the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note: Soil MIR-FTIR spectral signatures reveal a measurable link to soil greenhouse gas flux potential
Abstract. The growing reliance on nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation has increased the need for robust methods to assess soil greenhouse gas (GHG: CO2, CH4, N2O) emissions. A key challenge is the upscaling of site-specific observations to improve predictions of the spatial distribution and magnitude of soil GHG fluxes. Upscaling is hindered by the laborious, costly, and time-consuming nature of soil flux measurements at the scale needed to generate sufficiently large datasets. Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy is a cost-effective, high-throughput method that has demonstrated its ability to predict soil physicochemical properties. Since the magnitude of soil GHG fluxes is strongly influenced by these properties, FTIR may also serve as a basis for predicting soil GHG fluxes. In this study, we evaluated whether FTIR calibration models can be developed to predict soil GHG fluxes and organic matter decomposition rates directly from mid-infrared spectra. FTIR calibration and cross-validation were performed using soil samples collected across 20 wetland study sites in six European countries and linked to measured soil GHG fluxes and decomposition rates at the corresponding sampling sites. The results demonstrated that FTIR can be calibrated to reliably predict soil decomposition rates and heterotrophic respiration standardised at a given soil temperature. For decomposition rates, the root mean square error (RMSE) of FTIR-predicted values was 0.01 dd⁻1, corresponding to approximately 17–53 % of the interquartile range of observed rates. For heterotrophic respiration, the RMSE of 18 mg CO2–C m⁻2 h⁻1 corresponded to 21–64 % of the interquartile flux range. The findings also indicate FTIR's potential to identify biogeochemical risk areas or potential hotspots of CH4 and N2O emissions, effectively mapping the substrate-driven 'ultimate' controls even when 'proximate' environmental triggers (e.g., water table fluctuations) are absent.
- Preprint
(1138 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(547 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Sep 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3623', Jonathan Sanderman, 27 Jul 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Aldis Butlers, 28 Jul 2026
reply
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We agree that these analyses would further strengthen the mechanistic interpretation of the MIR models, and we appreciate these suggestions.
1) We agree that evaluating FTIR capability on easily measured soil properties, such as organic matter content and pH, would provide valuable insight into the additional predictive value of MIR spectroscopy. In parallel with this study, we have developed FTIR calibration models for several soil physicochemical properties, including pH, total carbon, total nitrogen, and HNO3-extractable K, Ca, Mg, and P, using a much larger dataset of approximately 9,000 soil samples. External validation using samples collected at the study sites showed promising performance, particularly for pH, total carbon, and total nitrogen.
However, these calibrations were developed from a substantially different dataset than the one used for the GHG models presented here. Including these results would require a comprehensive description of the additional sampling design, laboratory analyses, calibration procedures, and validation strategy, which would considerably broaden the scope of the manuscript. We intended to keep this contribution focused on demonstrating the feasibility of directly predicting soil GHG-related variables from MIR spectra using samples collected within the study sites.
We agree that an inclusion of MIR-based predictions on conventional soil properties provides important context, and we can consider incorporating such analyses either in a substantially expanded version of this manuscript; however, in that case, we probably should have aimed for a format of a research article; or we can consider presenting these results in a dedicated follow-up study.
2) Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that analysing variable importance and comparing the spectral regions contributing to GHG prediction with those responsible for predicting organic matter would provide valuable mechanistic insight into the features responsible for predictions.
Among the co-authors, we have discussed this aspect extensively. We believe that interpreting the spectral features responsible for model performance requires dedicated chemometric analyses and careful attribution of absorption bands to specific soil constituents. Such analyses represent a substantial research topic in their own right and were beyond the intended scope of this proof-of-concept study, which focused primarily on evaluating predictive performance.
We fully agree that investigating the spectral features driving successful predictions is an important direction for future research and appreciate this suggestion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3623-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Aldis Butlers, 28 Jul 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 158 | 44 | 25 | 227 | 27 | 23 | 18 |
- HTML: 158
- PDF: 44
- XML: 25
- Total: 227
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This paper presents an interesting use of mid infrared spectroscopy. I would like to make two suggestions aimed at demonstrating that the MIR models are actually directly predicting the processes in question:
1) The authors should compare the MIR model results to a simple model with just OM (and maybe OM and pH) to see if the MIR data actually outperforms these other simple to measure soil properties. I make this suggestion because many emergent soil biological properties (such as GHG flux and decay rates) are heavily dependent on organic matter content. Hopefully the MIR model has significantly more predictive power but right now the reader doesn't know.
2) Present the variable importance. Also build models to predict OM content and compare the important variables. Do the important model features make sense for predicting the particular response? Comparing the important variables between the models for GHG fluxes and OM content will show whether or not the model is doing anything besides predicting OM content which we know is an important driver of these biological properties.