Biophysical Impacts of Historical Disturbances, Restoration Strategies, and Vegetation Types in a Peatland Ecosystem

Abstract

Land use change and management have a recognized effect on climate by altering land-atmosphere exchanges of carbon (C), water, and energy (Duveiller et al., 2020). The processes can be separated into biogeochemical and biophysical components. Biogeochemical impacts are produced by changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes between ecosystems and the atmosphere (

Impacts of Active Versus Passive Re‐Wetting on the Carbon Balance of a Previously Drained Bog

“…Further, the temperature sensitivity of FCH4 was higher at the actively (Q10 = 15.41) than the passively re-wetted site (Q10 = 3.16), in agreement with other studies demonstrating that wetter wetland ecosystems are more sensitive to changes in temperature than drier ecosystems (Olefeldt et al, 2017). Additionally, the overall warmer TS associated with the higher WTH demonstrated previously by Lee et al (2021), could also explain why growing season FCH4 at the actively re-wetted site, was higher than at the passively re-wetted site.…”

“…Additionally, the overall warmer TS associated with the higher WTH demonstrated previously by Lee et al. (2021), could also explain why growing season FCH4 at the actively re‐wetted site, was higher than at the passively re‐wetted site.…”

“…Continuous meteorological and environmental variable measurements we made using sensors positioned either directly on or within 10 m of the EC flux tower at both sites (for more details see Lee et al., 2021). Incoming and outgoing photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) were measured by two quantum sensors (LI‐190, LI‐COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) at a height of 1.8 m at the actively re‐wetted site and 3 m at the passively re‐wetted site.…”

“…Manipulating the water table height (WTH) in peatlands to restore natural hydrological regimes through active (e.g., ditch‐blocking to raise the water table) or passive re‐wetting (e.g., being near an actively re‐wetted area) affects C and GHG dynamics by altering factors such as soil oxygen concentration, soil temperature, plant community composition (Howie et al., 2009) and biophysical characteristics (Lee et al., 2021). As these factors interplay and modulate over time, it is likely that the C sink status and GHG emissions will depend on the stage the peatland is at in its recovery (Taillardat et al., 2020) and CO 2 and CH 4 dynamics in recently restored or recovering wetlands are likely to be substantially different to those in natural wetlands.…”