The study is part of the SNS-120 project ‘Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from organic forest soils: improved inventories and implications for sustainable management’ funded by Nordic Forest Research. http://dev.nordicforestresearch.org/sns-120/201

Alm, Jukka

Bjarnadottir, B.

Callesen, I.

Christiansen, J. R.

Clarke, N.

Dalsgaard, L.

He, H.

Jauhiainen, Jyrki

Jordan, S.

Kasimir, Å.

Kazanavičiūtė, V.

Klemedtsson, L.

Laiho, Raija

Lauren, Ari

Lazdins, A.

Lehtonen, Aleksi

Lohila, A.

Lupikis, A.

Mander, U.

Minkkinen, K.

Ojanen, P.

Olsson, M.

Sigurdsson, B. D.

Soosaar, K.

Søgaard, G.

Vesterdal, L.

Óskarsson, H.

Christiansen, J.R.

Kazanaviciute, V.

Laurén, Ari

Mander, Ü.

Oskarsson, H.

Sigurdsson, B.D.

Sogaard, G.

Jukuri

Aim, materials and methodsOur aim is to produce a synthesis on GHG emissions fromdrained organic forest soils in the Nordic and Balticcountries(*). We collected GHG flux estimates from IPCC-eligible peer reviewed literature. When needed, the datawas appended with site- and site-type specific data forcompleting the annual soil net GHG balance for CO2, NH4and N2O. Duplicate estimates based on same monitoringdata and estimates from experimentally modified siteswere not included. The data were classified based onclimate zone, nutrient status, land-use history, and standstocking (FAO class includes sites with too low stockingfor production forestry). Here we compare the annual fluxestimates in these data with the default emission factorspresented in the IPCC 2014 assessment on wetlands.Annual CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxesOur database includes 197 CO2, 205 CH4 and 183 N2Oannual flux estimates. Most of the data were from borealpeatlands in Finland (Map). Data from temperate regionwere limited but included also 18 GHG estimates fromother organic soil types (gleysols). Annual flux estimates inthe data were largely within the range presented in theIPCC 2014 but some differences also occurred (Fig. 1 &2). The increase in data amount allows addedclassification possibilities based on soil characteristics andsite origin compared to the analysis in IPCC 2014.Especially the count of CO2 flux data was notablyincreased. This increase resulted largely from inclusion ofclosed-chamber monitoring flux estimates. Because mostof such data describe a specific part of the ecosystem Cfluxes, they had to be appended with other site- or site-type specific data (e.g., above- and belowground litterdeposition and turnover rates, root respiration rate), and insome cases also annualisation of seasonal fluxes wasneeded. Datasets providing CO2 fluxes on annual basis(eddy covariance and chamber data) and as longer-termflux averages (soil inventory data) were compared and theflux estimates were found to quite similar, even thoughthere was clearly more variation in the estimates based onsoil inventory (Fig. 3).Gaps in knowledge and reportingMore detailed site description (e.g., tree speciescomposition, stand volume or basal area, basic soilcharacteristics) in reporting would enable more efficientdata use in modelling aiming at higher Tier levels in GHGemission accounting. Lack of data from the temperatezone is obvious.Fig. 1. Soil net GHG balances in drained organic forest soil classes based on revisited peerreviewed data and on IPCC 2014 assessment.GHG balance in drained organic forestsoils – data revisited(* ) The study is part of the SNS-120 project ‘Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from organic forest soils: improved inventoriesand implications for sustainable management’ funded by Nordic Forest Research. http://dev.nordicforestresearch.org/sns-120/Jauhiainen, J.1), Alm, J.1), Bjarnadottir, B.2), Callesen, I.3), Christiansen, J.R.3), Clarke, N.4), Dalsgaard, L.4), He, H.5),Jordan, S.6), Kasimir, Å.5), Kazanavičiūtė, V.7), Klemedtsson, L.5), Lauren, A.1), Lazdins, A.8), Lehtonen, A.1), Lohila,A.9), Lupikis, A.8), Mander, Ü.10), Minkkinen, K.11), Ojanen, P.11), Olsson, M.6), Óskarsson, H.12), Sigurdsson, B.D.12),Soosaar, K.10), Søgaard, G.4), Vesterdal, L. 3), and Laiho, R.1)1)Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2)University of Akureyri, 3)University of Copenhagen, 4)Norwegian Instituteof Bioeconomy Research, 5)University of Gothenburg, 6)Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 7)LithuanianState Forest Service, 8)Latvian State Forest Research Institute, 9)Finnish Meteorological Institute, 10)University ofTartu, 11)University of Helsinki, 12)Agricultural University of IcelandMap. Monitoring sites on organic drained forest soil (red=peat, blue=gleysol) providingseasonal and annual CO2, CH4 and N2O flux estimates in boreal and temperate regions.Fig. 3. Comparison between annual soil net CO2 exchange estimates derived from long-termaverages (peat inventory methods, e.g. subsidence method) and from annual estimates(eddy covariance and chamber methods) for drained forest soils.-2 0 2 4 6 8 10-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5FAO forestN.-richN.-poorIPCC: FAOIPCC: N.-richIPCC: N.-poorForestIPCC: Forest-1 1 2 3 4CO2-C (t ha-1 yr-1) CH4 (kg ha-1 yr-1) N2O-N (kg ha-1 yr-1)Tem.Boreal021954863?5962379N=1104947834813N=973376435213Fig. 2. Soil net GHG balances in drained organic forest soil classes based on revisited peerreviewed data and on IPCC 2014 assessment presented by formally comparable groups.-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5N.-rich FAON.-poor FAON.-richN.-poorAff. agric. landAff. p. harv. siteIPCC: FAOIPCC: N.-richIPCC: N.-poorN.-richN.-poorAff. agric. landGleysolsIPCC: Forest-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5TemperateBorealCO2-C (t ha-1 yr-1) CH4 (kg ha-1 yr-1)N=91087397663?5962205959N=51014085478319614713N=73242310764316225613N2O-N (kg ha-1 yr-1)

GHG balance in drained organic forest soils: data revisited

GHG balance in drained organic forest soils – data revisited

http://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/10024/540669/1/JauhiainenEtAl_posteri_2017_SNS120.pdf

GHG balance in drained organic forest soils – data revisited

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Jukuri

Jukuri