the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reviews and syntheses: Bridging Limnology and Satellite Methane Observations for Small Water Bodies
Abstract. Methane (CH₄) emissions from small freshwater bodies represent a significant yet poorly quantified component of the global greenhouse gas budget, even though lakes and ponds smaller than about 1 km² dominate the areal extent of inland standing waters worldwide and include the <50 ha size class considered here. The German Small Lake and Pond Inventory maps over 260,000 ponds and small lakes between 0.001 and 50 ha. This review focuses on ponds and small lakes in the approximate size range 0.001–50 ha, corresponding to the size classes that dominate the Germany’s small lake and pond inventory and constitute a substantial share of the country’s standing‑water surface area. Small lakes and ponds have been shown to emit methane at substantially higher areal rates than larger systems, but monitoring remains dominated by labor‑intensive in situ campaigns with limited spatial coverage. This systematic literature review synthesizes 30 peer‑reviewed publications from limnology, biogeochemistry, and Earth observation to assess whether current satellite remote sensing technologies can meaningfully contribute to quantifying methane emissions from small water bodies. The reviewed evidence reveals a fundamental scale and sensitivity mismatch typical small water bodies emit 0.01–1 kg CH₄ per hour, whereas satellite point Moreover, each satellite pixel covers a large area, so the methane from one small pond is diluted inside a large pixel and cannot be separated from the surrounding landscape. Satellite algorithms including optimal estimation, proxy methods, and matched filters work well for global climate monitoring and detection. They have been successfully applied to global background monitoring and industrial super-emitters, but they have not been validated for inland waters at pond scale. Across the reviewed studies, the most promising approaches combine satellite‑derived optical proxies (e.g., chlorophyll, vegetation and temperature) with statistical or machine‑learning upscaling and atmospheric inversion, rather than direct satellite detection of individual ponds. Overall, this review concludes that current satellites cannot yet provide direct, observation‑based emission estimates for single small water bodies and identifies specific data integration and modeling pathways that future research should pursue to reduce this monitoring gap.
- Preprint
(735 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3707', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Sep 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3707/egusphere-2026-3707-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-3707-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3707', Spank Uwe, 18 Sep 2026
Review of manuscript egusphere-2026-3707
The present manuscript, „Reviews and syntheses: Bridging Limnology and Satellite Methane Observations for Small Water Bodies“ by Anjali Wankhede, Yasser Morera-Gómez, Johannes Bühl and Andrea Heilmann, is a well-written, informative review article on the topic of satellite-based detection of methane in the environment and the current limitations and constraints of its application to small water bodies. In my view, the manuscript is very well written and prepared in accordance with current standards. The selection of references is presented clearly and objectively. However, I would add, as also suggested by Reviewer #1, the following two articles:
- Jacob, D.J. et al., 2022: Quantifying methane emissions from the global scale down to point sources using satellite observations of atmospheric methane: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/9617/2022/
- Dubey et al. 2023: Minimum detection limits of the TROPOMI satellite sensor across North America and their implications for measuring oil and gas methane emissions: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723008380
I would particularly like to acknowledge that the authors make clear and well-reasoned statements regarding the validity of satellite data in relation to methane emissions from small water bodies. I am therefore convinced that this article will serve as an important reference both in numerous scientific papers and in practical applications, for example also in the broader context of implementation under the EU Methane Regulation, which has been in force since August 2024.
In my view, however, there is one significant point of criticism need to be removed. In their research, the authors completely exclude methane emissions via the aerenchyma of emergent macrophytes (plant-mediated transport). This emission pathway is neither mentioned nor evaluated or analysed in the manuscript. The focus is exclusively on diffusion, ebullition and oxidation; as stated in the discussion: „All proxy approaches reviewed map variables linked to diffusive methane flux“ (line 350), followed solely by a discussion of ebullition. Consequently, RQ1 („What biogeochemical processes drive methane emissions from small water bodies …“, line 98) also remains incompletely answered. In fact, however, small water bodies in particular often harbour very extensive macrophyte populations - especially reed (Phragmites spe.) and cattail (Typha spe.) stands - due to their generally shallow water depth. It has been documented that such vegetated littoral zones contribute disproportionately to total emissions and exhibit significantly higher methane emissions per unit area than open water surfaces (e.g., Juutinen et al., 2003; Bodmer et al., 2024). As the search terms (lines 116–119) do not include any plant-related terms and studies focusing solely on wetlands were excluded (Table 1), the relevant literature was presumably not identified.
Furthermore, in satellite-based methane measurements, emissions from the open water surface, the reed belt and adjacent marshes and wetlands cannot be distinguished from one another, whilst the optical proxies discussed (chlorophyll-a, water temperature) relate exclusively to the open water surface. In fact, the content and conclusions of the manuscript thus focus exclusively on the open water surfaces of small water bodies. I think that this aspect and the specific focus on the open water surface, need to be highlighted clearly by the authors in the title, abstract and introduction. Furthermore, it should be specified whether the area from the GSLPI include reed beds. In particular, I would also expect a discussion of this point in the discussion section, analogous to the discussion of ebullition (lines 350–355). In this context, it should also be also discussed whether emergent macrophytes, unlike methane itself, can be mapped using optical sensors such as Sentinel-2 or Landsat-8 and used as a proxy.
References
Bodmer, P., Vroom, R. J. E., Stepina, T., del Giorgio, P. A., and Kosten, S.: Methane dynamics in vegetated habitats in inland waters: quantification, regulation, and global significance, Front. Water, 5, 1332968, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2023.1332968, 2024.
Juutinen, S., Alm, J., Larmola, T., Huttunen, J. T., Morero, M., Martikainen, P. J., and Silvola, J.: Major implications of the littoral zone for methane release from boreal lakes, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17(4), 1117, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002105, 2003.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3707-CC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3707', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Sep 2026
Wankhede et al. present a systematic review assessing whether satellite remote sensing can quantify methane emissions from small water bodies (<50 ha), synthesizing 30 studies identified through a structured literature search. I have several substantive concerns.
- The scope is very narrow to justify a dedicated review. Restricting the search to the intersection of "small water body CH4 emissions" and "satellite remote sensing" inevitably yields a small corpus (30 papers). I question whether a topic this narrowly defined warrants a standalone systematic review.
- The central finding is close to a foregone conclusion. The bulk of the manuscript is devoted to establishing that satellites cannot directly detect CH₄ enhancements from small water bodies. Given that typical emission rates (0.01–1 kg CH₄ h⁻¹) are 3–4 orders of magnitude below point-source detection thresholds (50–300 kg CH₄ h⁻¹), this outcome is obvious from the sensor specifications alone and does not require an extensive literature synthesis to demonstrate.
- The proxy-based approach of inferring emissions from optically retrievable variables such as chlorophyll-a, turbidity, and surface temperature is, by the authors' own admission, the more realistic pathway. Yet this is treated comparatively briefly (Sect. 3.5), especially relative to the extensive space given to direct-detection infeasibility. If going for a revision, I would encourage the authors to invert the emphasis of the review.
- The manuscript is imprecise in places, which undermines confidence in its quantitative rigor. As an example, the "10³–10⁴" mismatch between detection limits and actual emission rates is stated correctly in several places (Sect. 3.4, Sect. 3.4.1, Table 7) but appears truncated to "10³–10" in Sect. 3.2.2 (line 215) and again in the conclusion (line 359). Given that this number is the paper's central quantitative result, such an inconsistency is not a trivial typo and raises questions about how carefully the quantitative synthesis was checked. Similarly, "CO" appears in place of "CO₂" twice in the introduction. These are simple fixes individually, but their presence in key statements suggests the manuscript needs a more careful revision pass. On a similar note, I found that statements were repetitive (e.g. line 262 and line 272).
- The review of satellite technology is scattered, and the coverage is not current.
- Section 1.3 introduces the satellite remote sensing landscape but omits PRISMA, EnMAP, EMIT, and GaoFen-5 entirely; these instruments are only introduced later (Sect. 3.3.1). Plus, one would expect a review of detection limits here.
- Table 5 is internally inconsistent with the text: it lists GaoFen-5 (not previously introduced at that point) but omits EnMAP, which is discussed in the surrounding text.
- More importantly, several of the most relevant current missions for point-source methane detection such as MethaneSAT, GHGSat, and Carbon Mapper are not mentioned anywhere in the manuscript. For a review whose central question is precisely whether current satellite capabilities can close the detection gap, omitting these platforms is a significant gap. Restricting the technology discussion to pre-2025 literature is not adequate for a review intended to be topical as of 2026.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3707-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 239 | 92 | 40 | 371 | 35 | 30 |
- HTML: 239
- PDF: 92
- XML: 40
- Total: 371
- BibTeX: 35
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1