Source apportionment of methane escaping the subsea permafrost system in the outer Eurasian Arctic Shelf

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf holds large amounts of inundated carbon and methane (CH₄). Holocene warming by overlying seawater, recently fortified by anthropogenic warming, has caused thawing of the underlying subsea permafrost. Despite extensive observations of elevated seawater CH₄ in the past decades, relative contributions from different subsea compartments such as early diagenesis, subsea permafrost, methane hydrates, and underlying thermogenic/ free gas to these methane releases remain elusive. Dissolved methane concentrations observed in the Laptev Sea ranged from 3 to 1,500 nM (median 151 nM; oversaturation by ∼3,800%). Methane stable isotopic composition showed strong vertical and horizontal gradients with source signatures for two seepage areas of δ¹³C-CH₄ = (−42.6 ± 0.5)/(−55.0 ± 0.5) ‰ and δD-CH₄ = (−136.8 ± 8.0)/(−158.1 ± 5.5) ‰, suggesting a thermogenic/natural gas source. Increasingly enriched δ¹³C-CH₄ and δD-CH₄ at distance from the seeps indicated methane oxidation. The Δ¹⁴C-CH₄ signal was strongly depleted (i.e., old) near the seeps (−993 ± 19/−1050 ± 89‰). Hence, all three isotope systems are consistent with methane release from an old, deep, and likely thermogenic pool to the outer Laptev Sea. This knowledge of what subsea sources are contributing to the observed methane release is a prerequisite to predictions on how these emissions will increase over coming decades and centuries.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) is the world’s largest and shallowest shelf sea system, formed through inundation of northeast Siberia during sea level transgression in the early Holocene. The ESAS holds substantial but poorly constrained amounts of organic carbon and methane (CH₄). These carbon/methane stores are contained in unknown partitions as gas hydrates, unfrozen sediment, subsea permafrost, gas pockets within and below the subsea permafrost, and as underlying thermogenic gas (1–3). Methane release to the atmosphere from these compartments could potentially have significant effects on the global climate (4, 5), yet there are large uncertainties regarding the size and the vulnerability toward remobilization of these inaccessible and elusive subsea carbon/methane pools. Conceptual development and modeling have predicted that warming of the ESAS system by a combination of geothermal heat and climate-driven Holocene heat flux from overlying seawater, recently further enhanced by Anthropocene warming, may lead to thawing of subsea permafrost (6, 7). Subsea permafrost drilling in the Laptev Sea, in part at the same sites as 30 y ago, has recently confirmed that the subsea permafrost has indeed come near the point of thawing (8). In addition to mobilization of the carbon/methane stored within the subsea permafrost, its degradation can also lead to the formation of pathways for gaseous methane from underlying reservoirs, allowing further methane release to the overlying water column (3, 9).Near-annual ship-based expeditions to the ESAS over the past two decades have documented widespread seep locations with extensive methane releases to the water column (3, 10). Methane levels are often found to be 10 to 100 times higher than the atmospheric equilibrium and are particularly elevated in areas of strong ebullition from subsea gas seeps (“methane hotspots”). Similarly, elevated dissolved methane concentrations in bottom waters appear to be spatially related to the thermal state of subsea permafrost as deduced from modeling results and/or geophysical surveys (7, 9). Currently, we lack critical knowledge on the quantitative or even relative contributions of the different subsea pools to the observed methane release, a prerequisite for robust predictions on how these releases will develop. An important distinction needs to be made between pools that release methane gradually, such as methane produced microbially in shallow sediments during early diagenesis or in thawing subsea permafrost, versus pools with preformed methane that may release more abruptly once pathways are available, such as from disintegrating methane hydrates and pools of thermogenic (natural) gas below the subsea permafrost. Multidimensional isotope analysis offers a useful means to disentangle the relative importance of these different subsea sources of methane to the ESAS: Stable isotope data (δ¹³C-CH₄ and δD-CH₄) provide useful information on methane formation and removal pathways, and the radiocarbon content of methane (Δ¹⁴C-CH₄) helps to determine the age and methane source reservoir (see SI Appendix, text S1 for details on these isotope systematics and typical isotopic signatures for the ESAS subsea system).Here, we present triple-isotope–based source apportionment of methane conducted as part of the Swedish–Russian–US investigation of carbon–climate–cryosphere interactions in the East Siberian Arctic Ocean (SWERUS-C3) program. To this end, the distribution of dissolved methane, its stable carbon and hydrogen isotope composition, as well as natural radiocarbon abundance signature, were investigated with a focus on the isotopic fingerprint of methane escaping the seabed to pinpoint the subsea sources of elevated methane in the outer Laptev Sea.     

Improving research and policy interactions requires a better understanding of what works in different contexts

There is keen interest in many jurisdictions in finding ways to improve the way that research evidence informs policy. One possible mechanism for this is to embed academics within government agencies either as advisers or full staff members. Our commentary argues that, in addition to considering the role of academics in government as proposed by Glied and colleagues, we need to understand better how research and policy interactions function across policy sectors. We believe more comparative research is needed to understand if and why academics from certain disciplines are more likely to be recruited to work in some policy sectors rather than others. We caution against treating government as monolithic by advocating the same model for collaborative interaction between academics and government. Lastly, we contend that contextualized research is needed to illuminate important drivers of research and policy interactions before we can recommend what is likely to be more and less effective in different policy sectors.