2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.10.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Short-term effects of fen peatland restoration through the moss layer transfer technique on the soil CO2 and CH4 efflux

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Raising water tables also showed a significant role in determining the initial recovery, interacting with Sphagnum inoculation, and suggesting that rewetting and inoculation in combination could be used to steer peatland recovery. Gas flux measurements were within comparable ranges of those observed in other studies focused on moss layer transfer (Lazcano et al, 2018) and rewetting (Dinsmore et al, 2009); however, wider comparisons of carbon budgets are not possible given the short duration of the study. Notably, our results show that Sphagnum inoculation can result in the successful re‐colonisation of Sphagnum onto wildfire‐damaged peat, which is an important component of peatland restoration (Huth et al, 2022; Rochefort, 2000).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Raising water tables also showed a significant role in determining the initial recovery, interacting with Sphagnum inoculation, and suggesting that rewetting and inoculation in combination could be used to steer peatland recovery. Gas flux measurements were within comparable ranges of those observed in other studies focused on moss layer transfer (Lazcano et al, 2018) and rewetting (Dinsmore et al, 2009); however, wider comparisons of carbon budgets are not possible given the short duration of the study. Notably, our results show that Sphagnum inoculation can result in the successful re‐colonisation of Sphagnum onto wildfire‐damaged peat, which is an important component of peatland restoration (Huth et al, 2022; Rochefort, 2000).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Peat property changes include loss of soil C contents, increased bulk density and vertical hydraulic gradient, reduced porosity, decreased saturated hydraulic conductivity and a greater pore water residence time (Weiss et al 1998;Price 2003;Whittington and Price 2006;Berger et al 2018;Bourgault et al 2018). Meanwhile, these properties may not be regained after the restoration of natural hydrology, even for decades (Schimelpfenig, Cooper, and Chimner 2014;Lazcano et al 2018;Schulte et al 2019;Emsens et al 2020).…”
Section: Effects Of Water Level Alteration On Carbon Balancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Against the background of growing agricultural needs, peatland drainage has become a common stress globally (Cris et al, 2014). Restoration is necessary to recover degraded peatlands (Kimmel and Mander, 2010;Lazcano et al, 2018). Generally, planting was conducted as the optimal strategy (Guo et al, 2016;Qi et al, 2021).…”
Section: Implication For Peatland Restorationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Peatland restoration measures mainly include plant reintroduction, hydrological mediation, ditch blocking, and alteration of microtopography (Peacock et al, 2015;Guo et al, 2016). The main purpose of peatland restoration is to restore ecological functions close to or to their undisturbed state by restoring hydrological conditions and plant communities (Lazcano et al, 2018;Ahmad et al, 2020). Planting has been considered to be an effective way to restore the dominant peatland species in degraded peatland, but vegetation alone cannot ensure the persistence of the restoration (Guo et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%