Meteorological observations and eddy covariance raw data from polygonal tundra in the Lena River Delta, Siberia

We present the first ecosystem-scale methane flux data from a northern Siberian tundra ecosystem covering the entire snow-free period from spring thaw until initial freeze-back. Eddy covariance measurements of methane emission were carried out from the beginning of June until the end of September in the southern central part of the Lena River Delta (72°22' N, 126°30' E). The study site is located in the zone of continuous permafrost and is characterized by Arctic continental climate with very low precipitation and a mean annual temperature of -14.7°C. We found relatively low fluxes of on average 18.7 mg/m**2/d, which we consider to be because of (1) extremely cold permafrost, (2) substrate limitation of the methanogenic archaea, and (3) a relatively high surface coverage of noninundated, moderately moist areas. Near-surface turbulence as measured by the eddy covariance system in 4 m above the ground surface was identified as the most important control on ecosystem-scale methane emission and explained about 60% of the variance in emissions, while soil temperature explained only 8%. In addition, atmospheric pressure was found to significantly improve an exponential model based on turbulence and soil temperature. Ebullition from waterlogged areas triggered by decreasing atmospheric pressure and near-surface turbulence is thought to be an important pathway that warrants more attention in future studies. The close coupling of methane fluxes and atmospheric parameters demonstrated here raises questions regarding the reliability of enclosure-based measurements, which inherently exclude these parameters.

Tab. 1+2+3: Selected principal soil properties in the oil exploitation region of KomiArcticOil (Usinsk) in the Russian tundra

Oil polluted and not oil polluted soils (crude oil hydrocarbons contents: 20-92500 mg/kg dry soil mass) under natural grass and forest vegetation and in a bog in the Russian tundra were compared in their principal soil ecological parameters, the oil content and the microbial indicators. CFE biomass-C, dehydrogenase and arylsulfatase activity were enhanced with the occurrence of crude oil. Using these parameters for purposes of controlling remediation and recultivation success it is not possible to distinguish bctween promotion of microbial activity by oil carbon or soil organic carbon (SOC). For this reason we think that these parameters are not appropriate to indicate a soil damage by an oil impact. In contrast the metabolie quotient (qC02), calculated as the ratio between soil basal respiration and the SIR biomass-C was adequate to indicate a high crude oil contamination in soil. Also, the ß-glucosidase activity (parameter ß-GL/SOC) was correlated negatively with oil in soil. The indication of a soil damage by using the stress parameter qCO, or the specific enzyme activities (activity/SOC) minimizes the promotion effect of the recent SOC content on microbial parameters. Both biomass methods (SIR, CFE) have technical problems in application for crude oil-contaminated and subarctic soils. CFE does not reflect the low C_mic level of the cold tundra soils. We recommend to test every method for its suitability before any data collection in series as well as application for cold soils and the application of ecophysiological ratios as R_mic/C_mic, C_mic/SOC or enzymatic activity/SOC instead of absolute data.