Impact of Former Peat Extraction Field Afforestation on Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Hemiboreal Region

Abstract

The reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change mitigation are global issues. Peatlands in Europe are widely distributed in the Nordic–Baltic region, and Baltic countries are some of the largest peat suppliers for horticulture in Europe. However, there is no sustainable substitute for peat in the horticulture industry. Therefore, it is necessary to identify suitable re-cultivation types for former peat extraction fields, because knowledge about the effect of re-cultivation on annual carbon and GHG budgets is limited. Ecosystem GHG (CO2, CH4, N2O) exchange measurements, environmental parameter assessment and sampling in the study were conducted in a hemiboreal vegetation zone for 24 consecutive months in former peat extraction fields with different re-cultivation management strategies (land use types). The aim of the study was to assess the influence of diverse re-cultivation management strategies on the GHG emissions of former peat extraction fields. The most suitable re-cultivation management is afforestation with Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) in order to obtain the lowest annual CO2eq values and ensure additional carbon sequestration in living tree biomass. The developed linear mixed-effect models showed a good model fit (R2CO2 = 0.80, R2CH4 = 0.74) for the analyzed land use types, and thus can be used for CO2 and CH4 emissions estimation.

Active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option under the EU Nature Restoration Law

“…However, these studies are inconclusive, have major flaws and biases, and cannot be verified and validated because the methods used are error-prone and descriptions often lack clarity. For instance, Samariks et al ( 2023 ) claim to show that afforestation of peat extraction sites can result in net carbon removals. However, they did not measure all elements of the carbon cycle and failed to clearly distinguish between soil emissions and emissions from tree roots.…”

County-Level Land Use Carbon Budget in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China: Spatiotemporal Differentiation and Coordination Zoning

“…Scholars have conducted a lot of research on the LUCB, mainly focusing on the calculation of the LUCB, spatial distribution characteristics, research scale, and influencing factors. In the calculation and research of the LUCB, scholars mainly use the Bookkeeping Model [8][9][10], Sample site inventory method [11,12], and the IPCC emission factor method [4,13,14]. In terms of the research on the spatial distribution characteristics of land use carbon emissions (LUCEs), scholars have studied the spatial characteristics of different types of LUCE and found that different types of land use show obvious spatial differences in terms of carbon budget.…”

Greenhouse Gas Fluxes and Carbon Losses From Soil in Deciduous Forests With Naturally Wet and Drained Mineral Soils

“…Organic soils is significant source of GHG emissions; drainage can increase CO2 emissions, but wet or rewetted organic soils produces more CH4 emissions due to different patterns of decomposition of organic matter (Chapman & Thurlow, 1996). Recent studies in Latvia demonstrated that drainage of organic nutrient-rich forest soils is increasing CO2 emissions from soil; however, negative effect due to the increase of emissions of CH4 from soil and reduction of carbon stock in the living biomass is exceeding this effect, actually turning forest drainage into climate friendly measure, if GHG emissions from pristine wet organic soils in forest lands are accounted (Butlers, Lazdiņš, et al, 2022;Butlers et al, 2023;Samariks et al, 2023;Vanags-Duka et al, 2022).…”