the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Lena River biogeochemistry captured by a 4.5-year high-frequency sampling program
Abstract. The Siberian Arctic is warming rapidly, causing permafrost to thaw and altering the biogeochemistry of aquatic environments, with cascading effects on the coastal and shelf ecosystems of the Arctic Ocean. The Lena River, one of the largest Arctic rivers, drains a catchment dominated by permafrost. Baseline discharge biogeochemistry data is necessary to understand present and future changes in land-to-ocean fluxes. Here, we present a high-frequency, 4.5-year-long dataset from a sampling program of the Lena River’s biogeochemistry, spanning April 2018 to August 2022. The dataset comprises 587 sampling events and measurements of various parameters, including water temperature, electrical conductivity, stable oxygen and hydrogen isotopes, dissolved organic carbon concentration and 14C, coloured and fluorescent dissolved organic matter, dissolved inorganic and total nutrients, and dissolved elemental and ion concentrations. Sampling consistency and continuity and data quality were ensured through simple sampling protocols, real-time communication, and collaboration with local and international partners. The data is available as a collection of datasets separated by parameter groups and periods at https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.913197 (Juhls et al., 2020b). To our knowledge, this dataset provides an unprecedented temporal resolution of an Arctic river’s biogeochemistry. This makes it a unique baseline on which future environmental changes, including changes in river hydrology, at temporal scales from precipitation event to seasonal to interannual, can be detected.
- Preprint
(5755 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Sep 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-290', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Aug 2024
reply
The work is within the scope of the journal; however, the authors have to invest a bit more to provide it a clear added value. The authors used adequate procedure for sampling, handling and analyses
The manuscript reports highly impressive number of sampling points and various hydrochemical parameters. It clearly presents a valuable data set. However, the need for such a dataset should be clearly explained and justified. As a minimal starting point in the Introduction, please explain the difference (and novelty) of this work compared to data available from Partners/Arctic GRO at this river terminal gauging station.
- In the main text and figures, the authors should provide a comparison with data of ARCTIC GRO/Partners obtained at the Kysur gauging station. Appendix D is just great, but it should be in the main text. Other measured parameters (those available from ArcticGRO) should be shown as well
- The authors possess both discharges and concentrations. Export fluxes (via, for example, LOADEST or any other mean) should be calculated and compared with earlier fluxes. It is the duty of the authors to provide the fluxes, the readers cannot do it themselves. Within the concept of this journal, I assume no discussion of concentration dependence on the discharge and comparison with other rivers are needed. However, the export fluxes (mean multi-annual values or yields) should be there.
Specific issues:
L90-91 Please note that annual fluxes of most solutes in Arctic rivers can be reasonably (within 20-30 %, which is lower than annual inter-variations) can be approximated by July-August sampling (see for instance https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2022.121180)
L 190-191 This is certainly a valid explanation
L461-463 I certainly agree with this statement
L473-474 Here I also completely agree with authors’ statement. Great and very timing work, badly needed for world scientific community.
Fig. A1: The dates should be shown on these graphs
Fig. B2: Comparison of two method of sample treatment for analyses is very useful. It is a pity that no “filtered and frozen” method was tested, because this technique is certainly the best for adequate assessment of nutrients
p.34, Fig. B3: The data on P are unclear – what do negative values mean?
It is clear that for analyses of Fe, Ca, Ba, Al, on site filtration is mandatory prior to analyses. Please make sure you let it express in the text, because this is very important finding
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-290-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
199 | 49 | 12 | 260 | 10 | 10 |
- HTML: 199
- PDF: 49
- XML: 12
- Total: 260
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1