ALBERT

Description: Arctic regions and their water bodies are affected by a rapidly warming climate. Arctic lakes and small ponds are known to act as an important source of atmospheric methane. However, not much is known about other types of water bodies in permafrost regions, which include major rivers and coastal bays as a transition type between freshwater and marine environments. We monitored dissolved methane concentrations in three different water bodies (Lena River, Tiksi Bay, and Lake Golzovoye, Siberia, Russia) over a period of 2 years. Sampling was carried out under ice cover (April) and in open water (July–August). The methane oxidation (MOX) rate and the fractional turnover rate (k′) in water and melted ice samples from the late winter of 2017 was determined with the radiotracer method. In the Lena River winter methane concentrations were a quarter of the summer concentrations (8 nmol L−1 vs. 31 nmol L−1), and mean winter MOX rate was low (0.023 nmol L−1 d−1). In contrast, Tiksi Bay winter methane concentrations were 10 times higher than in summer (103 nmol L−1 vs. 13 nmol L−1). Winter MOX rates showed a median of 0.305 nmol L−1 d−1. In Lake Golzovoye, median methane concentrations in winter were 40 times higher than in summer (1957 nmol L−1 vs. 49 nmol L−1). However, MOX was much higher in the lake (2.95 nmol L−1 d−1) than in either the river or bay. The temperature had a strong influence on the MOX (Q10=2.72±0.69 ). In summer water temperatures ranged from 7–14 ∘C and in winter from −0.7 to 1.3 ∘C. In the ice cores a median methane concentration of 9 nM was observed, with no gradient between the ice surface and the bottom layer at the ice–water interface. MOX in the (melted) ice cores was mostly below the detection limit. Comparing methane concentrations in the ice with the underlaying water column revealed methane concentration in the water column 100–1000 times higher. The winter situation seemed to favor a methane accumulation under ice, especially in the lake with a stagnant water body. While on the other hand, in the Lena River with its flowing water, no methane accumulation under ice was observed. In a changing, warming Arctic, a shorter ice cover period is predicted. With respect to our study this would imply a shortened time for methane to accumulate below the ice and a shorter time for the less efficient winter MOX. Especially for lakes, an extended time of ice-free conditions could reduce the methane flux from the Arctic water bodies.

Description: Waterbodies in the arctic permafrost zone are considered a major source of the greenhouse gas methane (CH4). However, the spatio-temporal variability of CH4 fluxes from waterbodies complicates spatial extrapolation of CH4 measurements at individual waterbodies. Therefore, the contribution of CH4 emissions from different waterbody types to the CH4 budget of the arctic permafrost zone has not yet been well constrained. To approach this problem, our study aimed i) at understanding if there are correlations between waterbodies and CH4 fluxes on a larger spatial extent containing several waterbodies and ii) at quantifying the influence of the spatial resolution of CH4 flux data on potential relations. Our two study areas of 1000 km² each are located in the northern and central part of the Mackenzie Delta, arctic Canada. We classified the waterbodies using maps from the circum-arctic Permafrost Region Pond and Lake Database (PeRL) based on TerraSAR-X data with a spatial resolution of 2.5 m x 2.5 m. We used the backscatter signals of Sentinel-1 data to determine whether or not waterbodies were freezing to the bottom to divide them into the two classes “deep” (〉 2 m depth) and “shallow” (〈 2 m depth). The CH4 flux map with a spatial resolution of 100 m x 100 m was calculated from data derived via the eddy-covariance technique from two aircraft campaigns in July 2012 and 2013. We coarsened the resolution of the CH4 flux map manually, to analyze if different spatial resolutions of CH4 flux data have an effect on the relation between waterbody characteristics (coverage, number, depth, size) and CH4 flux. We found that in both study areas, there was no correlation at any spatial resolution between the area fraction covered with water and the CH4 flux at a significance level of α = 0.05. We did not find consistent correlations or patterns between the number, size or depth of waterbodies and the CH4 flux in the two study areas. While there was no significant correlation in the central study area, in the northern study area a higher number of small or shallow waterbodies slightly increased the CH4 flux, whereas deep waterbodies decreased the CH4 flux. Our results indicate that waterbodies in permafrost landscapes do not necessarily act as significant CH4 emission hotspots on a regional scale containing both waterbodies and wetlands.

Description: Arctic river deltas define the interface between the terrestrial Arctic and the Arctic Ocean. They are the site of sediment, nutrient, and soil organic carbon discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Arctic deltas are unique globally because they are underlain by permafrost and acted on by river and sea ice, and many are surrounded by a broad shallow ramp. Such ramps may buffer the delta from waves, but as the climate warms and permafrost thaws, the evolution of Arctic deltas will likely take a different course, with implications for both the local scale and the wider Arctic Ocean. One important way to understand and predict the evolution of Arctic deltas is through numerical models. Here we present ArcDelRCM.jl, an improved reduced-complexity model (RCM) of arctic delta evolution based on the DeltaRCM-Arctic model (Lauzon et al., 2019), which we have reconstructed in Julia language using published information. Unlike previous models, ArcDelRCM.jl is able to replicate the ramp around the delta. We have found that the delayed breakup of the so-called “bottom-fast ice” (i.e. ice that is in direct contact with the bed of the channel or the sea, also known as “bed-fast ice”) on and around the deltas is ultimately responsible for the appearance of the ramp feature in our models. However, changes made to the modelling of permafrost erosion and the protective effects of bottom-fast ice are also important contributors. Graph analyses of the delta network performed on ensemble runs show that deltas produced by ArcDelRCM.jl have more interconnected channels and contain less abandoned subnetworks. This may suggest a more even feeding of sediments to all sections of the delta shoreline, supporting ramp growth. Moreover, we showed that the morphodynamic processes during the summer months remain active enough to contribute significant sediment input to the growth and evolution of Arctic deltas and thus should not be neglected in simulations gauging the multi-year evolution of delta features. Finally, we tested a strong climate-warming scenario on the simulated deltas of ArcDelRCM.jl, with temperature, discharge, and ice conditions consistent with RCP7–8.5. We found that the ramp features degrade on the timescale of centuries and effectively disappear in under 1 millennium. Ocean processes, which are not included in these models, may further shorten the timescale. With the degradation of the ramps, any dissipative effects on wave energy they offered would also decrease. This could expose the sub-aerial parts of the deltas to increased coastal erosion, thus impacting permafrost degradation, nutrients, and carbon releases.