distinction between findings that are directly proven by our datasets, and working hypotheses that are suggested by our data, but cannot directly be proven.
- We will add more ‘raw/partly processed’ data to the appendix, to make it easier for readers of the manuscript and paper to understand and interpret the data. This for example includes linear regression analyses, information on sample or measurement numbers (including how many did pass our quality control, and how many didn’t) and details on the methods supported by pictures.
On behalf of all authors,
Sigrid van Grinsven
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2750-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sigrid van Grinsven, 07 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2750', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Aug 2026
General Comments:
This manuscript investigates spatial and seasonal variability in methane (CH4) fluxes in a European alpine peatland and combines chamber measurements with soil physicochemical properties, spring-water chemistry, vegetation observations, and microbial community analyses. The study addresses an underrepresented ecosystem, particularly by including winter and post-snowmelt measurements. The observations of high spatial heterogeneity and winter CH4 dynamics are potentially valuable to the alpine peatland and greenhouse-gas research communities.
Overall, the manuscript presents an valuable dataset and has good publication potential. However, several aspects of the chamber methodology, flux quality control, and interpretation currently limit confidence in the central conclusions. In particular, the reported CH4 uptake, the comparison among seasons, and the proposed causal link between spring-water inputs, microbial communities, and CH4 dynamics require further evaluation. I therefore recommend major revision. Most of my concerns could be addressed through additional quality-control analyses, clearer methodological documentation, revised statistical treatment, and more cautious interpretation; I do not consider an entirely new field campaign necessary.
Specific Comments:
(1)Validity of the reported negative CH4 fluxes
The interpretation of the negative chamber slopes as biological CH4 uptake requires more validation. In 3.2.3, the authors report a strong relationship between the initial chamber CH4 concentration and the calculated flux (R2 = 0.71) and suggest that elevated initial concentrations may have resulted from the accidental release of trapped CH4 during chamber placement. Some of the strongest negative fluxes in Fig. 2 also appear to be associated with elevated initial concentrations.
Under these conditions, a decrease in chamber concentration could potentially reflect leakage, dilution, or relaxation following disturbance rather than biological CH4 oxidation.
Please provide representative concentration-time series for positive, near-zero, and negative fluxes; information on chamber leakage tests and the minimum detectable flux; and confidence intervals or uncertainties for the fitted slopes. A sensitivity analysis excluding chambers with strongly elevated initial concentrations would be particularly useful. If the negative fluxes cannot be clearly distinguished from personal error, the interpretation should be changed from confirmed CH4 uptake to apparent negative chamber fluxes, and the corresponding claims in the title, abstract, and discussion should be revised.
(2)Chamber methodology, flux calculation, and quality control
Additional methodological information is needed to assess the comparability and reliability of the flux measurements. Chamber bases were used during summer but not during spring and winter, when the chambers were weighted directly against the surface. This difference may influence sealing and complicate seasonal comparisons. The procedure for measurements under 73-130 cm of snow is also unclear. Please explain whether the chambers were placed on the snow surface, inserted through the snow, or installed directly on the soil, and how the effective headspace volume was calculated.
The use of air temperature from a nearby meteorological station at 14:00 for all flux calculations also requires justification. The relevant temperature for the gas-law correction is the chamber headspace temperature during each deployment. This may differ substantially from station temperature, particularly for transparent chambers exposed for 25-60 min.
In addition, using R2 > 0.5 as the principal inclusion criterion may preferentially exclude small or near-zero fluxes and thereby bias the flux distributions. Please report the total number of attempted measurements, the number excluded in each campaign, the reasons for exclusion, the flux calculation equation, chamber area and effective volume, slope uncertainty, and the sensitivity of the results to the R2 threshold. Where possible, a quality criterion based on slope uncertainty and method detection limits would be preferable to a fixed R2 threshold alone.
(3)Evidence for the proposed spring-water control
The proposed influence of spring water on soil temperature, microbial composition, and CH4 cycling is plausible and potentially valuable. However, the evidence currently consists mainly of a spatial soil-temperature survey, three spring-water samples, and hypothesised subsurface flow paths. Pore-water chemistry, dissolved oxygen, redox potential, water residence time, and water flux were not directly measured. Moreover, the microbial and CH4 flux samples were not collected at identical locations and times.
The spring-water mechanism should therefore be presented as a working hypothesis or conceptual interpretation rather than a demonstrated causal relationship. Please distinguish clearly among direct observations, spatial associations, and proposed mechanisms. Statements such as “resulted from”, “confirms the hypothesis”, and claims that redox-active spring-water components caused the observed microbial grouping should be revised accordingly. Additional exploratory analyses using the available colocated environmental variables would strengthen the interpretation, but I do not consider new hydrological modelling essential for the present manuscript.
Internal consistency and data availability
Several numerical and graphical inconsistencies should be resolved. For example, the spring maximum is reported as 11 mg CH4 m-2 h-1 in the abstract but 12 mg CH4 m-2 h-1 in the Results. The abstract gives a winter range ending at 6 mg CH4 m-2 h-1, whereas Sect. 3.2.2 reports snow-covered fluxes of 8.3–26 mg CH4 m-2 h-1. The statement that data and R scripts will be released only upon publication limits reproducibility during review. The underlying concentration time series, flux calculations, metadata, inclusion/exclusion decisions, and analysis scripts should preferably be made available through a versioned repository or an accessible review link.
Minor comments
(1)The Introduction would benefit from ending with two or three clearly defined research questions. The current hypothesis that alpine characteristics have a “major impact” on CH4 dynamics is broad and difficult to test directly.
(2)The manuscript currently ends without a dedicated Conclusions section. A concise conclusion should distinguish the principal observations from the proposed mechanisms and acknowledge the limitations of the temporal coverage and single-site design.
(3)The decimal latitude in lines 106-107 appears inconsistent with the degree-minute-second coordinate. The latter corresponds to approximately 47.24° N, not 42.4210° N.
(4)The two panels in Fig. 4 use very different y-axis ranges. This should be made more visually explicit or supplemented with a common-scale comparison. The chamber and group labels are also difficult to read.
(5)Figures 5 and 6 would benefit from a peatland boundary, scale bar and north arrow,. In Fig. 7, the reference to sampling locations in Fig. 4 appears to be incorrect and probably should refer to Fig. A2.
(6)Table A1 is not legible at the current size and should also be supplied as a machine-readable supplementary table. The legend in Fig. A5 is too small and contains too many colours. The Fig. A6 caption should be placed on the same page as the figure.
(7)The manuscript requires careful English-language and reference-format editing. Examples include “discreet gas samples” instead of “discrete gas samples”, “needle which’ tip” instead of “needle whose tip”, “a ion chromatograph”, “zeroos”, “can be find”, “detangle”, “accross”, and “chambers were places”. Several references also contain duplicated citations or database-export strings within the DOI.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2750-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sigrid van Grinsven, 07 Aug 2026
We would like to thank anonymous reviewer #2 for their time and effort reviewing our manuscript. Their comments are very helpful and we will adapt our manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we will:
- Follow the reviewer’s suggestions regarding strengthening the text and data evaluation of the chamber fluxes and improving the methodological explanations. We are thankful for all the concrete tips that were given by this reviewer on how to make this dataset more convincing, by providing more information and statistical analyses. Both for the general chamber measurements as a whole, and the negative fluxes in particular.
- Adapt the wording of the manuscript regarding our hypotheses and findings. We will make a better distinction between findings that are directly proven by our datasets, and working hypotheses that are suggested by our data, but cannot directly be proven.
- We will add more ‘raw/partly processed’ data to the appendix, to make it easier for readers of the manuscript and paper to understand and interpret the data. This for example includes linear regression analyses, information on sample or measurement numbers (including how many did pass our quality control, and how many didn’t) and details on the methods supported by pictures.
- We will add a conclusions section to the manuscript and add well-defined hypotheses to the introduction.
Furthermore, we will correct the smaller mistakes such as inconsistently reported values, spelling mistakes, and errors in the figures.
We will also adapt the following, based on the comments by the other reviewer:
- A better visualisation and explanation of the locations of the measurements during the different field campaigns, including a discussion on how the choice of locations may have affected the measurement outcomes and the interseasonal variability.
- Scatterplots of the soil characteristics will be added. The planned maps (indicated at the bullet point above this one) should help illustrate that the soil and flux measurements are both spread out over the peatland site, but do not cover the exact same locations.
The changes indicated above will be included in the next version of the manuscript after communication with the editor (following the Biogeosciences reviewing structure).
On behalf of all authors,
Sigrid van Grinsven
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2750-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sigrid van Grinsven, 07 Aug 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 87 | 36 | 14 | 137 | 7 | 13 |
- HTML: 87
- PDF: 36
- XML: 14
- Total: 137
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1