the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Probing the exchange of CO2 and O2 in the shallow critical zone during weathering of marl and black shale
Tobias Roylands
Robert G. Hilton
Erin L. McClymont
Mark H. Garnett
Guillaume Soulet
Sébastien Klotz
Mathis Degler
Felipe Napoleoni
Caroline Le Bouteiller
Abstract. Chemical weathering of sedimentary rocks can release carbon dioxide (CO2) and consume oxygen (O2) via the oxidation of petrogenic organic carbon and sulfide minerals. These pathways govern Earth’s surface system and climate over geological timescales, but the present-day weathering fluxes and their environmental controls are only partly constrained due to a lack of in situ measurements. Here, we investigate the gaseous exchange of CO2 and O2 during the oxidative weathering of black shales and marls exposed in the French southern Alps. On six fieldtrips over one year, we use drilled headspace chambers to measure the CO2 concentrations in the shallow critical zone, and quantify CO2 fluxes in real-time. Importantly, we develop a new approach to estimate the volume of rock that contributes CO2 to a chamber, and assess effective diffusive gas exchange, by first quantifying the mass of CO2 that is stored in a chamber and connected rock pores. Both rock types are characterized by similar contributing rock volumes and diffusive movement of CO2. However, CO2 emissions differed between the rock types, with yields over rock outcrop surfaces (inferred from the contributing rock volume and the local weathering depths) ranging between 166 tC km-2 yr-1 and 2,416 tC km-2 yr-1 for black shales and between 83 tC km-2 yr-1 and 1,558 tC km-2 yr-1 for marls over the study period. Having quantified diffusive processes, chamber-based O2 concentration measurements are used to calculate O2 fluxes. The rate of O2 consumption increased with production of CO2, and with increased temperature, with an average O2 : CO2 molar ratio of 10 : 1. If O2 consumption occurs by both rock organic carbon oxidation and sulfide oxidation, either an additional O2 sink needs to be identified, or significant export of dissolved inorganic carbon occurs from the weathering zone. Together, our findings refine the tools we have to probe CO2 and O2 exchange in rocks at Earth’s surface and shed new light on CO2 and O2 fluxes, their drivers and the fate of rock-derived carbon.
- Preprint
(3000 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2175 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Tobias Roylands et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on esurf-2023-15', Aaron Bufe, 29 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on esurf-2023-15', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2023
This manuscript is another contribution in a series of rigorous papers from this group on quantifying the rates of petrogenic organic carbon oxidation. The rate of oxidation of petrogenic organic matter and sulfide minerals is highly uncertain in global carbon budgets and this work both reports contemporary rates of oxidation and provides an accessible and novel framework for making additional measurements. The manuscript is clear and well written, with careful attention to methodological details allowing reproducibility and extension of this technique to other studies. Beyond the methodological contributions, novel observations were presented wherein two different sites independently showed similar dependence of bedrock co2 fluxes on environmental variables (temperature and moisture) and similar drawdown of O2, despite differences in mineralogy.
I offer some minor comments on areas that could use further clarification below, but I kept returning to the following questions as I read the paper and would encourage the authors to address these questions (or discuss why they could not be addressed) as I suspect other readers will share these questions:
1) Is the calculated rate of oxidation consistent with the loss of OCpetro from the rock (and erosion rate)? Has it been established that the rock from near the surface shows sufficient depletion of OCpetro (relative to parent bedrock) such that the observed CO2 fluxes could be explained reasonably well by the observed uplift rate, bulk density, and solid phase loss? This woud be a critical ‘check’ on the reliability of the rates measured with this new technique.
2) What evidence is there that the CO2 accumulation in the chambers is exclusively driven by mineral weathering and OCpetro oxidation? The authors take great care to identify sampling locations where rock is exposed and therefore CO2 is likely to be sourced from respiration of OCpetro, however, the photos show plants nearby at a lengthscale that could conceivably influence CO2 fluxes. I fear that even radiocarbon and d13C measurements of CO2 may not be sufficient to rule out (relatively) recently fixed C as a source of CO2, as typically even soils and saprolites show accumulation of radiocarbon dead pools of C.
Other comments:
Figure 4 is well done and very instructive.
You may want to check the paper for issues with significant figures (e.g. L556).
Are the ranges of values for tC/km2/year that appear in the abstract associated with the values in line 458? If so, please add the range of values to the text and help readers connect Table 5 to this range.
I commend the authors for leveraging well studied sites. I found it a bit unconventional to cite a list of publications for relatively straight forward site attributes (e.g. L117, L120). This makes it harder to identify the source of the information cited. I also wonder whether there are stream/surface water fluxes of DIC or major cations that could be used to comment on the feasibility of the dissolution and transport of CO2 (i.e. what is proposed in L8).
L51: This could be written more clearly to support the motivation for the work presented here. Tune et al. use the gradient method as well as water chemistry to demonstrate that deep CO2 is associated with deep roots in bedrock. They find that the solid phase is depleted in OCpetro but that the CO2 that is transiting upwards from the rock is not derived from oxidation of OCpetro (via C14.) Note also that Tune et al., 2023 perform rock incubation experiments and report lab-based oxidation rates. These could be compared to the fluxes reported here.
L85: Is this in reference to solid phase measurements of OCPetro? Could clarify.
L112- Could you clarify what is meant by “more comparable between the catchments?”
L365-375: This section was a bit challenging to parse and could be clarified to separate hypotheses from observations. As is written, it is well established that diffusive fluxes would decrease under reduced air filled porosity and increased tortuosity associated with moisture increase. It would be helpful to spell out other contributions to changes in observed fluxes more clearly. For example, later in the paper we learn about solifluction and solid phase changes which could be described here instead.
L384- remove likely? Under what circumstances might this not be the case? Also, consider revisiting Sanchez Canete et al., 2018 and citing here.
While I don’t propose a major overhaul on the structure of the paper, I did find it a bit unconventional and a bit of a challenge to work through all of the calculations in the discussion. The paper would perhaps be more accessible and easier to read if the methods and calculations were all spelled out in the methods section for easier reference. This is ultimately at the author’s discretion.
Figure 6 and associated text: Were there indications of which events led to infiltration to corroborate the 5 mm for 3 day threshold? Did surveyors observe other evidence of subsurface wetting that aided in the classification of data between wet and dry?
L512: 30% air filled porosity seems very high for a fractured rock. I was not able to find the porosity and saturation measurements that this was based on in the papers cited. Can you present the evidence to corroborate these very high air-filled porosity values, or if not, could you justify them and provide clarification on how they affect the results?
L530: Are these rocks fractured?
L536-541: I was not able to follow how the cited papers support the Zrock calculation. This section seems a bit contradictory with the site description- could you clarify the text to address this?
L555-558: Why aren’t rock masses reported separately for the two catchments given that CO2 fluxes are reported separately?
Sánchez-Cañete, E.P., Barron-Gafford, G.A. and Chorover, J., 2018. A considerable fraction of soil-respired CO2 is not emitted directly to the atmosphere. Scientific Reports, 8(1), p.13518.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2023-15-RC2
Tobias Roylands et al.
Tobias Roylands et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
457 | 76 | 15 | 548 | 33 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 457
- PDF: 76
- XML: 15
- Total: 548
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1