the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Biogeochemistry of methane in Arctic waters: A multiyear synthesis (2014–2022) from the North Atlantic-Arctic sector and Barents Sea
Abstract. Methane seeping from numerous point sources at the seabed represents a biogeochemically constrained carbon source in the water column of the Arctic Ocean. Here, we compile and synthesise water-column data from 28 research cruises conducted between 2014 and 2022 to evaluate the spatial distribution and variability of methane across Arctic seep systems and to assess whether methane enrichment produces detectable changes in water-column biogeochemistry. Our synthesis shows that methane concentrations span five orders of magnitude, ranging from non-detectable levels (<0.52 nM) to 105 nM. Despite this distinct variability, continuous seeping of methane does not measurably alter bulk nutrient regimes, but it influences organic matter cycling through microbial methane oxidation (MOx). In contrast, nutrient and carbon biogeochemistry appear closely associated with seasonal patterns in primary production, showing typical vertical profiles, even in regions of maximum methane flux. This reflects the relatively low abundance of methane compared to other substrates, as nutrients and dissolved organic carbon concentrations remain one to two orders of magnitude higher even at peak methane levels. Consequently, methane-derived carbon constitutes only a minor fraction of total biogeochemical pools, constraining its effect on nutrient dynamics. However, methane exerts a cumulative influence by altering microbial processes and carbon transformation pathways, even in the absence of detectable changes in bulk nutrient concentrations.
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
(1380 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(211 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 11 Aug 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3607', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Jul 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3607', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Aug 2026
reply
In the manuscript data on methane, oxidation rates and other biogeochemical variables from almost a decade of observations in the Arctic Ocean around Svalbard are presented. Most of the data, results and conclusions are based on previous papers of the CAGE group or other published studies. Unfortunately, new ideas or interpretations or new insights into the topic are missing. A main limitation of this study is stated by the authors at the end: ‘Future studies should also extend beyond observational water-column surveys of methane distributions and MOx rates.’. The proposed future research perspectives would indeed have the potential to provide new insights into the topic.
However, overall the manuscript is well written and the comprehensive summary presented here has its own merit and, I believe, warrants publication.
Editorial comments:
L51-65: The importance of water depth of seeps should be mentioned here as well. If seeping gas bubbles dissolve before reaching the mixed surface layer (50-100 m depending on wind/storm situation), atmospheric exchange will be limited – and MOx has sufficient time to consume the CH4. If the seep depth is shallower and bubbles reach the mixed layer, diffusive gas exchange with the atmosphere increases (e.g. Wanninkhof 1992) - partly because MOx then has less time to consume the CH4 before it is exchanged with the atmosphere.
L66: “Beyond its role as a greenhouse gas in submarine gas hydrates”. It is unclear to me what the authors want to imply here. In most areas of the world gas hydrates exist below water depths that prevent released CH4 from dissociating hydrates to reach the atmosphere. This is only relevant in some shallow water (<100 m) Arctic regions (see. Biastoch et al. 2011 and James et al. 2016). I suggest to be more specific in the formulation or drop it.
L129: ‘spectrometer’ instead of ‘spectrometry’
L131: VPDB (Vienna Peedee Belemnite)
L132: ‘uncertainty’ refers to precision or accuracy?
L240: The authors mean dissociation of gas hydrates, not ‘dissolution’. The latter would not lead to gas formation.
Table 2 header, Figure 3 caption, L381, L467, L476: variable, not ‘parameter’
Fig.3: Why is dissolved oxygen not shown?
L489-501: This conclusion was already clear from decade-old studies on oceanic methane concentrations, e.g. reviewed by Reeburgh (2007). Unfortunately, the posed question if the ‘primary role may instead occur through microbial pathways and carbon processing’ is only raised but not addressed.
Various locations: If mean values are reported, please also state the 2-sigma standard deviation. Only report significant number of digits.
Mostly American English spelling is used, but occasionally also British spelling – please use consistent spelling.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3607-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3607', Damian Leonardo Arévalo-Martínez, 07 Aug 2026
reply
Please see attachment.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79 | 30 | 14 | 123 | 11 | 17 | 15 |
- HTML: 79
- PDF: 30
- XML: 14
- Total: 123
- Supplement: 11
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I was very disappointed with this manuscript which I believe fails in it's intention to address the "Biogeochemistry of methane in Arctic Waters". Though I accept that it does address the latter part of the title in presenting "A multiyear synthesis (2014-2022) from the North Atlantic-Arctic sector and Barents Sea". The manuscript is well presented and does offer a comprehensive description of variability in methane distribution but simply presenting this distribution alongside water column environmental variables does not deliver on any understanding of methane biogeochemistry that I can see, though estimates of methane oxidation and turnover do provide limited insight, despite the contention (Line 523-524) that these rates are specific to location. Lines 492-494 claims that the authors "evaluated whether methane enrichment produces detectable changes in water column biogeochemistry and which biogeochemical components might respond to elevated methane concentrations", I would argue that they simply compared profiles of variables with no defined protocol to what or why. Line 495 onward acknowledges that previous studies have failed to connect methane distribution to nutrient regimes and simply reconfirming this is not an investigation of methane biogeochemistry. The following lines indicate that a study of methane biogeochemistry needs to be focussed around the microbial cycling in deep waters and the last paragraph of the conclusion details what might be involved in such a study, unfortunately this was not done in the current manuscript. Further there are a number of statements which are simple supposition rather than supported fact: eg Line 515-516
A small number of specific points:
It should be noted in the title that a lot, if not all of the CH4 data presented results from sea-bed seeps
L60 is methane a micronutrient?
L86 water mass structure is not shown in Fig 1a,b
No methods are presented for DOP< PP, POC, PN, chlorophyll
L410 MOx rate are in Fig 5