the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
ABCFlux v2: Arctic–boreal CO2 and CH4 monthly flux observations and ancillary information across terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems
Abstract. Measurements of surface-atmosphere carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) fluxes have been relatively sparse across the Arctic tundra and boreal biomes, causing significant uncertainties in carbon budget estimates from the region. While the availability of Arctic-boreal carbon flux data has increased substantially over the past decade, the data have remained spread across different repositories, scientific articles, and unpublished sources, making it difficult to leverage. Here we present a new dataset of monthly Arctic-boreal carbon fluxes (ABCFlux v2) across terrestrial (wetlands and uplands) and freshwater (lakes and rivers) ecosystems compiled from previous syntheses including the Arctic-boreal CO2 flux database (ABCFlux v1), the Boreal-Arctic Wetland and Lake Methane Dataset (BAWLD-CH4), and the Global River Methane Database (GRiMeDB). In addition, we consider data from general-purpose (e.g., Zenodo) and flux network repositories, literature, and site principal investigators. The dataset includes surface-atmosphere CO2 fluxes of gross primary production (GPP), ecosystem respiration (Reco), and net ecosystem exchange (NEE), alongside CH4 fluxes. For aquatic ecosystems, we split CH4 fluxes into diffusive and ebullitive flux pathways, and included potential emissions from transient storage in the water column (“storage fluxes”), alongside CO2 and CH4 concentrations dissolved in the surface water. Fluxes are measured through a variety of methods including chamber and eddy covariance techniques alongside bubble traps, ice-surveys, and concentration-based turbulence-driven modelling in aquatic ecosystems. The monthly flux data are reported together with supporting methodological and environmental metadata. The resulting ABCFlux v2 has 23,656 flux site-months, 8,182 concentration site-months, and 199 seasonal observations from 1,024 sites, and includes 55,560 reported fluxes (i.e. sum of GPP, Reco, NEE, and CH4 fluxes) from the years 1984 to 2024. The majority of monthly observations occurred after 1999. Wetlands had the highest number of site-month observations (8,641), followed by boreal forest (6,981), lotic ecosystems (6,275), lentic ecosystems (3,725) and upland tundra (3,308). Measurements of CO2 dominated the dataset across most ecosystem types (25,101) except for lentic ecosystems, where CH4 flux site-months (3,024) were more frequent than CO2 flux site-months (2,858). Overall, ABCFlux v2 includes 158 % more site-months for terrestrial CO2 flux data compared to ABCFlux v1. Integrating and updating BAWLD-CH4 flux data from growing season averages to monthly fluxes resulted in 5,671 site-months of chamber CH4 data compared to 762 site-years. This collaborative initiative, involving contributions from over 260 researchers, provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of the Arctic-boreal carbon flux network and its data, and serves as an important step in reducing uncertainties in Arctic-boreal carbon budgets and in enhancing our understanding of climate feedbacks. The data can be accessed at ORNL DAAC at https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/2448 (Virkkala et al., 2025b).
- Preprint
(3264 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6405 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 05 Dec 2025)
- CC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-585', Peter Morse, 24 Oct 2025 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-585', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Nov 2025
reply
General Comments
Following on the release of ABCFlux v1, this v2 dataset is generally an improvement to v1 in every way. An increased amount of data has been included in this new release, covering more years of data, aquatic sites with substantial corresponding flux data, as well as CH4 data. The scope of the dataset is impressive, as is the work that has gone into curating, filtering, and aggregation of the data. Additionally, substantial effort has been spent to document and summarize the dataset, the processing behind it, and all the associated ancillary data and metadata - a commendable accomplishment. This is indeed necessary for such a large, disparate dataset that includes such a substantial number of sources and workflows, and is critical to prepare the data to be used as a single product for Arctic and Boreal ecosystem analysis, the intention the authors have. Particularly improved from v1 is the move to standardize the temporal interval to a consistent time step for analysis, though by their own admission, not all sites have consistent time series data due to screening or lack of data, something that would be invaluable to assess fluxes over growing seasons. Still, having data at standardized time intervals allows this dataset to be further used by researchers interested in analyzing coincident data sources. Additionally, the improvement of land status and vegetation detail in this dataset will further benefit terrestrial researchers interested in community composition connected to fluxes.
While this dataset is incredibly valuable given its scale and breadth, one still wishes for a similar dataset with higher flux resolution with a similar level of screening and unified processing. Additionally, while the value of this dataset is its compilation consistency allowing for cohesive analysis, resources do exist that offer options for viewing and assessing the amount of flux data available globally as well as within specific domains in raw forms.
Specific Comments
- The ARGO data tool mentioned on line 1171 is a great resource for viewing and accessing Arctic and Boreal flux datasets. The value of the ABCFlux v2 dataset is the processing, screening, and cleaning that has gone into homogenizing all these diverse data sources. The ARGO data tool references ABCFlux v1. It would be great if the current version of this dataset could synergize more directly with that.
- It is clear from the detail in this paper that a significant amount of time has been spent listing and assessing all the harmonization efforts and where discrepancies exist. I found that I was sometimes reading similar details throughout the document, and at times would lose track of which section I was intended to be in. With the massive amount of detail that needs to be conveyed, I am not sure the best way to streamline this aside from making the authors aware of it. An example would be “For sites without monthly aggregated fluxes available, we present the fluxes as seasonal values and provide the start and end date of the measurement period.” (Line 497) This was approximately said on line 458 and feels redundant here. Could it be combined or streamlined?
- The location of these flux measurements (specifically tower data) is described in table 3 on line 643 as being as detailed as possible. Historically, one issue with flux tower location estimations has been the precision of the tower location, sometimes being off by 10s to 100s of meters (I should say in the cursory analysis of a few plots in this dataset, all plots seemed to generally line up well with the towers). Still, for some of these community datasets, potential offsets make alignment for cross-analysis with other data sources difficult, including scaled community composition and site specific data from other sources, which in harsh environments like the Arctic can turn over quickly. One benefit to this dataset would be a more precise alignment of these points with overall harmonization, though that shouldn't be a constraint on publication, just a suggestion.
- I really like the map style (Figure 1, line 475), but the sheer amount of data contained in them in v2 makes it hard to get a clear picture of where data is and how much exists. The zoomed in versions in the supplement are much clearer, but they only cover a few areas. Areas within Canada, particularly around the BERMS site, are hard to decipher. It would be great to have higher resolution maps for all major plot regions. Also, the map appears to be tilted where v1 seemed more north NADIR. The v1 version was a bit more legible. Additionally, on line 1350 you said “Moreover, the studied sites are heavily clustered in a few regions in Alaska and Fennoscandia, therefore leaving significant spatial gaps in coverage in spite of the relatively high absolute number of locations. In particular, despite Russia’s large land mass (close to 60% of the domain), data from Russia only comprise 10.8% of the dataset in terms of site-months and 15.3% of sites in ABCFlux v2 (with similar representativeness among terrestrial and aquatic data), making this region a critical data gap.” This makes sense, but I wouldn't let this be the reason to not render maps for all plots.
- The data is listed as Terrestrial and Aquatic in Figure 2 (line 479). The data repositories are listed twice, and NEON is listed on the bottom box but not the top (I realize AmeriFlux would contain NEON data). Some figures have terrestrial or aquatic in parentheses, but others don't, and it's hard to know then what is what. I would suggest improving the terrestrial/aquatic separation. Also, is the community contributed data intended to be in the middle covering both?
- I found expert_flags very valuable and informative (line 900).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-585-RC1
Data sets
ABCFlux v2: Arctic–Boreal CO2 and CH4 In-situ Flux and Environmental Data A.-M. Virkkala et al. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/2448
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 826 | 201 | 17 | 1,044 | 38 | 17 | 23 |
- HTML: 826
- PDF: 201
- XML: 17
- Total: 1,044
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear Drs. Virkkala, Wargowsky, Vogt, and Kuhn, and co-authors,
I had the pleasure of reading a draft of your manuscript, co-authored with Dr. June Skeeter, entitled ABCFlux v2: Arctic–boreal CO2 and CH4 monthly flux observations and ancillary information across terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems as a part of the required internal review of publications process here at the Department of Natural Resources Canada’s Geological Survey of Canada.
From my perspective I think it is great! Thank you all and your co-authors for your hard work. I think this will be very well cited.
I really only have one suggestion and it is with regard to sub-classification of thaw described on Page 55:
"We further divide the thaw category into 13 categories: active layer detachment, active layer thickening, gradual thaw, ice-wedge degradation, palsa thaw, retrogressive thaw slumps, river bank erosion, subsidence, talik formation, thaw lake, thaw pond, thermokarst, thermokarst mounds with talik."
I think this can be simplified, and here I provide some discussion as to why and provide suggestions on how to do so in my comment. It’s only very a minor part of the work done, but many people are thinking about permafrost thaw, and so this little bit should be more precise. My comments and suggestions are as follows:
-River bank erosion should just be classified as higher-level erosion. It is due to hydro-mechanical processes and not thaw. Mechanical erosive processes also contribute to lateral expansion of thermokarst lakes for example, but this list does not include lake shoreline erosion.
-Active-layer thickening relates to top-down thaw, so does the highly related subsidence, which is a function of active-layer thickening in the presence of ground ice. Active layer-thickening in fine-grained deposits that are frost susceptible (e.g., lacustrine and many morainal deposits) typically results in subsidence and the rate of AL thickening is comparatively slow due to latent heat required to melt ground ice. Active-layer thickening in coarse-grained sediments such as sands and gravels (e.g., glaciofluvial outwash) typically results in comparatively fast increase in AL thickness over time and little to no subsidence as such sediments are not usually associated with near-surface ground ice. Active-layer thickening in areas with exposed bedrock result in no subsidence, and comparatively rapid AL thickening due to very low ground ice contents, but substantial changes to local hydrology cmay occur with implications on drainage and biological functions. I suggest “active layer thickening” and “subsidence” could be meaningfully categorized as “active-layer thickening with subsidence” and “active-layer thickening without subsidence”
-Gradual thaw is not a type of thaw that indicates any sort of genetic origin, and can relate to of several different processes. Talik formation is typically a slow process for example, as is thaw lake expansion. Gradual thaw is not that helpful if the intent is to assign a disturbance. I would delete this sub-category and reassign sites to more relevant thaw categories.
-”Palsa thaw” is presumably a form of top-down thaw leading to active-layer thickening with subsidence, probably also accompanied by lateral permafrost degradation. Collapse of peatlands also occurs with active layer thickening and typically accompanied by lateral degradation. Palsa thaw might be included in a more general peatland sub-class.
-Thermokarst mound formation almost always accompanies ice-wedge degradation, so separating the two may not be necessary.
-"Talik formation" accompanies permafrost degradation associated with development of thaw lakes/ponds, and also top-down thaw associated with active-layer development/permafrost degradation in ice-poor surficial materials, so it accompanies different thaw processes and might not be that instructive to keep as a stand-alone sub-category.
-Thermokarst as a standalone sub-category is not that helpful because it is a blanket term that principally includes (Kokelj and Jorgenson, 2013, Permafrost and Periglac. Process., 24: 108–119, DOI: 10.1002/ppp.1779): “(1) hillslope processes, including retrogressive thaw slumps, active-layer detachment slides (ALDS) and thermal erosion gullies; (2) thaw lake processes [PDM: includes ponds], including lake expansion, drainage and lake basin evolution; and (3) wetland processes, including peatland collapse and the development of bogs and fens.” I suggest reassigning sites from “Thermokarst” to other more meaningful thaw sub-categories.
-Due to the challenges in precisely categorizing one type of thermokarst versus another in the current list, the authors may want to consider simplifying things (e.g., fire is not further classified according to burn severity). I suggest the following: Active layer detachment sliding, retrogressive thaw slumping, ice-wedge degradation with mound formation, ice-wedge degradation without mound formation, active layer thickening with subsidence, active-layer thickening without subsidence, active-layer thickening with talik formation, thaw lake/pond expansion, peatland collapse [this includes peatland degradation where thaw settlement is accompanied by lateral permafrost degradation such as palsa degradation or peat plateau degradation (with resect to this data set the difference is basically a matter of scale) and development of bogs and fens].
-The authors could simplify things even further and simply sub-classify thaw according to predominant processes driving thaw: hillslope processes, thaw lake processes, wetland processes, active layer thickening.
Other than that, I noticed just a few minor things that you probably would have fixed anyway:
Page 62: I'd reference Table 8 for the first time here: "Our annual NEE estimates (Table 8) showed a clear sink-to-source transition from net ... "
Page 62: I'd reference Table 8 again here: "Annual CH4 fluxes (Table 8) demonstrated the ..."
Page 62: Other captions for Figures and Tables that show "tundra" include a sentence like: "The terrestrial tundra class characterizes non-wetland ecosystems in the tundra biome (i.e., dry and moist tundra). "
Best regards,
Peter D. Morse, Ph.D.
Research Scientist / Chercheur scientifique
Geological Survey of Canada | Natural Resources Canada | Government of Canada /
Commission géologique du Canada | Ressources naturelles Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
Adjunct Research Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University
Associate Member, School of Graduate Studies, University of Lethbridge
Secretary, Canadian Permafrost Association (CPA) / l’Association canadienne du pergélisol (l’ACP)