the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
High temporal resolution in-situ measurement of CO2 fluxes through Arctic shrub-tundra snowpacks
Abstract. Wintertime carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from tundra soils likely make a sizable contribution to terrestrial annual Arctic carbon budgets. However, poor availability of wintertime CO2 flux measurements limits current capacity to quantify the magnitude and variability of non-growing season carbon emissions from Arctic soils, and identify key environmental drivers of CO2 production and release. To address this, low-cost CO2 logging systems were developed and deployed in snowpacks at Trail Valley Creek, NT, Canada during late winter periods in 2021–2022 and 2022–2023. CO2 fluxes calculated from sub-hourly gradients in CO2 concentrations demonstrated consistent positive (ground-to-atmosphere) emissions, with median flux rates of 0.03 to 0.35 g C m-2 d-1, across a range of vegetation types (shrub, tree, tussock) and snow depths (34–136 cm). Stable carbon isotope (δ13C-CO2) analyses confirmed isotopic enrichment of CO2 at the base of the snowpack originating from soil emission, and that snowpack gases mixed sequentially with atmospheric CO2 as they travelled through upper snow layers. Snowpack CO2 concentration gradients and resultant fluxes were impacted by seasonal increases in air and soil temperatures, especially as near-ground gas temperatures approached the zero-curtain (0 °C) threshold during the winter-spring transition. Positive relationships between CO2 flux and warming subnivean temperatures across the study site were similar in magnitude to those observed in pan-Arctic winter syntheses. Our results highlight that low-cost sensors may provide a robust and scalable method for monitoring the spatial variability of in-situ winter CO2 fluxes through snow at high temporal resolution and provide unique insights into winter carbon processes.
- Preprint
(4019 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Nov 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3835', Frans-Jan W. Parmentier, 19 Oct 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 231 | 114 | 42 | 387 | 48 | 35 |
- HTML: 231
- PDF: 114
- XML: 42
- Total: 387
- BibTeX: 48
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dutch et al. investigated wintertime CO2 emissions at Trail Valley Creek using cost effective CO2 sensors that measure the gradient of CO2 concentrations within the snowpack. Their results are comparable to traditional methods of measuring snowpack CO2 fluxes at the same site and across the permafrost region. Overall, I think that the work is sound, and it presents a method that should be repeatable at other sites to monitor wintertime greenhouse gas emissions. Still, there are a few things that need clarification.
First of all, calibration. The Sensirion SCD30 and the ELG K33 NDIR from Senseair both have an automatic calibration algorithm that requires the sensor to be regularly exposed to values of ~400 ppm to re-establish the baseline (quite common for cheap commercial CO2 sensors). Was this option switched on, and if not: how would this affect potential sensor drift? This may have been an issue in the longer 2023 campaign.
Also, the authors assume that snow density and tortuosity remained constant during the measurement campaign. This is a fair assumption for 2022, when the campaign lasted only a few days, but in 2023 measurements continued for more than a month while temperatures approached zero. It is to be expected that some form of snowpack metamorphism took place during this time, which may have increased snow density. Moreover, the snow pit, which was dug to insert the instrument, may have affected how much air could enter the snowpack from the side by removing any layered structure. Finally, it is unclear whether snow height was measured throughout the experiment and accounted for.
As for the isotopic measurements for soil gases: were these from the same locations where the CO2 concentrations were measured in the snow, or are they from similar landforms? Would we expect the isotopic composition to vary within landforms, and how would this affect your results?
Figure 4 does not show any error bars for the CO2 fluxes. What would be the uncertainty considering the measurement accuracy of the CO2 sensors themselves, and the assumptions about the structure of the snowpack?
Other comments:
Line 59: footprints of EC towers are typically in the order of 1000 m2 or more, not 10 to 100.
Line 285-297: the changing snow density is not mentioned here, but it should be discussed how this affects your results.
Line 377: In such models, Q10 is used for soil respiration, not as part of a plant functional type.