4.8 Article

Long-term CO2 production following permafrost thaw

Journal

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
Volume 3, Issue 10, Pages 890-894

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1955

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Danish National Research Foundation [CENPERM DNRF100]
  2. European Union [GA282700]
  3. Norwegian Research Council (TSP Norway) [176033/S30]
  4. University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS)
  5. Danish Ministry for Climate, Energy and Building
  6. Zackenberg Research Station
  7. NSF Bonanza Creek LTER
  8. NSF CAREER
  9. NSF RCN
  10. Department of Energy NICCR
  11. TEP
  12. NSF Office of Polar Programs
  13. US National Parks Inventory and Monitoring Program
  14. Direct For Biological Sciences
  15. Division Of Environmental Biology [0955341] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  16. Division Of Environmental Biology
  17. Direct For Biological Sciences [1026415, 0955713] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Thawing permafrost represents a poorly understood feedback mechanism of climate change in the Arctic, but with a potential impact owing to stored carbon being mobilized(1-5). We have quantified the long-term loss of carbon (C) from thawing permafrost in Northeast Greenland from 1996 to 2008 by combining repeated sediment sampling to assess changes in C stock and >12 years of CO2 production in incubated permafrost samples. Field observations show that the active-layer thickness has increased by >1 cm yr(-1) but thawing has not resulted in a detectable decline in C stocks. Laboratory mineralization rates at 5 degrees C resulted in a C loss between 9 and 75%, depending on drainage, highlighting the potential of fast mobilization of permafrost C under aerobic conditions, but also that C at near-saturated conditions may remain largely immobilized over decades. This is confirmed by a three-pool C dynamics model that projects a potential C loss between 13 and 77% for 50 years of incubation at 5 degrees C.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available