Streams are important emitters of CO2 but extreme spatial variability in their physical properties can make upscaling very uncertain. Here, we determined critical drivers of stream CO2 evasion at scales from 30 to 400 m across a 52.5 km2 catchment in northern Sweden. We found that turbulent reaches never have elevated CO2 concentrations, while less turbulent locations can potentially support a broad range of CO2 concentrations, consistent with global observations. The predictability of stream pCO2 is greatly improved when we include a proxy for soil‐stream connectivity. Catchment topography shapes network patterns of evasion by creating hydrologically linked “domains” characterized by high water‐atmosphere exchange and/or strong soil‐stream connection. This template generates spatial variability in the drivers of CO2 evasion that can strongly bias regional and global estimates. To overcome this complexity, we provide the foundations of a mechanistic framework of CO2 evasion by considering how landscape process domains regulate transfer and supply.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere from running waters are estimated to be four times larger than the total carbon (C) flux to the oceans. However, these fluxes remain poorly constrained because of substantial temporal variability in dissolved CO2 concentrations. Using a global compilation of high frequency CO2 measurements, we demonstrate that nocturnal CO2 emissions are consistently larger, by an average of 27% (0.9 g C m -2 d -1 ), than those estimated from diurnal concentrations alone. Canopy shading is the principal control on observed diel (24 hr) variation, suggesting this nocturnal increase arises from daytime fixation of dissolved inorganic C by photosynthesis. Because contemporary global estimates of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from running waters (0.65 -1.8 Pg C yr -1 ) rely primarily on discrete measurements of dissolved CO2 obtained during the day, they substantially underpredict the magnitude of this important flux. Accounting for night-time CO2 elevates global estimates of emissions from running waters to the atmosphere by 0.20-0.55 Pg C yr -1 .Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission from inland waters to the atmosphere is a major flux in the global carbon (C) cycle, and four-fold larger than the lateral C export to oceans 1 . Streams and rivers are hotspots for this flux, accounting for ~85% of inland water CO2 emissions despite covering <20% of the freshwater surface area 2 . Despite this importance, the magnitude of global CO2 emissions from streams and rivers remains highly uncertain with estimates revised upwards over the past decade from 0.6 to 3.48 Pg C yr -1 (3,4) . Changes to this estimate follow improvements in the spatial resolution for upscaling emissions 2,5 , as well as new studies from previously underrepresented areas such as the Congo 6 , Amazon 7 , and global mountains 8 . Further refinements have emerged from considering temporal variability in CO2 emission rates 9 . However, despite recent studies showing dramatic day-night changes in stream and river water CO2 concentrations 10-14 the significance of systematic sub-daily variation on overall CO2 emissions remains unexplored.Diurnal cycles in solar radiation impose a well-known periodicity on stream biogeochemical processes, creating diel (i.e., 24-hr period lengths) patterns for many solutes and gases, including nutrients, dissolved organic matter, and dissolved oxygen (O2) 15 . Indeed, diel variation in O2 arising from photosynthetic activity is the signal from which whole-system metabolic fluxes are estimated 16 . Photosynthetic production of O2 is stoichiometrically linked to the day-time assimilation of dissolved inorganic carbon (principally bicarbonate and dissolved CO2), lowering CO2 concentrations during the day. The resulting diel variation, with higher night-time CO2 concentrations when respiration reactions dominate, implies increased emissions at night. Despite the obvious connection between photosynthesis and CO2 consumption, the implications for total aquatic CO2 emissions has been neglected, most likely ...

Streams play an important role in the global carbon (C) cycle, accounting for a large portion of CO2 evaded from inland waters despite their small areal coverage. However, the relative importance of different terrestrial and aquatic processes driving CO2 production and evasion from streams remains poorly understood. In this study, we measured O2 and CO2 continuously in streams draining tundra‐dominated catchments in northern Sweden, during the summers of 2015 and 2016. From this, we estimated daily metabolic rates and CO2 evasion simultaneously and thus provide insight into the role of stream metabolism as a driver of C dynamics in Arctic streams. Our results show that aquatic biological processes regulate CO2 concentrations and evasion at multiple timescales. Photosynthesis caused CO2 concentrations to decrease by as much as 900 ppm during the day, with the magnitude of this diel variation being strongest at the low‐turbulence streams. Diel patterns in CO2 concentrations in turn influenced evasion, with up to 45% higher rates at night. Throughout the summer, CO2 evasion was sustained by aquatic ecosystem respiration, which was one order of magnitude higher than gross primary production. Furthermore, in most cases, the contribution of stream respiration exceeded CO2 evasion, suggesting that some stream reaches serve as net sources of CO2, thus creating longitudinal heterogeneity in C production and loss within this stream network. Overall, our results provide the first link between stream metabolism and CO2 evasion in the Arctic and demonstrate that stream metabolic processes are key drivers of the transformation and fate of terrestrial organic matter exported from these landscapes.

High-latitude regions play a key role in the carbon (C) cycle and climate system. An important question is the degree of mobilization and atmospheric release of vast soil C stocks, partly stored in permafrost, with amplified warming of these regions. A fraction of this C is exported to inland waters and emitted to the atmosphere, yet these losses are poorly constrained and seldom accounted for in assessments of high-latitude C balances. This is particularly relevant for Western Siberia, with its extensive peatland C stocks, which can be strongly sensitive to the ongoing changes in climate. Here we quantify C emission from inland waters, including the Ob’ River (Arctic’s largest watershed), across all permafrost zones of Western Siberia. We show that the inland water C emission is high (0.08–0.10 Pg C yr−1) and of major significance in the regional C cycle, largely exceeding (7–9 times) C export to the Arctic Ocean and reaching nearly half (35–50%) of the region’s land C uptake. This important role of C emission from inland waters highlights the need for coupled land–water studies to understand the contemporary C cycle and its response to warming.

The seasonality of gross primary production (GPP) in streams is driven by multiple physical and chemical factors, yet incident light is often thought to be most important. In Arctic tundra streams, however, light is available in saturating amounts throughout the summer, but sharp declines in nutrient supply during the terrestrial growing season may constrain aquatic productivity. Given the opposing seasonality of these drivers, we hypothesized that “shoulder seasons”—spring and autumn—represent critical time windows when light and nutrients align to optimize rates of stream productivity in the Arctic. To test this, we measured annual patterns of GPP and biofilm accumulation in eight streams in Arctic Sweden. We found that the aquatic growing season length differed by 4 months across streams and was determined largely by the timing of ice‐off in spring. During the growing season, temporal variability in GPP for nitrogen (N) poor streams was correlated with inorganic N concentration, while in more N‐rich streams GPP was instead linked to changes in phosphorus and light. Annual GPP varied ninefold among streams and was enhanced by N availability, the length of ice‐free period, and low flood frequency. Finally, network scale estimates of GPP highlight the overall significance of the shoulder seasons, which accounted for 48% of annual productivity. We suggest that the timing of ice off and nutrient supply from land interact to regulate the annual metabolic regimes of nutrient poor, Arctic streams, leading to unexpected peaks in productivity that are offset from the terrestrial growing season.

Climate change is rapidly reshaping Arctic landscapes through shifts in vegetation cover and productivity, soil resource mobilization, and hydrological regimes. The implications of these changes for stream ecosystems and food webs is unclear and will depend largely on microbial biofilm responses to concurrent shifts in temperature, light, and resource supply from land. To study those responses, we used nutrient diffusing substrates to manipulate resource supply to biofilm communities along regional gradients in stream temperature, riparian shading, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) loading in Arctic Sweden. We found strong nitrogen (N) limitation across this gradient for gross primary production, community respiration and chlorophyll-a accumulation. For unamended biofilms, activity and biomass accrual were not closely related to any single physical or chemical driver across this region. However, the magnitude of biofilm response to N addition was: in tundra streams, biofilm response was constrained by thermal regimes, whereas variation in light availability regulated this response in birch and coniferous forest streams. Furthermore, heterotrophic responses to experimental N addition increased across the region with greater stream water concentrations of DOC relative to inorganic N. Thus, future shifts in resource supply to these ecosystems are likely to interact with other concurrent environmental changes to regulate stream productivity. Indeed, our results suggest that in the absence of increased nutrient inputs, Arctic streams will be less sensitive to future changes in other habitat variables such as temperature and DOC loading.

Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas and its concentrations have tripled in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. There is evidence that global warming has increased CH4 emissions from freshwater ecosystems1,2, providing positive feedback to the global climate. Yet for rivers and streams, the controls and the magnitude of CH4 emissions remain highly uncertain3,4. Here we report a spatially explicit global estimate of CH4 emissions from running waters, accounting for 27.9 (16.7–39.7) Tg CH4 per year and roughly equal in magnitude to those of other freshwater systems5,6. Riverine CH4 emissions are not strongly temperature dependent, with low average activation energy (EM = 0.14 eV) compared with that of lakes and wetlands (EM = 0.96 eV)1. By contrast, global patterns of emissions are characterized by large fluxes in high- and low-latitude settings as well as in human-dominated environments. These patterns are explained by edaphic and climate features that are linked to anoxia in and near fluvial habitats, including a high supply of organic matter and water saturation in hydrologically connected soils. Our results highlight the importance of land–water connections in regulating CH4 supply to running waters, which is vulnerable not only to direct human modifications but also to several climate change responses on land.

Global warming is enhancing the mobilization of organic carbon (C) from Arctic soils into streams, where it can be mineralized to CO2 and released to the atmosphere. Abiotic photo‐oxidation might drive C mineralization, but this process has not been quantitatively integrated with biological processes that also influence CO2 dynamics in aquatic ecosystems. We measured CO2 concentrations and the isotopic composition of dissolved inorganic C (δ13CDIC) at diel resolution in two Arctic streams, and coupled this with whole‐system metabolism estimates to assess the effect of biotic and abiotic processes on stream C dynamics. CO2 concentrations consistently decreased from night to day, a pattern counter to the hypothesis that photo‐oxidation is the dominant source of CO2. Instead, the observed decrease in CO2 during daytime was explained by photosynthetic rates, which were strongly correlated with diurnal changes in δ13CDIC values. However, on days when modeled photosynthetic rates were near zero, there was still a significant diel change in δ13CDIC values, suggesting that metabolic estimates are partly masked by O2 consumption from photo‐oxidation. Our results suggest that 6–12 mmol CO2‐C m−2 d−1 may be generated from photo‐oxidation, a range that corresponds well to previous laboratory measurements. Moreover, ecosystem respiration rates were 10 times greater than published photo‐oxidation rates for these Arctic streams, and accounted for 33–80% of total CO2 evasion. Our results suggest that metabolic activity is the dominant process for CO2 production in Arctic streams. Thus, future aquatic CO2 emissions may depend on how biotic processes respond to the ongoing environmental change.