A synthesis dataset of permafrost thermal state for the Qinghai–Tibet (Xizang) Plateau, China

Zhao, Lin; Zou, Defu; Hu, Guojie; Wu, Tonghua; Du, Erji; Liu, Guangyue; Xiao, Yao; Li, Ren; Pang, Qiangqiang; Qiao, Yongping; Wu, Xiaodong; Sun, Zhe; Xing, Zanpin; Sheng, Yu; Zhao, Yonghua; Shi, Jianzong; Xie, Changwei; Wang, Lingxiao; Wang, Chong; Cheng, Guodong

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4207-2021

Articles | Volume 13, issue 8

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4207-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Extreme environment datasets for the three poles

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4207-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 8

Data description paper

|

26 Aug 2021

Data description paper |

| 26 Aug 2021

A synthesis dataset of permafrost thermal state for the Qinghai–Tibet (Xizang) Plateau, China

Lin Zhao, Defu Zou, Guojie Hu, Tonghua Wu, Erji Du, Guangyue Liu, Yao Xiao, Ren Li, Qiangqiang Pang, Yongping Qiao, Xiaodong Wu, Zhe Sun, Zanpin Xing, Yu Sheng, Yonghua Zhao, Jianzong Shi, Changwei Xie, Lingxiao Wang, Chong Wang, and Guodong Cheng

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Aug 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 08 Feb 2021)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on essd-2021-1', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Feb 2021

This is great information and important dataset. However, I could not discuss farther detail because all sites informations (site id) are missing and I don't know which part of QXP except 6 weather stations. I strongly recomend authors should includ sites information (at least location id. lat. long. and some data summaries of each site such as QT01, QT02, AYK02...) in the one table.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Lin Zhao, 27 Feb 2021
  
  Thanks alot for the comments. Although we had shown all sites in a map, it is really dificult to get the detailed location there. So we will add the site information in a table in our next version of revision.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-AC1
  - EC1: 'Reply on AC1', Tao Che, 27 Feb 2021
    
    I would like to suggest that authors can provide the table in a pdf file by replying comments so that the Referee can make farther review.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-EC1
    
    AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Lin Zhao, 01 Mar 2021
    
    I added a supplement table for the location information of observation sites, and will revise the context in the next revision after all the reviewing processes.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-AC2
- EC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Tao Che, 01 Mar 2021
  
  The author has uploaded a table with the location information of all sites, which will be included in the revision. Please make further review on the manuscript. Thank you so much!
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-EC2
  - RC3: 'table', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Mar 2021
    
    Great to have this table. if possible, it's nice to have a little more summarised infomation (MAGT, elevation etc.) instead of just location. I think similar table will be ideal that authors' published in other paper (table 1: Ji Chen, Lin Zhao, Yu Sheng, Jing Li, Xiao-dong Wu, Er-ji Du, Guang-yue Liu & Qiang-qiang Pang (2016) Some Characteristics of Permafrost and Its Distribution in the Gaize Area on the Qinghai—Tibet Plateau, China, Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 48:2, 395-409, DOI: 10.1657/AAAR0014-023).
    So the new table and figure 1 locations are not much good. Auther needs to modefy figure 1. for example, no Automatic met. station in Western Kunlun area in the table but in the figure; no XDT, TSH stations in the figure.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-RC3
RC2:
'Comment on essd-2021-1', Georg Miehe, 08 Mar 2021

The paper is of greatest significance and importance for permafrost and Climate Change disputes. The terminology of regions is a major issue and causes misunderstandings: the plateau is widely refered to as "QTP" = Qinghai-Tibet-Plateau. "QXP" is of course correct, but readers may not recognize it. However both acronyms are not really correct, because the Xinjiang parts of the plateau (with permafrost!) are not included in the naming. My suggestion: use "Tibetan highlands (QTP or QXP)" just to avoid misunderstandings.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Lin Zhao, 09 Mar 2021
  
  Thanks alot for the suggestions from the referee. It is a good suggestion and we will consider to accept it or not because there are different namings for this vast highlands in the literatures. Our naming is from the national standard of Chinese place name translation rules. If we accept this suggestion, we will revise it in our next revision after getting all the conmments from all referee. Othervise, we will reply the reasons in detail later.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-AC3
EC3: 'Comment on essd-2021-1', Tao Che, 26 Mar 2021

The permafrost is a very important component on the QXP, and these datasets are also important for the permafrost community. The manuscript construction is well, although the English writing should be improved. My main concerns are about your datasets and their descriptions.
General comment:

1. Line130: Table 1 is a summary on all observations:

(1) The number of active layer sites is 8 (in text) or 10 (in table)? I checked the dataset files which show 8 sites.

(2) The boreholes were measured in two kinds, automatic and manual, which should have different sampling time intervals. There are 77 boreholes (in text Line 97), but 40 sites (in table’s second column). Authors should provide the numbers of these two kinds of measures correctly.

(3) The observation frequencies should be provided in the table.
2. Section 2 Monitoring data:

(1) You mentioned there are active layer (ground temperature and soil water content) and borehole observation in meteorological sites (Line 105-108). However, I did not find these data in the meteorological dataset file. Please mention it and keep the same name of site if these data were provided in the active layer data file and borehole data file.

(2) Figure 3 b and c, authors should provide the depth of each layer.

(3) Line 147-152: What is the depth and layers for the ground temperature in the borehole. These data were provided in the borehole file? If yes, please separated into different sheets so that users can understand these data better.
3. Section 2.2 data processing workflow: There are three levels (raw data, daily, annual mean) in Figure 4, however you mentioned that the monthly means air and ground temperatures, and other variables (Line 159). Anyway, it will be better if authors can provide the data in each lever.
4. Active layer dataset:

(1) I would suggest that Section 3.2, Section 3.3.1 and Section 3.3 soil moisture should be combined in one section. Section 3.2 active layer thickness should be read as Section 3.2 active layer data, which will be consistent with Table 1.
5. Bore holes dataset:

(1) 3.3.2 should be read 3.3 Ground temperature from boreholes.

(2) I checked the borehole data file and found many missing data, which should be mentioned in the data evaluation. How these missing data can influence on results in Figure 9?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-EC3
RC4:
'Comment on essd-2021-1', Anonymous Referee #3, 30 Mar 2021
General comments:

The authors of the manuscript released a synthesis field dataset that include meteorological data at 6 stations, soil temperature and moisture in the active layer at 10 sites, and ground temperature measurement at 40 (or 77?) boreholes over the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The dataset is very valuable for geoscience community in Third pole. However, the readability of the manuscript needs to be greatly improved before it is accepted in ESSD.

Major comment:

For data file, some basic information, such as geographical coordinate, landscape, soil type for each station, site or borehole, needs to be replenished. Active layer thickness data used in your analysis should be released also.

Name of station, active layer site, and key place name used in text should be shown in Figure 1. The permafrost types you mentioned in text should be indicated in the figure also. Figure 3 is not informative or redundant.

English needs to be greatly improved.

Specific comments:

Line 20: Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is formal and should be used to replace the Qinghai-Xizang (Tibet) Plateau.

Line 81: in very high, high what, elevation?

Line 97: 40 boreholes in table 1 but here is 77

Line 102: this sentence can be moved to introduction section.

Line 108: What is LDH? Give the full name for the first time?

Figure 2, the abbreviation of stations name in the text should consistent with the figure.

Section 2.3: The quality control process, including sensor calibration, may need to be supplemented.

Line 157: Here you’re mentioned ALT but data file is missing.

Line 210: What meaning of the significance here?

Line 228: The deepest active layer located at Wudaoliang and the deepest active layer appeared at QT05 in line 222 are very confusing, please clear it. Is it meaningful to distinguish continuous permafrost and sporadic island permafrost here?

Figure 7, a line plot may be better.

Line 281: Where is the Fig.3.2-2b?

Line 299: the section title is confusing with section 3.3.1, using “permafrost temperature”?

Line 302: Where is the Table L1?

Line 318: More discussions are needed to clear this found.

Line 320: Figure 9 is not cited in text.

Line 324 to 325: Why? This needed to more discussion.

Line 336: Where is the Table L2?

Line 340: A figure and more discussions are needed to clear the elevation-dependent warming of ground temperature.

Line 358: How do you do this conversion?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-1-RC4

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Lin Zhao on behalf of the Authors (21 Apr 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 May 2021) by Tao Che

RR by Georg Miehe (25 May 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (12 Jul 2021) by Tao Che

AR by Lin Zhao on behalf of the Authors (14 Jul 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (27 Jul 2021) by Tao Che

AR by Lin Zhao on behalf of the Authors (29 Jul 2021) Manuscript

Download

The requested paper has a corresponding corrigendum published. Please read the corrigendum first before downloading the article.

Article (6003 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Lack of a synthesis dataset of the permafrost state has greatly limited our understanding of permafrost-related research as well as the calibration and validation of RS retrievals and model simulation. We compiled this dataset, including ground temperature, active layer hydrothermal regimes, and meteorological indexes based on our observational network, and we summarized the basic changes in permafrost and its climatic conditions. It is the first comprehensive dataset on permafrost for the QXP.