the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
In-depth characterisation of organic matter thermal lability and composition from Arctic Permafrost thaw slumps
Abstract. The rapid warming of the Arctic is accelerating permafrost thaw and mobilising large, previously frozen organic-carbon reservoirs. Retrogressive thaw slumps (RTS) are dynamic hotspots of abrupt permafrost disturbance that expose deep, millennial-aged material to erosion and transport. To assess the fate of slump-derived organic matter (OM), we analysed samples from (i) the seasonally thawed active layer, (ii) Holocene and Pleistocene permafrost, (iii) freshly thawed debris, and (iv) runoff across four RTS of contrasting sizes and ecological settings on the Peel Plateau, north-western Canada. We specifically quantified OM abundance, thermal stability, and radiocarbon content, complemented by thermally-sliced pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (Ts-Py-GCMS) for molecular fingerprints. Our results show that OM age and stability primarily reflect geomorphic feature type. Permafrost, debris, and runoff contain radiocarbon-depleted, thermally stable carbon, whereas active-layer OM is younger and more labile, with minor contributions of stabilised, higher-energy fractions. Ts-Py-GCMS shows that low-temperature fractions are dominated by carbohydrate- and cellulose-derived pyrolysates, while higher-temperature fractions contain aromatic and long-chain aliphatic compounds consistent with more processed or mineral-associated OM. The close similarity between permafrost, debris, and runoff indicates that RTS predominantly export ancient, thermally stable OM with limited early-stage alteration. These findings highlight that a substantial portion of thaw-mobilised particulate carbon likely remains stable during initial transport, with important implications for Arctic carbon-climate feedbacks.
- Preprint
(7681 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(8317 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 May 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-845', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Mar 2026 reply
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-845', Marco A. Bolandini, 13 Apr 2026
reply
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for the constructive and insightful comments. We appreciate the positive evaluation of our manuscript and the recognition of its technical innovation and relevance for permafrost carbon research.
In the revised version, we have implemented several modifications to improve clarity and address the reviewer’s concerns, including:
(1) We have clarified the use of harmonized temperature windows across SoliTOC, Ts-Py-GCMS, and ORO–AMS. We now explicitly state that these methods provide complementary constraints on organic matter thermal stability, and that the shared temperature framework is used as a conceptual and qualitative reference, rather than implying direct equivalence of organic matter fractions.
(2) We have revised the description and interpretation of cross-method comparisons, particularly in relation to Fig. 4, to better explain the rationale for combining molecular (Ts-Py-GCMS), thermal (SoliTOC), and radiocarbon (ORO–AMS) data. The text and figure captions now clearly state that the combined presentation is intended to relate molecular composition, thermal stability, and radiocarbon age.
(3) We have corrected inconsistencies in the reporting of ROC/TOC ratios between SoliTOC and ORO–AMS, and updated the corresponding text and Supplementary Material to ensure consistency with the data.
Detailed, point-by-point responses to all comments are provided below.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 247 | 94 | 14 | 355 | 23 | 19 | 29 |
- HTML: 247
- PDF: 94
- XML: 14
- Total: 355
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript by Bolandini et al. investigates the thermal stability of OM from both bulk and molecular perspectives, combining multiple analytical approaches, including SoliTOC for OM composition, Ts-Py-GCMS for molecular fingerprinting, and ORO-AMS for radiocarbon characterization. Overall, the study is technically innovative and provides a valuable new perspective for permafrost carbon research, particularly in linking thermal reactivity with molecular composition and age.
However, one key concern relates to the harmonization of temperature windows across these three fundamentally different analytical techniques. While the use of consistent temperature intervals may suggest direct comparability, material released within the same nominal temperature range may not represent equivalent OM fractions across methods. This could potentially lead readers to overinterpret cross-method consistency. I therefore suggest that the authors explicitly clarify that these approaches provide complementary, rather than directly comparable, constraints on OM thermal stability, and that the shared temperature framework should be interpreted in a qualitative or conceptual sense rather than as a one-to-one correspondence.
Overall, I consider this to be a valuable contribution, the manuscript could be suitable for publication after addressing comments below.
Comments: