Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Future directions for river carbon biogeochemistry observations

Nature Water volume 2, pages 219–222 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Rivers carry large quantities of carbon and form an important link between terrestrial, marine and atmospheric biogeochemical cycles, yet our observations of river carbon are severely limited. Here we provide a blueprint to build a global River Observation System that would improve our ability to observe and predict changes in this crucial piece of the global carbon cycle.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Conceptual figure of the three-layer approach to build a global River Observation System.

References

  1. DelVecchia, A., Stanford, J. & Xu, X. Nat. Commun. 7, 13163 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Collier, K. J., Bury, S. & Gibbs, M. Freshw. Biol. 47, 1651–1659 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Klemme, A. et al. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 212 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hilton, R. et al. Nature 524, 84–87 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ritson, J. P. et al. Sci. Total Environ. 473–474, 714–730 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Battin, T. J. et al. Nature 613, 449–459 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rocher-Ros, G. et al. Nature 621, 530–535 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gómez-Gener, L. et al. Nat. Geosci. 14, 289–294 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Vorobyev, S. N., Karlsson, J., Kolesnichenko, Y. Y., Korets, M. A. & Pokrovsky, O. S. Biogeosciences 18, 4919–4936 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Virro, H., Amatulli, G., Kmoch, A., Shen, L. & Uuemaa, E. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 5483–5507 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu, S. et al. PNAS 119, e2106322119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Stanley, E. H. et al. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 15, 2879–2926 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Marwick, T. R. et al. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 122–137 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Laudon, H. et al. Nat. Geosci. 10, 324–325 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This Comment would not have been possible without the substantial support and input from those who contributed to the first RIOS workshop held in Bristol in June 2023 and the research network (CONFLUENCE) that supported the workshop: G. Allen (Virginia Tech), D. Bastviken (Linköping University), P. Bates (University of Bristol), W. Buytaert (Imperial College London), G. Coxon (University of Bristol), S. Dasari (University of Oxford), N. Deluigi (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne), C. Duvert (Charles Darwin University), C. Evans (UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology), V. Galy (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), A. Grinham (University of Queensland), P. Hanson (University of Wisconsin-Madison), R. Hilton (University of Oxford), P. Johnes (University of Bristol), H. Laudon (Swedish Agricultural University), C. Lloyd (University of Bristol), B. McDowell (University of New Hampshire), O. Meisel (University of Bristol), J. Neal (University of Bristol), R. Nobrega (University of Bristol), A. Pickard (UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology), P. Regnier (Université libre de Bruxelles), J. Schellekens (Planet labs PBC), L. Slater (University of Oxford), R. Spencer (Florida State University), S. Tank (University of Alberta), S. Vale (Landcare Research New Zealand), J. Vonk (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), M. Wallin (Swedish Agricultural University), and R. Woods (University of Bristol). This work, and the workshop it is based upon, was supported by a UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) grant NE/V009001/1. J.F.D. received additional support from a UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowship MR/V025082/1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Joshua F. Dean

  2. Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Joshua F. Dean

  3. River Ecosystems Laboratory, Alpine and Polar Environmental Research Centre (ALPOLE), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland

    Tom J. Battin

Authors
  1. Joshua F. Dean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom J. Battin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua F. Dean.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dean, J.F., Battin, T.J. Future directions for river carbon biogeochemistry observations. Nat Water 2, 219–222 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-024-00207-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-024-00207-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology