The water column of the Yamal tundra lakes as a microbial filter preventing methane emission

Savvichev, Alexander; Rusanov, Igor; Dvornikov, Yury; Kadnikov, Vitaly; Kallistova, Anna; Veslopolova, Elena; Chetverova, Antonina; Leibman, Marina; Sigalevich, Pavel A.; Pimenov, Nikolay; Ravin, Nikolai; Khomutov, Artem

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2791-2021

Articles | Volume 18, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2791-2021

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2791-2021

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

Articles | Volume 18, issue 9

Research article

|

05 May 2021

Research article |

| 05 May 2021

The water column of the Yamal tundra lakes as a microbial filter preventing methane emission

Alexander Savvichev, Igor Rusanov, Yury Dvornikov, Vitaly Kadnikov, Anna Kallistova, Elena Veslopolova, Antonina Chetverova, Marina Leibman, Pavel A. Sigalevich, Nikolay Pimenov, Nikolai Ravin, and Artem Khomutov

Download

Final revised paper (published on 05 May 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Oct 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Reviewer Comments', June Skeeter, 23 Nov 2020
- AC1: 'Response to comments by June Skeeter', Pavel Sigalevich, 01 Dec 2020
RC2: 'Review of ‘The water column of the Yamal tundra lakes as a microbial filter preventing methane emission’', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Dec 2020
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pavel Sigalevich, 11 Jan 2021

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (19 Jan 2021) by Sébastien Fontaine

AR by Pavel Sigalevich on behalf of the Authors (26 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Feb 2021) by Sébastien Fontaine

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Feb 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I totally agree with the authors that information on primary production, concentration of dissolved organic matter, microbial abundance and CO2 assimilation is important to the characterization of the studied systems, particularly if these lakes have never been studied before, as pointed out by the authors. However, in my opinion, this information could be presented as supplementary information or even in a different manuscript. There is no doubt that these data bring valuable information, but I believe they are not crucial to the main conclusions of the ms. As an example, I pointed out that Fig. 9, which summarizes the main findings of the ms, does not show these data, suggesting that they are not critical to arrive to the conclusions. But I understand this may be an issue of style, as it is my preference to read and write more succinct papers that present only the necessary data that take the readers to the main messages that are being conveyed.
On a similar note, I also prefer introductions that are straighter to the point, but I understand that the authors may have a different writing style.
Please add the reference Pimenov et al. 2006 where applicable in the Methods so that the reader can refer to it for more detailed methodology.
Please add in the Methods section that single cells and aggregated cells were visually differentiated under the microscope.
Fig 2 and 4: what are the light brown horizontal bars? I believe the bar plots (as original) with legends indicating which bar corresponds to the values in μgC L-1 d 1 and which bar corresponds to mgC m-2 d 1 are more appropriated. There is no need for a secondary y axis if both have the same range and are identical. A secondary y axis could be useful here if you wanted to show the per litter PP in a narrower range axis than the axis of the depth weighted PP.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by June Skeeter (18 Feb 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (10 Mar 2021) by Sébastien Fontaine

AR by Pavel Sigalevich on behalf of the Authors (12 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (19 Mar 2021) by Sébastien Fontaine

AR by Pavel Sigalevich on behalf of the Authors (27 Mar 2021) Manuscript

Short summary

Microbial processes of the methane cycle were studied in four lakes of the central part of the Yamal Peninsula in an area of continuous permafrost: two large, deep lakes and two small and shallow ones. It was found that only small, shallow lakes contributed significantly to the overall diffusive methane emissions from the water surface during the warm summer season. The water column of large, deep lakes on Yamal acted as a microbial filter preventing methane emissions into the atmosphere.