Sensitivity of CO2 Exchange of Fen Ecosystem Components to Water Level Variation

Riutta, Terhi; Laine, Jukka; Tuittila, Eeva‐Stiina

doi:10.1007/s10021-007-9046-7

Cited by 156 publications

(204 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

179

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather than quantifying NEE, an important result of the present study was that plant-derived ER from RCG mesocosms (the major part of total CO 2 emissions) was similar at all three GWLs (Fig. 7), substantiating the results of Lafleur et al (2005) and Riutta et al (2007), who reported autotrophic respiration to be independent of water table depth. Thus, the observed increase (from 69 to 85 %) in total ER with rising GWL was promoted mainly by decreasing soil respiration at the higher GWL (Fig.…”

Section: Co 2 Emissionssupporting

confidence: 87%

Effect of reed canary grass cultivation on greenhouse gas emission from peat soil at controlled rewetting

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Cultivation of bioenergy crops in rewetted peatland (paludiculture) is considered as a possible land use option to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, bioenergy crops like reed canary grass (RCG) can have a complex influence on GHG fluxes. Here we determined the effect of RCG cultivation on GHG emission from peatland rewetted to various extents. Mesocosms were manipulated to three different ground water levels (GWLs), i.e. 0, −10 and −20 cm below the soil surface in a controlled semi-field facility. Emissions of CO 2 (ecosystem respiration, ER), CH 4 and N 2 O from mesocosms with RCG and bare soil were measured at weekly to fortnightly intervals with static chamber techniques for a period of 1 year. Cultivation of RCG increased both ER and CH 4 emissions, but decreased the N 2 O emissions. The presence of RCG gave rise to 69, 75 and 85 % of total ER at −20, −10 and 0 cm GWL, respectively. However, this difference was due to decreased soil respiration at the rising GWL as the plant-derived CO 2 flux was similar at all three GWLs. For methane, 70-95 % of the total emission was due to presence of RCG, with the highest contribution at −20 cm GWL. In contrast, cultivation of RCG decreased N 2 O emission by 33-86 % with the major reductions at −10 and −20 cm GWL. In terms of global warming potential, the increase in CH 4 emissions due to RCG cultivation was more than offset by the decrease in N 2 O emissions at −10 and −20 cm GWL; at 0 cm GWL the CH 4 emissions was offset only by 23 %. CO 2 emissions from ER were obviously the dominant RCG-derived GHG flux, but aboveground biomass yields, and preliminary measurements of gross photosynthetic production, showed that ER could be more than balanced due to the photosynthetic uptake of CO 2 by RCG. Our results support that RCG cultivation could be a good land use option in terms of mitigating GHG emission from rewetted peatlands, potentially turning these ecosystems into a sink of atmospheric CO 2 .

show abstract

Section: Co 2 Emissionssupporting

confidence: 87%

Effect of reed canary grass cultivation on greenhouse gas emission from peat soil at controlled rewetting

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No direct measurements of P n or vascular NPP exist for validation but the simulated P n of the year 2005 was compared with an NPP estimate derived from eddy covariance CO 2 fluxes measured that year on Siikaneva. Briefly, the estimated contributions of Sphagnum mosses (30 %; Riutta et al, 2007) and autotrophic respiration (50 %; Gifford, 1994) were subtracted from the eddy-covariancebased gross primary productivity (GPP) data obtained via personal communication), and the remains were taken as an estimate of the NPP of vascular vegetation. The two NPP estimates were well correlated (with R 2 of 0.9) but the eddy-covariance-based NPP was on average 1.56-fold compared with the simulated P n .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Szafranek-Nakonieczna and Stepniewska (2014) observed anaerobic CO 2 production in peat incubations ranging up to around 0.1 g (CO 2 ) kg −1 (dry weight) d −1 , which corresponds to around 4 µmol m −2 s −1 assuming peat bulk density of 80 g dm −3 (Turunen et al, 2002) and 2 m of peat. A model of peat respiration, parameterized by Riutta et al (2007) using measurement data from a peatland site similar to Siikaneva, gave a respiration rate of 0.5 µmol m −2 s −1 at air temperature of 20 • C and WTD of zero (full inundation). Figure 14 shows the daily observed CH 4 fluxes and the CH 4 fluxes simulated using the logarithmic layer structure in a 2 m deep peat column at Siikaneva and Lompolojänkkä.…”

Section: Comparison Of Modeled and Measured Ch 4 Fluxesmentioning

confidence: 99%

HIMMELI v1.0: HelsinkI Model of MEthane buiLd-up and emIssion for peatlands

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Wetlands are one of the most significant natural sources of methane (CH 4 ) to the atmosphere. They emit CH 4 because decomposition of soil organic matter in waterlogged anoxic conditions produces CH 4 , in addition to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Production of CH 4 and how much of it escapes to the atmosphere depend on a multitude of environmental drivers. Models simulating the processes leading to CH 4 emissions are thus needed for upscaling observations to estimate present CH 4 emissions and for producing scenarios of future atmospheric CH 4 concentrations. Aiming at a CH 4 model that can be added to models describing peatland carbon cycling, we composed a model called HIMMELI that describes CH 4 build-up in and emissions from peatland soils. It is not a full peatland carbon cycle model but it requires the rate of anoxic soil respiration as input. Driven by soil temperature, leaf area index (LAI) of aerenchymatous peatland vegetation, and water table depth (WTD), it simulates the concentrations and transport of CH 4 , CO 2 , and oxygen (O 2 ) in a layered one-dimensional peat column. Here, we present the HIMMELI model structure and results of tests on the model sensitivity to the input data and to the description of the peat column (peat depth and layer thickness), and demonstrate that HIMMELI outputs realistic fluxes by comparing modeled and measured fluxes at two peatland sites. As HIMMELI describes only the CH 4 -related processes, not the full carbon cycle, our analysis revealed mechanisms and dependencies that may remain hidden when testing CH 4 models connected to complete peatland carbon models, which is usually the case. Our results indicated that (1) the model is flexible and robust and thus suitable for different environments; (2) the simulated CH 4 emissions largely depend on the prescribed rate of anoxic respiration; (3) the sensitivity of Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 4666M. Raivonen et al.: HelsinkI Model of MEthane buiLd-up and emIssion for peatlands the total CH 4 emission to other input variables is mainly mediated via the concentrations of dissolved gases, in particular, the O 2 concentrations that affect the CH 4 production and oxidation rates; (4) with given input respiration, the peat column description does not significantly affect the simulated CH 4 emissions in this model version.

show abstract

“…Natural (i.e. undrained) peatlands function as long-term carbon (C) stores as the sequestration of CO 2 over time is greater than the amount of C that is emitted from the peatland as methane (CH 4 ) and leached in waterborne exports (Roulet et al, 2007;Nilsson et al, 2008;Koehler et al, 2011;Gažovič et al, 2013). Key to this role is the position of the water table, which largely dictates the rate of decomposition within the peatland.…”

Section: Wilson Et Al: Derivation Of Greenhouse Gas Emission Factmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The R eco models used here are only valid for the data that were measured over the course of the study at each site and cannot be readily extrapolated beyond the range of that data. For those sites where the water table did not appear to influence R eco dynamics it may be that fluctuations in WT level were missed with the interpolation approach and CO 2 -C flux measurement regimes that we employed here, although these methodologies have been widely used elsewhere (Riutta et al, 2007;Soini et al, 2010;Renou-Wilson et al, 2014). Instead, it is probable that our results reflect the complexity of the relationship between R eco and WT in very dry soils as outlined by Lafleur et al (2005), where factors such as a stable, low surface soil moisture content, and decreased porosity (i.e.…”

Section: Effects Of Drainage Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Derivation of greenhouse gas emission factors for peatlands managed for extraction in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom

Wilson¹,

Dixon

Artz

et al. 2015

Biogeosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Drained peatlands are significant hotspots of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and may also be more vulnerable to fire with its associated gaseous emissions. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from peatlands managed for extraction are reported on an annual basis. However, the Tier 1 (default) emission factors (EFs) provided in the IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement for this land use category may not be representative in all cases and countries are encouraged to move to highertier reporting levels with reduced uncertainty levels based on country-or regional-specific data. In this study, we quantified (1) CO 2 -C emissions from nine peat extraction sites in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, which were initially disaggregated by land use type (industrial versus domestic peat extraction), and (2) a range of GHGs that are released to the atmosphere with the burning of peat. Drainagerelated methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions as well as CO 2 -C emissions associated with the off-site decomposition of horticultural peat were not included here. Our results show that net CO 2 -C emissions were strongly controlled by soil temperature at the industrial sites (bare peat) and by soil temperature and leaf area index at the vegetated domestic sites. Our derived EFs of 1.70 (±0.47) and 1.64 (±0.44) t CO 2 -C ha −1 yr −1 for the industrial and domestic sites respectively are considerably lower than the Tier 1 EF (2.8 ± 1.7 t CO 2 -C ha −1 yr −1 ) provided in the Wetlands Supplement. We propose that the difference between our derived values and the Wetlands Supplement value is due to differences in peat quality and, consequently, decomposition rates. Emissions from burning of the peat (g kg −1 dry fuel burned) were estimated to be approximately 1346 CO 2 , 8.35 methane (CH 4 ), 218 carbon monoxide (CO), 1.53 ethane (C 2 H 6 ), 1.74 ethylene (C 2 H 4 ), 0.60 methanol (CH 3 OH), 2.21 hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and 0.73 ammonia (NH 3 ), and this emphasises the importance of understanding the full suite of trace gas emissions from biomass burning. Our results highlight the importance of generating reliable Tier 2 values for different regions and land use categories. Furthermore, given that the IPCC Tier 1 EF was only based on 20 sites (all from Canada and Fennoscandia), we suggest that data from another 9 sites significantly expand the global data set, as well as adding a new region.

show abstract

Sensitivity of CO2 Exchange of Fen Ecosystem Components to Water Level Variation

Cited by 156 publications

References 42 publications

Effect of reed canary grass cultivation on greenhouse gas emission from peat soil at controlled rewetting

Effect of reed canary grass cultivation on greenhouse gas emission from peat soil at controlled rewetting

HIMMELI v1.0: HelsinkI Model of MEthane buiLd-up and emIssion for peatlands

Derivation of greenhouse gas emission factors for peatlands managed for extraction in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About