Measurements of CO2 and CH4 evasion from UK peatland headwater streams

Billett, Michael F.; Harvey, Frank

doi:10.1007/s10533-012-9798-9

Cited by 56 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ranges of k and water concentrations of CH4 and CO2 measured in the streams were within those reported by other studies, both in Sweden and elsewhere (Billett & Harvey, 2013;Humborg et al, 2010;Jones & Mulholland, 1998;Wallin et al, 2011), although high k values were measured in steep parts of the stream, including the waterfalls. Analysis of k600, water concentrations of CH4 and CO2 and fluxes from the stream network of the SRC revealed large variabilities in terms of both space and time (Figures 6 and 7).…”

Section: Large Variability In Stream Fluxes (Iii)supporting

confidence: 88%

“…Stream velocity has been demonstrated to be an important controlling factor of k, thus affecting fluxes (Raymond et al, 2012), and it has been suggested in some studies that k could be more important in governing fluxes than concentrations (Wallin et al, 2011). Spring floods after the melting of snow (Campeau et al, 2014;Dyson et al, 2011) and storm events (Billett & Harvey, 2013;Dinsmore & Billett, 2008) can affect gas fluxes in streams due to the dilution of gas concentrations or an increased supply of dissolved gases from the catchment. Diel variabilities in CO2 have also been recorded in streams (Peter et al, 2014).…”

Section: Why Is Spatio-temporal Variability a Concern?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Freshwater methane and carbon dioxide fluxes : Spatio-temporal variability and an integrated assessment of lake and stream emissions in a catchment

Natchimuthu¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Large Variability In Stream Fluxes (Iii)supporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Why Is Spatio-temporal Variability a Concern?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Freshwater methane and carbon dioxide fluxes : Spatio-temporal variability and an integrated assessment of lake and stream emissions in a catchment

Natchimuthu¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, most evasion studies suggest that stream CO2 emissions are highest from steeper channels with turbulent water flow (e.g. Wallin et al, 2010;Billett and Harvey, 2013), which could explain lower direct measurements of CO2 emissions from drainage ditches in the studies described above. Comparing two drained peatlands under grassland, Renou-Wilson et al (2014) recorded mean excess CO2 in drainage water of 4.3 g C m -2 yr -1 in a nutrient rich site, and 16 g C m -2 yr -1 in a nutrient-poor site, the latter representing around 60% of the total fluvial C flux during a dry year.…”

Section: On-site Emissions Of Other Ghgs From Drainage Channelsmentioning

confidence: 93%

The role of waterborne carbon in the greenhouse gas balance of drained and re-wetted peatlands

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article (refereed) -postprintEvans, Chris D.; Renou-Wilson, Flo; Strack, Maria. 2016. The role of waterborne carbon in the greenhouse gas balance of drained and rewetted peatlands [in special issue: Carbon cycling in aquatic ecosystems] Aquatic Sciences, 78 (3). 573-590. 10.1007/s00027-015-0447-y Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner.The role of waterborne carbon in the greenhouse gas balance of drained and re-wetted peatlands AbstractAccounting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals in managed ecosystems has generally focused on direct land-atmosphere fluxes, but in peatlands a significant proportion of total carbon loss occurs via fluvial transport. This study considers the composition of this 'waterborne carbon' flux, its potential contribution to GHG emissions, and the extent to which it may change in response to land-management. The work describes, and builds on, a methodology to account for major components of these emissions developed for the 2013 Wetland Supplement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We identify two major components of GHG emissions from waterbodies draining organic soil: i) 'on site' emissions of methane (and to a lesser extent CO2) from drainage ditches located within the peatland; and ii) 'off site' emissions of CO2 resulting from downstream oxidation of dissolved and particulate organic carbon (DOC and POC) within the aquatic system. Methane emissions from ditches were found to be large in many cases (mean 60 g CH4 m -2 yr -1 based on all reported values), countering the view that methane emissions cease following wetland drainage. Emissions were greatest from ditches in intensive agricultural peatlands, but data were sparse and showed high variability. For DOC, the magnitude of the natural flux varied strongly with latitude, from 5 g C m -2 yr -1 in northern boreal peatlands to 60 g C m -2 yr -1 in tropical peatlands. Available data suggest that DOC fluxes increase by around 60% following drainage, and that this increase may be reversed in the longer-term through re-wetting, although variability between studies was high, especially in relation to re-wetting response. Evidence regarding the fate of DOC is complex and inconclusive, but overall suggests that the majority of DOC exported from peatlands is converted to CO2 through photo-and/or bio-degradation in rivers, standing waters and oceans. The contribution of POC export to GHG emissions is even more uncertain, but we estimate that over half of exported POC may eventually be converted to CO2. Although POC fluxes are normally small, they can become very large when bare peat surfaces are exposed to fluvial erosion. Overall, we estimate that waterborne carbon emissions may contribute about 1 to 4 t CO2-eq ha -1 yr -1 of additional GHG emissions from drained peatlands. For a number of worked examples this repres...

show abstract

“…Methanotrophs can also oxidize atmospheric CH 4 , leading to negative fluxes. DOC can be produced under aerobic and anaerobic conditions and exported from peatlands by drainage channels, but also acts as a substrate for microbes, with CO 2 efflux from streams comprising an important component of the overall C balance (Billett and Harvey 2013). Measurements of GHG fluxes represent the contributions of the sampling plots, whereas [DOC] values are a result of production (including mobilization into the dissolved phase), microbial degradation, input of water from precipitation at the sampling point, and inflow and outflow of water and DOC from upslope and downslope.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotic and Abiotic Factors Interact to Regulate Northern Peatland Carbon Cycling

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the spatio-temporal variability of controls on peatland carbon (C) cycling is essential to project the effects of future environmental change. While there is understanding of individual drivers of C cycling, the effect of multiple drivers, including interactions, remains poorly understood. Using a spatially and temporally explicit sampling framework, we examined the effects of biotic and abiotic controls on key indicators of peatland functioning: ecosystem respiration (R eco ), photosynthesis (P cal ), net ecosystem exchange (NEE), methane (CH 4 ) fluxes, and pore water dissolved organic carbon concentration ([DOC]). Measurements were made over 12 months in a blanket peatland hosting a wind farm in Scotland, UK. Overall, we found that (i) season and plant functional type (PFT) explained most variation in R eco and P cal , (ii) PFT and spatial location within the wind farm, which integrates several peat properties, were dominant predictors of CH 4 fluxes, and (iii) season and location within the wind farm correlated with pore water [DOC]. Examination of predictors indicated that interactions, between and within biotic and abiotic factors, explained a significant amount of variation in greenhouse gas fluxes and [DOC]. These findings indicate that combinations of biotic and abiotic factors could mediate or exacerbate the effects of future environmental change on peatland C cycling. Given this, studies of C cycling need to capture the spatial and temporal variance of biotic and abiotic factors and their interactions to project the likely impacts of environmental change.

show abstract

Measurements of CO2 and CH4 evasion from UK peatland headwater streams

Cited by 56 publications

References 55 publications

Freshwater methane and carbon dioxide fluxes : Spatio-temporal variability and an integrated assessment of lake and stream emissions in a catchment

Freshwater methane and carbon dioxide fluxes : Spatio-temporal variability and an integrated assessment of lake and stream emissions in a catchment

The role of waterborne carbon in the greenhouse gas balance of drained and re-wetted peatlands

Biotic and Abiotic Factors Interact to Regulate Northern Peatland Carbon Cycling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About