the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Coordinated methane flux measurements from northern lakes by the SITES Water program – open data and learning examples
Abstract. Lakes represent one of the main sources of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere, contributing roughly 3–25 % of the total global yearly emissions. While the scientific interest in understanding and modelling these emissions is increasing rapidly, methodologically consistent long-term flux measurement programs of integrated lake CH4 emissions are largely missing. Here we present results from a systematic and comparable spatiotemporal multi-lake CH4 flux program initiated by the Swedish Infrastructure for Ecosystem Science (SITES). Five lakes distributed across Sweden covering a latitudinal gradient from 68° N to 57° N, including the arctic subalpine, boreal and north temperate zones, were monitored during 2016–2022 in ways that captured variability in space and time within lakes and that allowed between-lake comparisons. The data includes 2375 unique CH4 flux measurements (incl. total CH4 fluxes, diffusive fluxes and surface water concentrations) along with other common physical and chemical lake variables. This paper presents these data (Swedish Infrastructure for Ecosystem Science, 2026, https://doi.org/10.23700/05ax-st65), underlying methodological priorities and procedures, and provides examples of what can be learned from such a coordinated sampling program. Briefly, the data show the need for appropriate consideration of ebullition and space-time integration to properly represent whole lake CH4 fluxes. The data further show that both diffusive and total CH4 fluxes have an apparent temperature dependency, which can be modulated by water depth in ways that differ among lakes. Also, yearly open water CH4 flux estimates were consistently shaped by temperature in all lakes, but the strength of this response differed between lakes; increases of whole season mean water temperature between 0.5 and 3.2 °C corresponded to increases in CH4 fluxes ranging from 16 to 74 %. Finally, we propose that temperature-normalized CH4 fluxes should be used in lake emission inter-comparisons.
- Preprint
(2213 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(79 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 Jun 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-141', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 May 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-141', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jun 2026
reply
This paper provides valuable data and methodology for comparative research on CH4 emission processes and mechanisms in high-latitude lakes, as well as in global lakes. There are some suggestions and comments for the authors' consideration as follows:
- Line 64-65 It is true that diffusive flux is dynamic and continuous. The diffusive flux can show high temporal resolution variations (e.g., diurnal variation). Consequently, if measurements lack sufficient temporal coverage, such variations may be overlooked.
- In Table 1, Can authors provide the information about freeze thaw period or open water period?
- Part 2.3, Eq1. only can be used to calculate diffuse flux. F in Eq.q should be Fdiff.
- Figure 2 left column show the all measurements in several years. Dose the right column show only one year in different lakes? If they show only one year, please provide the year in figure 2 right column.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-141-RC2
Data sets
SITES Water Layer 6, Greenhouse Gas Flux Program - Lake methane flux Data Collection Swedish Infrastructure for Ecosystem Science https://doi.org/10.23700/05ax-st65
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 300 | 115 | 21 | 436 | 24 | 18 | 24 |
- HTML: 300
- PDF: 115
- XML: 21
- Total: 436
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript makes a valuable contribution to understanding methane emissions in inland waters. The authors describe a coordinated, multi-lake methane flux dataset collected across a significant latitudinal gradient in Sweden, which helps address an existing gap in consistent, long-term, and comparable lake methane observations. The work is timely, given the growing emphasis on aquatic methane emissions and their climate feedbacks, even though the study does not yield particularly novel conclusions. The manuscript is clear and concise, and it effectively sets out the scientific rationale, methodological novelty, and key findings. I have some minor comments that I hope will help improve this manuscript.
Here are my suggestions: