Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-526
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-526
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
03 Dec 2024
| 03 Dec 2024
Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal ESSD.
Permafrost-wildfire interactions: Active layer thickness estimates for paired burned and unburned sites in northern high-latitudes
Abstract. As the northern high latitude permafrost zone experiences accelerated warming, permafrost has become vulnerable to widespread thaw. Simultaneously, wildfire activity across northern boreal forest and Arctic/subarctic tundra regions impact permafrost stability through the combustion of insulating organic matter, vegetation and post-fire changes in albedo. Efforts to synthesise the impacts of wildfire on permafrost are limited and are typically reliant on antecedent pre-fire conditions. To address this, we created the FireALT dataset by soliciting data contributions that included thaw depth measurements, site conditions, and fire event details with paired measurements at environmentally comparable burned and unburned sites. The solicitation resulted in 52,466 thaw depth measurements from 18 contributors across North America and Russia. Because thaw depths were taken at various times throughout the thawing season, we also estimated end of season active layer thickness (ALT) for each measurement using a modified version of the Stefan equation. Here, we describe our methods for collecting and quality checking the data, estimating ALT, the data structure, strengths and limitations, and future research opportunities. The final dataset includes 47,952 ALT estimates (27,747 burned, 20,205 unburned) with 32 attributes. There are 193 unique paired burned/unburned sites spread across 12 ecozones that span Canada, Russia, and the United States. The data span fire events from 1900 to 2022. Time since fire ranges from zero to 114 years. The FireALT dataset addresses a key challenge: the ability to assess impacts of wildfire on ALT when measurements are taken at various times throughout the thaw season depending on the time of field campaigns (typically June through August) by estimating ALT at the end of season maximum. This dataset can be used to address understudied research areas particularly algorithm development, calibration, and validation for evolving process-based models as well as extrapolating across space and time, which could elucidate permafrost-wildfire interactions under accelerated warming across the high northern latitude permafrost zone. The FireALT dataset is available through the Arctic Data Center.
How to cite. Talucci, A., Loranty, M. M., Holloway, J. E., Rogers, B. M., Alexander, H. D., Baillargeon, N., Baltzer, J. L., Berner, L. T., Breen, A., Brodt, L., Buma, B., Dean, J., Delcourt, C. J. F., Diaz, L. R., Dieleman, C. M., Douglas, T. A., Frost, G. V., Gaglioti, B. V., Hewitt, R. E., Hollingsworth, T., Jorgenson, M. T., Lara, M. J., Loehman, R. A., Mack, M. C., Manies, K. L., Minions, C., Natali, S. M., O'Donnell, J. A., Olefeldt, D., Paulson, A. K., Rocha, A. V., Saperstein, L. B., Shestakova, T. A., Sistla, S., Sizov, O., Soromotin, A., Turetsky, M. R., Veraverbeke, S., and Walvoord, M. A.: Permafrost-wildfire interactions: Active layer thickness estimates for paired burned and unburned sites in northern high-latitudes, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-526, in review, 2024.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Download & links
- Preprint
(3584 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2269 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Jan 2025)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-526', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jan 2025
reply
general comments:
The paper describes the FireALT dataset which includes thaw depth measurements from permafrost sites affected by forest and/or tundra fires and corresponding unburned sites. Although a compiled dataset can provide critical empirical information for assessing the impacts of wildfire on the active layer thickness, in my opinion, the structure of the dataset, the dataset description, and the analysis presented in the paper is rather confusing and require modification before the final publication. Below are specific issues that need to be addressed.
- The paper has a section on “data and methods;” however, there is no information related to specific methods used to measure the thaw depth. Line 157 suggests that “thaw depth… is typically obtained by measuring depth to refusal using a graduated steel probe” and I assume that the data obtained by probing was used exclusively for compiling the dataset, however, there is no indication that this is the case. A more detailed description of the observational methodology is needed. Is there any specific reason why thaw depth observations obtained by other, arguably more accurate methods (e. g. ground temperature, thaw tubes) were not included in the dataset? A more detailed description of the observational methodology is needed.
- Assuming that the probing data was used, what is the rationale behind treating each poke of a probe into the ground as an individual data point? The thaw depth is characterized by extreme spatial variability over very short lateral distances. As a result, a single probing point will not be representative and cannot provide information about thaw depth in the particular area or site. Also, unless each observational point is clearly marked (which usually causes local disturbance and thaw depth alteration) it is impossible to accurately assess the inter/intra annual thaw depth dynamic from repetitive measurements by probing at a single point. This is the reason for spatial thaw depth surveys consisting of multiple thaw depth probing according to a predetermined spatial sampling strategy, used to assess the thaw depth of a particular location or site. As such an individual probing sample does not have meaning and site-specific statistics should be used for temporal and spatial assessments of thaw depth. The size of the statistical sample and sapling strategy should correspond to the level of spatial variability of local ALT controlled by the variability of surface and edaphic properties. I would assume that all 18 data submissions used such an observational methodology. So why break it apart and treat each poke as an individual data point? Instead, the paper (and the dataset) should include a description of sites, the number of individual probings, and the sampling strategy for each site/year. The analysis related to spatial attributes and comparison between burned and unburned areas should be conducted based on site-specific statistics rather than individual probing measurements. Similarly, the site-specific statistical measures (e.g. mean) should be used to estimate the active layer thickness from early/mid-summer thaw depth measurements. Overall, indicating that a dataset has 48K measurements is highly misleading. That can be especially problematic for the potential use of the dataset for modeling and remote sensing validation as a single measurement is not representative of a grid cell or a pixel. I strongly believe that structuring the dataset and analysis around site-specific statistics can greatly enhance its usability and help avoid potential misinterpretations
- I question the uniform use of a 14-day period to account for the active layer freezing from the bottom for the estimation of the ALT. This period might be reasonable for cold continuous tundra permafrost, but it can be much shorter or non-existent for warm permafrost. I understand that it is impossible to assess this period for all locations, but different approximations should be used for different permafrost zones. These approximations can be obtained from published literature or a few characteristic GTN-P temperature observations.
- More details related to the assessment of uncertainty are needed. Where did the sample of 626 measurements of seasonal thaw progression come from? Are they from a single or multiple sites? Single or multiple years? Which region?
- What is the spatial resolution of data used to assign spatial attributes to the dataset? How does it relate to the size and number of the sites (not individual probings) in the dataset?
- Finally, I would consider an inability of manual thaw depth probing to capture surface subsidence occurring after the fire as one of the major limitations of the approach and the dataset. The substance is mentioned in lines 397-400 however, it deserves more attention. Since mechanical probing uses a surface as a reference point for observing thaw depth, subsidence can introduce quite a significant bias in thaw depth measurements and assessment of burn/unburned differences in ALT. Moreover, this bias is spatially heterogeneous and temporarily nonlinear. I would think that in ice-rich permafrost this bias can be much greater than uncertainties related to Stefan-based ALT estimates.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-526-RC1
Data sets
FireALT dataset: estimated active layer thickness for paired burned unburned sites measured from 2001-2023 Anna Talucci, Michael Loranty, Jean Holloway, Brendan Rogers, Heather Alexander, Natalie Baillargeon, Jennifer Baltzer, Logan Berner, Amy Breen, Leya Brodt, Brian Buma, Clement Delcourt, Lucas Diaz, Catherine Dieleman, Thomas Douglas, Gerald Frost, Benjamin Gaglioti, Rebecca Hewitt, Teresa Hollingsworth, M. Torre Jorgenson, Mark Lara, Rachel Loehman, Michelle Mack, Kristen Manies, Christina Minions, Susan Natali, Jonathon O'Donnell, David Olefeldt, Alison Paulson, Adrian Rocha, Lisa Saperstein, Tatiana Shestakova, Seeta Sistla, Oleg Sizov, Andrey Soromotin, Merritt Turetsky, Sander Veraverbeke, and Michelle Walvoord https://doi.org/10.18739/A2W950Q33
Viewed
Total article views: 356 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 03 Dec 2024)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 307 | 41 | 8 | 356 | 39 | 7 | 6 |
- HTML: 307
- PDF: 41
- XML: 8
- Total: 356
- Supplement: 39
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 349 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 349 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 07 Jan 2025
Anna Talucci
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644, USA
Michael M. Loranty
Department of Geography, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY, 13346, USA
Jean E. Holloway
Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada
Brendan M. Rogers
Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644, USA
Heather D. Alexander
College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36949, USA
Natalie Baillargeon
Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644, USA
Jennifer L. Baltzer
Biology Department, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5, Canada
Logan T. Berner
School of Informatics, Computing, and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA
Amy Breen
International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 99775-7340, USA
Leya Brodt
Tyumen State University, Tyumen, 625003, Russia
Brian Buma
Integrative Biology, University of Colorado (Denver), Boulder, CO, 80304, USA
Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, CO 80302, USA
Jacqueline Dean
Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644, USA
Clement J. F. Delcourt
Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands
Lucas R. Diaz
Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands
Catherine M. Dieleman
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N3H3Y8, Canada
Thomas A. Douglas
U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Fort Wainwright, AK, 99703, USA
Gerald V. Frost
Alaska Biological Research, Inc., Fairbanks, AK, 99708, USA
Benjamin V. Gaglioti
Water and Environmental Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 99775, USA
Rebecca E. Hewitt
Department of Environmental Studies, Amherst College, Amherst, MA, 01002, USA
Teresa Hollingsworth
Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 99708, USA
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula MT, 59801
M. Torre Jorgenson
Alaska Ecoscience, Fairbanks, AK, 99775, USA
Mark J. Lara
Department(s) of Plant Biology and Geography, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
Rachel A. Loehman
U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK, 99508, USA
Michelle C. Mack
Center for Ecosystem Science and Society and Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86001, USA
Kristen L. Manies
U.S. Geological Survey, Moffett Field, 94035, USA
Christina Minions
Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644, USA
Susan M. Natali
Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644, USA
Jonathan A. O'Donnell
Arctic Network, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK, 99501, USA
David Olefeldt
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G7, Canada
Alison K. Paulson
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Sparks, NV, 89431, USA
Adrian V. Rocha
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA
Lisa B. Saperstein
Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK, 99503, USA
Tatiana A. Shestakova
Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences and Engineering, University of Lleida, Av. Alcalde Rovira Roure 191, Lleida, Catalonia 25198, Spain
Joint Research Unit CTFC–AGROTECNIO–CERCA, Av. Alcalde Rovira Roure 191, Lleida, Catalonia 25198, Spain
Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644, USA
Seeta Sistla
Natural Resources Management & Environmental Sciences, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401, USA
Oleg Sizov
Oil and Gas Research Institute RAS, Moscow, 119333, Russia
Andrey Soromotin
Tyumen State University, Tyumen, 625003, Russia
Merritt R. Turetsky
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309-0552, USA
Sander Veraverbeke
Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands
Michelle A. Walvoord
U.S. Geological Survey, Earth System Processes Division, Denver, CO, 80225, USA
Short summary
Wildfires have the potential to accelerate permafrost thaw and the associated feedbacks to climate change. We assembled a data set of permafrost thaw depth measurements from burned and unburned sites contributed by researchers from across the northern high latitude region. We estimated maximum thaw depth for each measurement, which addresses a key challenge: the ability to assess impacts of wildfire on maximum thaw depth when measurement timing varies.
Wildfires have the potential to accelerate permafrost thaw and the associated feedbacks to...
Altmetrics