Abstract
Peatlands play a crucial role in the global carbon (C) cycle, making their restoration a key strategy for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and retaining C. This study analyses the most common restoration pathways employed in boreal and temperate peatlands, potentially applicable in tropical peat swamp forests. Our analysis focuses on the GHG emissions and C retention potential of the restoration measures. To assess the C stock change in restored (rewetted) peatlands and afforested peatlands with continuous drainage, we adopt a conceptual approach that considers short-term C capture (GHG exchange between the atmosphere and the peatland ecosystem) and long-term C sequestration in peat. The primary criterion of our conceptual model is the capacity of restoration measures to capture C and reduce GHG emissions. Our findings indicate that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most influential part of long-term climate impact of restored peatlands, whereas moderate methane (CH4) emissions and low N2O fluxes are relatively unimportant. However, lateral losses of dissolved and particulate C in water can account up to a half of the total C stock change. Among the restored peatland types, Sphagnum paludiculture showed the highest CO2 capture, followed by shallow lakes and reed/grass paludiculture. Shallow lakeshore vegetation in restored peatlands can reduce CO2 emissions and sequester C but still emit CH4, particularly during the first 20 years after restoration. Our conceptual modelling approach reveals that over a 300-year period, under stable climate conditions, drained bog forests can lose up to 50% of initial C content. In managed (regularly harvested) and continuously drained peatland forests, C accumulation in biomass and litter input does not compensate C losses from peat. In contrast, rewetted unmanaged peatland forests are turning into a persistent C sink. The modelling results emphasized the importance of long-term C balance analysis which considers soil C accumulation, moving beyond the short-term C cycling between vegetation and the atmosphere.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Importance of peatlands in a changing climate
Peatlands cover only about 3% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface (Gorham 1991) but play a crucial role in the global carbon (C) cycle. They act as significant C stores and are sources or sinks for greenhouse gases (GHG) like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O; Frolking et al. 2011). These gases contribute to climate change and are considered crucial anthropogenic GHGs. Due to their high C density, peatlands are globally recognized as vital C reservoirs (Gallego-Sala et al. 2018) accounting for about 21% of the global soil organic C stock, estimated ~ 3000 Pg (Leifeld and Menichetti 2017). Peatlands also serve as substantial stores of organic N, with Northern peatlands alone accumulating 8–15 Pg N. When including tropical peatlands, the global estimations reached up to 26 Pg N (Swenson et al. 2019).
Undisturbed peatlands are currently a C sink (~ 0.1 Pg C y–1), a moderate source of CH4 (~ 0.03 Pg CH4 y–1), and a very weak source of N2O (~ 0.00002 Pg N2O–N y–1) (Frolking et al. 2011). However, anthropogenic activities, primarily agriculture and forestry drainage (up to 20% of global peatlands), result in net CO2 emissions (~ 0.1 Pg C y–1), reduced CH4 emissions (10% smaller than in natural conditions), and increased N2O emissions (~ 20 times higher than in natural peatlands). Consequently, subsidence and soil degradation contribute nearly 6% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (Wichtmann et al. 2016). Most likely, the global peatland’s GHG balance has turned to a C source, a slightly smaller CH4 source, and a larger (but still small) N2O source (Frolking et al. 2011). In Europe, 46% of the remaining peatlands have degraded to the point where peat is no longer actively forming (Swenson et al. 2019).
As typical wetlands, peatlands are severely threatened by drainage, climate change, fires and groundwater extraction (Fluet-Chouinard et al. 2023). However, their restoration is beneficial, enabling C capture and sequestration, and minimizing N2O emissions (Leifeld and Menichetti 2017).
The northern hemisphere has experienced the highest warming during winter and early spring (Ljungqvist et al. 2016), leading to more frequent freeze–thaw cycles. Annual precipitation has also increased, particularly during the cold half-year in northern regions (Ljungqvist et al. 2016). Conversely, there are many indications of growing frequency of droughts during the warm season (Chiang et al. 2021). An increase in flash floods is also predicted (Zheng et al. 2022). These changing climatic conditions, droughts, rapid fluctuations in groundwater level (Mander et al. 2021), flash floods (Schindler et al. 2020), and soil moisture conditions (Pärn et al. 2018; Evans et al. 2021; Huang et al. 2021) can create hot spots and hot moments of GHG emission in peatland ecosystems.
Peatland restoration
Rewetting is a crucial step for conservation or sequestration of C in peatlands previously affected by drainage (Günther et al. 2020). Likewise, rewetting can affect nitrogen cycle and reduce cumulative N2O–N emissions by up to 70% in European peatlands (Liu et al. 2022). Usually, peatland restoration and rewetting are considered as synonyms, but in this paper we consider rewetting as increasing water table level compared with previously drained status. In case of restoration we expect that both water table and vegetation are manipulated in the way that enables to achieve ecosystem status similar to pre-drainage. Restoration pathways depend on factors such as initial vegetation of the drained area (Heger et al. 2022; Schaller et al. 2022), nutrient status of the residual peat layer (Kreyling et al. 2021) and the expected time frame for achieving planned ecological and socioeconomic benefits of the restoration.
Rewetting may transform former peat extraction sites into mires, paludicultural land, wet forests or shallow waterbodies. Ecologically, the preferred pathway is to restore them as mires (Wilson et al. 2022), which can be achieved by restoring water level, by a combination of rewetting and the application of peat moss layer transfer technique (Gonzalez-Sargas & Rochefort 2019), or to establish shallow waterbodies in hydrologically complex sites (Christen et al. 2016).
Peatland rewetting for agricultural use (including paludiculture) is challenging but may have a positive short-term effect on CO2 capture and GHG mitigation (Maljanen et al. 2010; Wilson et al. 2016a, b) but may not stop long-term peat mineralisation. Rewetting for paludiculture (Wichtmann et al. 2016) usually encompasses Sphagnum-based C farming (Gaudig et al. 2017/2018), energy crop cultivation (Hyvönen et al. 2009; Mander et al. 2012; Järveoja et al. 2016a; Kandel et al. 2020); wet forestry (Anadon-Rosell et al. 2022), or cultivation of the reed (Martens et al. 2021) or cattail (De Jong et al. 2021). Berries and other wetland plants are also suitable for paludiculture, but cranberry (Vaccinium) is the most suitable pioneer species for mire restoration and long-term C capture (Freeman et al. 2022).
Restoration of drained forests is usually achieved by blocking ditches and restoring water levels (Grand-Clement et al. 2015). Regulating the water regime in restored sites is effective for mitigation of GHG emissions (Järveoja et al. 2016b).
Peatland restoration is vulnerable to hydroclimatic conditions, particularly in the temperate zone. Changing precipitation pattern, increasing temperature and decreasing snowpack are expected to contribute to more frequent extreme events like droughts and torrential rains, resulting in increased vulnerability and interannual variability (Alm et al. 1999; Drollinger et al. 2019). In addition, it is also important to consider the potential substantial losses of dissolved and particulate C from drained and restored peatlands when estimating C budgets (Billett et al. 2010; Rosset et al. 2022).
Due to global warming, northern peatlands are projected to experience increased GHG emissions, particularly during non-growing period (Rafat et al. 2021), while Garcin et al. (2022) highlight a lack of knowledge of hydroclimatic vulnerability of peat C in tropical peatlands. Wet-dry seasonality of GHG fluxes is expected from tropical peatland soils (Inubushi et al. 2003). However, the overall impact of climate change on GHG fluxes needs to be better understood. Current understanding suggests that changes in soil temperature, photosynthesis, and soil moisture drive alterations in net C fluxes (Rafat et al. 2021).
Restoration versus afforestation of peatlands
Peatland restoration involves rewetting, whereas afforestation of drained peatlands and maintaining their drained condition cannot be considered equivalent to restoration. The key issue lies in the difference in the time scale and the discrepancy in distinguishing between short-term C capture in ecosystem (often observed in studies on GHG exchange between the atmosphere and ecosystem) and long-term C sequestration in soil. When peatlands are drained, C loss from the peat can offset the benefit of long-term CO2 sequestration achieved by afforestation (Jurasinski et al. 2020, 2023).
Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the long-term benefits of active afforestation of drained peatlands to mitigate climate change (Jurasinski et al. 2023). Afforestation on drained peatland forests and some former peat extraction areas may provide short-term benefits for climate change mitigation (Mäkiranta et al. 2007; Samariks et al. 2023). However, this approach does not account for the value of long-term C storage in peat. Similarly, intensive forestry on drained peatlands will not restore the peatland ecosystem's flora, fauna, and functions (Haapalehto et al. 2017; Loisel & Gallego-Sala 2022).
In addition, afforested drained peatlands are more susceptible to wildfires (Kohlenberg et al. 2018; Zheng et al. 2023). These risks are exacerbated by more frequent and more intense droughts in the boreal zone (Walker et al. 2019), resulting in losses of burnt wood and substantial C losses from burnt and burning peat layers (Liu et al. 2023). The impacts of severe fires have been devastating drained areas of formerly tropical peatland forests in Southeast Asia (Page et al. 2009).
Restoration-versus-afforestation of peatlands is being debated during the legislation procedure of the European Union Nature Restoration Law (NRL) (Jurasinski et al. 2023).
The general aim of this paper is to assess short-term C capture (GHG exchange between the atmosphere and the peatland ecosystem) and analyse the fluxes in the context of long-term C sequestration in peat of restored (rewetted) peatlands and afforested drained peatlands. As a specific objective we implement a conceptual model that compares changes in the long-term C budget and climate warming mitigation potential in the restored and afforested peatlands.
Conceptual framework
To provide a comprehensive understanding of the framework and to organize the rich source material, we have adopted a three-stage system. These stages refer to peatlands with different water regimes: natural (pristine), drained, and restored (rewetted) ecosystems. Within each stage of water regime, we further divided them into blocks based on primary land use types (Fig. 1). Estimated fluxes of all three GHGs–CO2, CH4 and N2O—are presented using a general three tier scale (high, medium and low fluxes). Flux values are represented by arrows, with upward-pointing arrows indicating emission and downward-pointing arrows indicating capture or uptake of the corresponding gas. In addition, we have indicated the averaged lateral losses of dissolved organic C in water (Fig. 1).
Although our main focus lies on temperate and boreal peatlands, we also briefly discuss tropical peatland forests due to their significance as global hot spots of GHGs, and their large-scale escalating disturbance and destruction. In characterizing GHG fluxes in natural and drained peatlands, we primarily relied on literature sources supplemented by unpublished original data from our research group. However, for tropical wetlands, data is limited or sporadic, resulting in the use of question marks.
For restored (rewetted) peatlands, due to the scarcity and less systematic nature of the data, we present a selection of available GHG flux data in Table 1. The categories of restored (rewetted) peatlands are as in Fig. 1: wet forests, paludiculture, shallow lakes and open mires. Upon no accurate distinction between the mentioned categories in the source data we added a general category – rewetted peatlands – to both Table 1 and Fig. 2. The latter one presents average flux values (Fig. 2A–C) and GHG balances in CO2 equivalents (Fig. 2D and Fig. 2E). In the more general Fig. 1, paludiculture is shown as a single category. To compile this information, we referred to both literature sources and results from local research projects in Estonia. For our literature search, we utilized well-known indexing systems such as Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Scopus, and Google Scholar. We used following keywords and their combinations: “rewetted peatland(s)”, “restored wetland(s)”, “restored peatland(s)”, “rewetted forest(s)”, “paludiculture”, “Sphagnum farming”, “greenhouse gases, “carbon dioxide “, methane, “nitrous oxide”, “tropical peatlands”. In addition, we looked for references from cited rewetting-related papers.
To explain the dilemma of peatland restoration and afforestation in a long-term perspective and mitigation of climate warming, we created a conceptual model that helps to characterize the changes in the C budget under different management practices (Fig. 3).
The resulting climatic effects of these management options are strongly time-dependent and rely on difference in forming above or below ground carbon pool and carbon turnover rate.
Our conceptual model of long-term C stock dynamics over 300-year period is based on the approach proposed by Minkkinen & Laine (1998). We developed it further to include C stock dynamics in nutrient-poor mires (open bog and bog forest), drained bog forest, and potential land use scenarios after milled peat extraction (restored bog, naturally regenerated unmanaged forest and managed forest). In modelling, we assumed equal C stock 686 t ha−1 in any peatland as initial status, corresponding to C stock with 2 m peat depth in pristine bog (Supplementary Table 1). As approximation, the stem, branches and coarse root biomass were assumed to have stable ratio (branches 12% of stem biomass and coarse roots 19% of above ground biomass) in any age group, wood density (kg m3) and C content (%) values were derived from literature (Kask and Pikk 2009; Külla 1997). Initial value of stem biomass was set 3 m3 ha− 1 for pristine open bog, 100 m3 ha−1 yr−1 for pristine bog forest and 0 m3 ha−1 for any other land use classes (initially harvested peatland forest or treeless peat extraction site) with annual stem biomass increment by 0 m3 ha−1 yr−1 for open bog, 0.1 m3 ha−1 yr−1 for stable continuous cover bog forest, 4 m3 ha−1 yr−1 for drained peatland forest and naturally regenerated forest on peat extraction site (initial value 0 m3 ha−1 yr−1 until year 20, thereafter gradually increasing until 4 m3 ha−1 yr−1 by year 50 and starting to decline to 0.1 m3 ha−1 yr−1 by year 160 as equal to pristine bog forest) while mean annual increment of 6 m3 ha−1 yr−1 was assigned to managed forest on drained former peat extraction site because of higher fertility of deeper peat layers (usually fen peat) after removal of Sphagnum peat. In pristine bog forest, restored bog and unmanaged peatland forest on former peat extraction site no harvest and timber removal is considered. Harvesting cycle is assumed to be 100 years in both restored managed peatland forest and drained managed peatland forests, while only stem biomass is removed. Fine root biomass was considered as part of C turnover and part of net ecosystem exchange (NEE). NEE values for modelled ecosystems are based on original data from Estonian study sites (Table 1), Estonian national GHG inventory, and literature (Salm et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2016a). A conceptual scheme presents modelled long-term C stock dynamics in pristine mire ecosystems, restored and afforested drained peatlands (Fig. 3).
Results and discussion
Greenhouse gas fluxes in restored peatlands
Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual view of estimated GHG fluxes in natural, drained and restored (rewetted) peatlands. In restored peatlands, CO2 fluxes play the main role in climate impacts, while CH4 emissions are moderate and N2O fluxes are low making them less significant. Lateral losses of dissolved and particulate C in water can account up to a half of total C budget. Among the different restored peatlands, paludiculture has the highest estimated carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration rate (> 1000 kg C ha−1 y−1) followed by rewetted forests, open fens and bogs. However, some rewetted peatlands are potential source of both CO2 and CH4, at least during the first 20 years after restoration (Vanselow-Algan et al. 2021).
According to our analysis, all restored peatlands were C sinks. However, there was significant variation of the data, mainly due to limited data availability and differences in the age since rewetting, as well as variation in plant cover development (Table 1). Average annual CO2–C stored in rewetted forests, open peatlands and paludicultural sites was − 928, − 534, and − 528 kg CO2–C ha−1 yr−1, respectively (Table 1). These findings are consistent with the CO2 flux values reported by Günther et al. (2020) for rewetted peatlands. Due to their diversity, paludicultural ecosystems showed the most significant variation in CO2-C fluxes ranging from high C capturing to moderate emissions, with the highest values observed in Phalaris arundinacea and Poa spp. plantation on rich fen peat (Kandel et al. 2020). Shallow lakes established on flooded peat extraction sites generally emitted low to moderate levels of CO2 except extensively vegetated eutrophic sites (Minke et al. 2016).
In all rewetted peatlands, the average annual CH4 fluxes were at moderate level, with the highest values observed in shallow lakes (451 kg CH4–C ha−1 yr−1) and followed by rewetted forests, open bogs/fens and paludiculture (218, 163, and 122 kg CH4–C ha−1 yr−1, respectively; Table 1). Average annual N2O fluxes ranged from low to moderate levels (0.01 to 4.45 kg N2O–N ha−1 yr−1), except in Phalaris paludiculture plantations on poor and acid peat where liming and fertilization resulted in fluxes of up to 19 kg N2O–N ha−1 yr−1 under high groundwater levels and 28.1 kg N2O–N ha−1 yr−1 under low water levels (Maddison et al. 2016; Table 1).
In management of drained peatlands, global warming potential (GWP) of GHG-s should be considered to avoid making decisions based solely on short-period benefits that may overlook the long-term climate cooling effect. Drained peatlands are known to be persistent CO2 emitters over the long term, while rewetted peatlands as resilient re-established mire ecosystems effectively contribute to mitigating climate change, even considering radiative forcing of increased CH4 emissions (Günther et al. 2020) and decreased N2O emissions. Figure 2D and E demonstrate the climate effect of rewetted peatland ecosystems in GWP100 and GWP500 timeframes. Mires are the only terrestrial ecosystems capable to continuously sequester atmospheric carbon in the long term (Gorham et al. 2012; Cobb et al. 2020), i.e., the carbon sequestration itself is more important than its compound (methane vs carbon dioxide).
For restored (rewetted) peatlands see literature sources in Table 1.
For natural reference and drained peatlands the following literature sources served as the basis of this figure: Abdalla et al. 2016; Aitova et al. 2023; Bardule et al. 2023; Bianchi et al. 2021; Bieniada & Strack 2021; Brummell et al. 2017; Burdun et al. 2021; Busman et al. 2023; Clement et al. 2020; Couwenberg et al. 2010; Daun et al. 2023; Frolking et al. 2011; Griffis et al. 2020; Günther et al. 2020; Hergoualc’h and Verschot 2014; Hyvönen et al. 2009; Inubushi et al. 2003; Järveoja et al. 2016a,b; Jauhiainen et al. 2008, 2012, 2019, 2023; Jordan et al. 2020; Kandel et al. 2020; Kull 2016; Maddison et al. 2016; Mander et al. 2008, 2012, 2016; Melling et al. 2007; Nugent et al. 2018; Oestmann et al. 2022; Oktarita et al. 2017; Pärn et al. 2023; Petrescu et al. 2015; Rosset et al. 2022; Sakata et al. 2015; Salm et al. 2012; Sjögestren et al. 2011; Takakai et al. 2006; Tang et al. 2018; Toma et al. 2011; Truu et al. 2020; Turetsky et al. 2014; Veber et al. 2021, 202X; Wilson et al. 2016a,b; Wong et al. 2018.
Modelling approach
To estimate the carbon balance of afforested drained and restored rewetted peatlands we developed a conceptual model. Based on the availability of data from our research projects and similar studies in other countries we chose hemiboreal ombrotrophic peatlands as a modelling example. Figure 3 presents estimated long-term dynamics of C stock of afforested drained and restored rewetted hemiboreal ombrotrophic peatlands and their reference pristine bog ecosystem. In a 300-year perspective, considering stable climate conditions, drained forest peat (former bogs) will lose 1.8 and 1.0 t C ha−1 yr−1, respectively, due to peat mineralization. In afforested peatlands under continuous drainage, C losses from peat reach 0.9 t C ha−1 yr−1, whereas ecosystem C losses (the peat + vegetation budget and 100-year timber-harvesting regime) are 0.4–0.6 t C ha−1 y−1. In comparison, fifty years after rewetting the naturally regenerated unmanaged peatland forest show decreased C loss, which is due to lower peat mineralization and C accumulation in biomass. In 160 years they achieve C dynamics similar to the pristine bog forest—with a moderate C sequestration rate of 0.1 t C ha−1 y−1. Restoring a peat extraction site to bog ecosystem would become C neutral in nearly 20 years, and onwards continuous mean annual C sequestration of 0.22 t C ha−1 y−1 is assumed (Supplementary Table 1).
Peatland forest drainage can give a significant increase in short-term C capture in biomass (Lohila et al. 2011), however, long-term dynamics in C stock and peat mineralisation remain largely unknown.
Restoration of crop plantations established on tropical peatlands and other dramatically altered peatlands differs from restoration of temperate and boreal bogs because the source community is predominantly swamp forest where peat-forming material is predominantly wood. Above ground and below ground litter formation under the reforestation and management with moderate drainage can more easily compensate peat mineralization than in temperate and boreal areas (Couwenberg et al. 2010).
Conclusions
Understanding the dynamics of GHG fluxes caused by land-use change is essential for successful peatland restoration. Our analysis identified several contradictory research results and gaps in a deep understanding of these processes. Notably, there is a lack of GHG flux data for most of tropical drained and restored peatlands, with the exception of oil palm plantations. Another important issue is retention of C in restored peatlands, where we can differentiate between short-term C capture (GHG exchange between the peatland and atmosphere) and long-term C capture (accumulation in soil). Based on our analysis of literature sources and own research results from Estonia, rewetting of former peat extraction areas for further management or conservation is the only viable approach for long-term C sequestration. In contrast, afforestation combined with continuous peatland drainage may have short-term economic benefits but leads to C losses in the long term.
Uncertainties in long-term estimations of C storage and GHG flux dynamics are remarkably high and do not allow for exact predictions. However, even educated guesses can be valuable for decision making on further management of peatlands. To make accurate estimations, it is crucial to investigate the full combined impact of hydroclimate change, microbial processes, and vegetation on GHG emissions from restored peatlands.
Data availability
Data are available within the article and its supplementary materials. For additional data or questions, please contact the authors.
References
Abdalla M, Hastings A, Truu J, Espenberg M, Mander Ü, Smith P (2016) Emissions of methane from northern peatlands: a review of management impacts and implications for future management options. Ecol Evol 6:7080–7102. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2469
Aitova E, Morley T, Wilson D, Renou-Wilson F (2023) A review of greenhouse gas emissions and reovals from Irish peatlands. Mires Peat 29(04):17. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2022.SNPG.StA.2414
Alm J, Schulman L, Walden J, Nykänen H, Martikainen P, Silvola J (1999) Carbon balance of a boreal bog during year with an exceptionally dry summer. Ecology 80(1):161–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/176987
Anadon-Rosell A, Scharnweber T, von Arx G, Peters RL, Smiljanić M, Weddell S, Wilmking M (2022) Growth and wood trait relationships of Alnus glutinosa in peatland forest stands with contrasting water regimes. Front Plant Sci 12:788106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.788106
Bārdule A, Butlers A, Spalva G, Ivanovs J, Meļņiks RN, Līcīte I, Andis Lazdiņš A (2023) The surface-to-atmosphere GHG fluxes in rewetted and permanently flooded former peat extraction areas compared to pristine peatland in hemiboreal Latvi. Water 15(10):1954. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15101954
Beyer C, Höper H (2015) Greenhouse gas exchange of rewetted bog peat extraction sites and a Sphagnum cultivation site in Northwest Germany. Biogeosciences 12:2101–2117. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-2101-2015
Bianchi A, Larmola T, Kekkonen H, Saarnio S, Lång K (2021) Review of greenhouse gas emissions from rewetted agricultural soils. Wetlands 41:108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-021-01507-5
Bieniada A, Strack M (2021) Steady and ebullitive methane fluxes from active, restored and unrestored horticultural peatlands. Ecol Eng 169:106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2021.106324
Billett MF, Charman DJ, Clark JM, Evans CD, Evans MG, Ostle NJ, Worrall F, Burden A, Dinsmore KJ, Jones T, McNamara NP, Parry L, Rowson JG, Rose R (2010) Carbon balance of UK peatlands:current state of knowledge and future research challenges. Clim Res 45:13–29. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00903
Brummell ME, Lazcano C, Strack M (2017) The effects of Eriophorum vaginatum on N2O fluxes at a restored, extracted peatland. Ecol Eng 106:287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.06.006
Burdun I, Kull A, Maddison M, Veber G, Karasov O, Sagris V, Mander Ü (2021) Remotely sensed land surface temperature can be used to estimate ecosystem respiration in intact and disturbed northern peatlands. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JG006411
Busman NA, Melling L, Gohe KJ, Imran Y, Sangok FE, Watanabe A (2023) Soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes from different forest types in tropical peat swamp forest. Sci Total Environ 858:159973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159973
Chiang F, Mazdiyasni O, AghaKouchak A (2021) Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity. Nat Commun 12:2754. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22314-w
Christen A, Jassal RS, Black TA, Grant NJ, Hawthorne I, Johnson MS, Lee SC, Merkens M (2016) Summertime greenhouse gas fluxes from an urban bog undergoing restoration through rewetting. Mires Peat 17(03):1–24
Clément R, Pärn J, Maddison M, Henine H, Chaumont C, Tournebize J, Uri V, Espenberg M, Günther T, Mander Ü (2020) Frequency-domain electromagnetic induction for upscaling greenhouse gas fluxes in two hemiboreal drained peatland forests. J Appl Geophys 173:103944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.103944
Cobb AR, Dommain R, Tan FY, Heng NHE, Harvey CF (2020) Carbon storage capacity of tropical peatlands in natural and artificial drainage networks. Environ Res Lett 15:114009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba867
Couwenberg J, Dommain R, Joosten H (2010) Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in South-East Asia. Glob Change Biol 16:1715–1732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02016.x
Daun C, Huth V, Gaudig G, Günther A, Krebs M, Jurasinski G (2023) Full-cycle greenhouse gas balance of a Sphagnum paludiculture site on former bog grassland in Germany. Sci Total Environ 877:162943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162943
De Jong M, van Hal O, Pijlman J, van Eekeren N, Junginger M (2021) Paludiculture as paludifuture on Dutch peatlands: An environmental and economic analysis of Typha cultivation and insulation production. Sci Total Environ 792:148161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148161
Drollinger S, Maier A, Glatzel S (2019) Interannual and seasonal variability in carbon dioxide and methane fluxes of a pine peat bog in the Eastern Alps, Austria. Agr Forest Meteorol 275:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.05.015
Evans CD, Peacock M, Baird AJ, Artz RRE, Burden A, Callaghan N, Chapman PJ, Cooper HM, Coyle M, Craig E, Cumming A, Dixon S, Gauci V, Grayson RP, Helfter C, Heppell CM, Holden J, Jones DL, Kaduk J, Levy P, Matthews R, McNamara NP, Misselbrook T, Oakley S, Page SE, Rayment M, Ridley LM, Stanley KM, Williamson JL, Worrall F, Morrison R (2021) Overriding water table control on managed peatland greenhouse gas emissions. Nature 593:548–552. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03523-1
Fluet-Chouinard E, Stocker BD, Zhang Z, Malhotra A, Melton JR, Poulter B, Kaplan JO, Goldewijk KK, Siebert S, Minayeva T, Hugelius G, Joosten H, Barthelmes A, Prigent C, Aires F, Hoyt AM, Davidson N, Finlayson CM, Lehner B, Jackson RB, McIntyre PB (2023) Extensive global wetland loss over the last three centuries. Nature 614:281–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05572-6
Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts TR, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom and New York, Cambridge, p 234
Freeman TR, Evans CD, Musarika S, Morrison R, Newman TR, Page SE, Wiggs GFS, Bell NGA, Styles D, Wen Y, Chadwick DR, Jones DL (2022) Responsible agriculture must adapt to the wetland character of mid-latitude peatlands. Glob Change Biol 28:3795–3811. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16152/
Frolking S, Talbot J, Jones MC, Treat CC, Kauffman JB, Tuittila ES, Roulet N (2011) Peatlands in the Earth’s 21st century climate system. Environ Rev 19:371–396. https://doi.org/10.1139/A11-014/
Gallego-Sala AV, Charman DJ, Brewer S, Page SE, Prentice IC, Friedlingstein P, Moreton S, Amesbury MJ, Beilman DW, Björck S, Blyakharchuk T, Bochicchio C, Booth RK, Bunbury J, Camill P, Carless D, Chimner RA, Clifford M, Cressey C, Courtney-Mustaphi C, De Vleeschouwer F, de Jong R, Fialkiewicz-Koziel B, Finkelstein SA, Garneau M, Githumbi E, Hribjlan J, Holmquist J, Hughes PDM, Jones C, Jones MC, Karofeld E, Klein ES, Kokfelt U, Korhola A, Lacourse T, Le Roux G, Lamentowicz M, Large D, Lavoie M, Loisel J, Mackay H, MacDonald GM, Makila M, Magnan G, Marchant R, Marcisz K, Martínez Cortizas A, Massa C, Mathijssen P, Mauquoy D, Mighall T, Mitchell FJG, Moss P, Nichols J, Oksanen PO, Orme L, Packalen MS, Robinson S, Roland TP, Sanderson NK, Sannel ABK, Silva-Sánchez N, Steinberg N, Swindles GT, Turner TE, Uglow J, Väliranta M, van Bellen S, van der Linden M, van Geel B, Wang GP, Yu ZC, Zaragoza-Castells J, Zhao Y (2018) Latitudinal limits to the predicted increase of the peatland carbon sink with warming. Nat Clim Change 8:907–9813. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0271-1
Garcin Y, Schefuß E, Dargie GC, Lewis S et al (2022) Hydroclimatic vulnerability of peat carbon in the central Congo Basin. Nature 612:277–282. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05389-3
Gaudig G, Krebs M, Prager A, Wichmann S, Barney M, Caporn SJM, Emmel M, Fritz C, Grobe A, Gutierrex-Pacheco S, Hogue-Hugron S, Holzträger S, Irrgang S, Kämäräinen A, Karofeld E, Koch G, Koebbing JF, Kumari S, Matcutadze I, Oberpaur C, Oestmann J, Raabe P, Rammes D, Rochefort L, Schmilewski C, Sendzikaite J, Smolders A, St-Hilaire B, van de Riet B, Wright B, Wright N, Zoch L, Joosten H (2017/18) Sphagnum farming from species selection to the production of growing media: a review Mires Peat 20(13):1–30
Gonzalez-Sargas E, Rochefort L (2019) Declaring success in Sphagnum peatland restoration: Identifying outcomes from readily measurable vegetation descriptors. Mires Peat 24:19. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2017.OMB.305
Gorham E (1991) Northern peatlands: Role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182–195. https://doi.org/10.2307/194181
Gorham E, Lehman C, Dyke A, Clymo D, Janssens J (2012) Long-term carbon sequestration in North American peatlands. Quat Sci Rev 58:77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.09.018
Grand-Clement E, Anderson K, Smith D, Angus M, Luscombe DJ, Gatis N, Bray LS, Brazier RE (2015) New approaches to the restoration of shallow marginal peatlands. J Environ Manage 161:417e430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.023
Griffis TJ, Roman DT, Wood JD, Deventer J, Fachin L, Rengifo J, Del Castillo D, Lilleskov E, Kolka R, Chimner RA, del Aguila-Pasquel J, Wayson C, Hergoualc’h K, Baker JM, Cadillo-Quiroz H, Ricciuto DM (2020) Hydrometeorological sensitivities of net ecosystem carbon dioxide and methane exchange of an Amazonian palm swamp peatland. Agr Forest Meteorol 295:108167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108167
Günther A, Jurasinski G, Albrecht K, Gaudig G, Krebs M, Glatzel S (2017) Greenhouse gas balance of an establishing Sphagnum culture on a former bog grassland in Germany. Mires Peat 20(02):1–16
Günther A, Barthelmes A, Huth V, Joosten H, Jurasinski G, Koebsch F, Couwenbeg J (2020) Prompt rewetting of drained peatlands reduces climate warming despite methane emissions. Nat Commun 11:1644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15499-z
Haapalehto T, Juutinen R, Kareksela S, Kuitunen M, Tahvanainen T, Vuori H, Kotiaho JS (2017) Recovery of plant communities after ecological restoration of forestry-drained peatlands. Ecol Evol 7(19):7848–7858. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3243
Heger T, Jeschke JM, Febria C, Kollmann J, Murphy S, Rochefort L, Shackeford N, Temperton VM, Higgs E (2022) Mapping and assessing the knowledge base of ecological restoration. Restor Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13676
Hergoualc’h K, Verschot LV, (2014) GHG emission factors for land use and land-use change in Southeast Asian peatlands. Mitig Adapt Strat Gl 19:789–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9511-x
Huang YY, Ciais P, Luo YQ, Zhu D, Wang YP, Qiu CJ, Goll DG, Guenet B, Makowski D, Graaf DE, Leifeld J, Kwon MJ, Hu J, Qu LY (2021) Tradeoff of CO2 and CH4 emissions from global peatlands under water-table drawdown. Nat Clim Change 11:618–622. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01059-w
Hyvönen NP, Huttunen JT, Shurpali NJ, Tavi NM, Repo ME, Martikainen PJ (2009) Fluxes of nitrous oxide and methane on an abandoned peat extraction site: effect of reed canary grass cultivation. Biores Technol 100(20):4723–4730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.04.043
Inubushi K, Furukawa Y, Hadi A, Purnomo E, Tsuruta H (2003) Seasonal changes of CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes in relation to land-use change in tropical peatlands located in coastal area of South Kalimantan. Chemosphere 52:603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00242-X
Järveoja J, Peichl M, Maddison M, Teemusk A, Mander Ü (2016a) Full carbon and greenhouse gas balances of fertilized and non-fertilized reed canary grass cultivations on an abandoned peat extraction area in a dry year. GCB Bioenergy 8:952–968. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12308
Järveoja J, Peichl M, Maddison M, Soosaar K, Vellak K, Karofeld E, Teemusk A, Mander Ü (2016b) Impact of water table level on annual carbon and greenhouse gas balances of a restored peat extraction area. Biogeosciences 13:2637–2651. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-2637-2016
Jauhiainen J, Limin S, Silvennoinen H, Vasander H (2008) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in drained tropical peat before and after hydrological restoration. Ecology 89(12):3503–3514. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-2038.1
Jauhiainen J, Silvennoinen H, Hämälainen R, Kusin K, Limin S, Raison RJ, Vasander H (2012) Nitrous oxide fluxes from tropical peat with different disturbance history and management. Biogeosciences 9:1337–1350. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-1337-2012
Jauhiainen J, Alm J, Bjarnadottir B, Callesen I, Christiansen JR, Clarke N, Dalsgaard L, He HX, Jordan S, Kazanavičiūtė V, Klemedtsson L, Laurén A, Lazdins A, Lehtonen A, Lohila A, Lupikis A, Mander Ü, Minkkinen K, Kasimir Å, Olsson M, Ojanen P, Óskarsson H, Sigurdsson BD, Søgaard G, Soosaar K, Vesterdal L, Laiho R (2019) Reviews and syntheses: Greenhouse gas exchange data from drained organic forest soils – a review of current approaches and recommendations for future research. Biogeosciences 16:4687–4703. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-4687-2019
Jauhiainen J, Heikkinen J, Clarke N, He HX, Dalsgaard L, Minkkinen K, Ojanen P, Vesterdal L, Alm J, Butlers A, Callesen I, Jordan S, Lohila A, Mander Ü, Óskarsson H, Sigurdsson BD, Søgaard G, Soosaar K, Kasimir Å, Bjarnadottir B, Lazdins A, Laiho R (2023) Greenhouse gas emissions from drained organic forest soils – synthesizing data for site-specific emission factors for boreal and cool temperate regions. Biogeosciences Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-89
Jordan S, Strömgren M, Fiedler J, Lode E, Nilsson T, Lundin L (2020) Methane and nitrous oxide emission fluxes along water level gradients in littoral zones of constructed surface water bodies in a rewetted extracted peatland in Sweden. Soil Syst 4(1):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4010017
Jurasinski G, Ahmad S, Anadon-Rosell A, Berendt J, Beyer F, Bill R, Blume-Werry G, Couwenberg J, Günther A, Joosten H, Koebsch F, Köhn D, Koldrack N, Kreyling J, Leinweber P, Lennartz B, Liu HJ, Michaelis D, Mrotzek A, Negassa W, Schenk S, Schmacka F, Schwieger S, Smiljanić M, Tanneberger F, Teuber L, Urich T, Wang HT, Weil M, Wilmking M, Zak D, Wrage-Mönnig N (2020) From understanding to Sustainable use of peatlands: the WETSCAPES approach. Soil Syst 4(1):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4010014
Jurasinski G, Byrne K, Chojnicki BH, Christiansen JR, Huth V, Joosten H, Juszczak R, Juutinen S, Kasimir Å, Klemedtsson L, Kotowski W, Kull A, Lamentowicz M, Lindgren A, Linkevičienė R, Lohila A, Mander Ü, Manton M, Minkkinen K, Peters J, Renou-Wilson F, Sendžikaitė J, Šimanauskienė R, Tanneberger F, van Diggelen R, Vasander H, Wilson D, Zak DH, Couwenberg J (2023) Active afforestation of drained peatlands is not a viable option under the EU Nature Restoration Law. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7831174
Kandel TP, Karki S, Elsgaard L, Labouriau R, Lærke PE (2020) Methane fluxes from a rewetted agricultural fen during two initial years of paludiculture. Sci Total Environ 713(15):136670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136670
Kask R, Pikk J (2009) Second thinning Scots pine wood properties in different forest site types in Estonia. Balt for 15(1):97–104
Knox SH, Sturtevant C, Matthes JH, Koteen L, Verfaillie J, Baldocchi D (2015) Agricultural peatland restoration: effects of land-use change on greenhouse gas (CO2 and CH4) fluxes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Glob Change Biol 21(2):750–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12745
Kohlenberg AJ, Turetsky MR, Thompson DK, Branfireun BA, Mitchell CPJ (2018) Controls on boreal peat combustion and resulting emissions of carbon and mercury. Environ Res Lett 13:035005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ea8
Köhn D, Günther A, Schwabe I, Jurasinski G (2021) Short-lived peaks of stem methane emissions from mature black alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.)—Irrelevant for ecosystem methane budgets? Plant Environ Interact 2:16–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pei3.10037
Kreyling J, Tanneberger F, Jansen F, van der Linden S, Aggenbach C, Blüml V, Couwenberg J, Emsens W-J, Joosten H, Klimkowska A, Kotowski W, Kozub L, Lennartz B, Liczner Y, Liu H, Michaelis D, Oehmke C, Parakenings K, Pleyl E, Poyda A, Raabe S, Röhl M, Rücker K, Schneider A, Schrautzer J, Schröder C, Schug F, Seeber E, Thiel F, Thiele S, Tiemeyer B, Timmermann T, Urich T, van Diggelen R, Vegelin K, Verbruggen E, Wilmking M, Wrage-Mönnig N, Wołejko L, Zak D, Jurasinski G (2021) Rewetting does not return drained fen peatlands to their old selves. Nat Commun 12:5693. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25619-y
Kull A (2016) Buffer zones to limit and mitigate harmful effects of long-term antropogenic influence to maintain ecological functionality of bogs, stage II. Estonian Environmental Investment Centre (KIK), 183 p. (In Estonian). https://4ce0b57b-a630-4e1d-8a88-d1e1a7a51b96.filesusr.com/ugd/6b6658_446958f4118b44a2a68812820c31119b.pdf
Külla T (1997) Below-ground and above-ground structure of a middle-aged Scots Pine stand and Norway Spruce stands. MSc Thesis, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, 100 p. (In Estonian).
Leifeld J, Menichetti L (2017) The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nat Commun 9:1071. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03406-6
Liu W, Fritz C, Weideveld STJ, Aben RCH, van den Berg M, Velthuis M (2022) Annual CO2 budget estimation from chamber-based flux measurements on intensively drained peat meadows: Effect of gap-filling strategies. Front Environ Sci 10:803746. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.803746
Liu HJ, Zak D, Zableckis N, Cossmer A, Langhammer N, Meermann B, Lennartz B (2023) Water pollution risks by smoldering fires in degraded peatlands. Sci Total Environ 871:161979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161979
Ljungqvist F, Krusic P, Sundqvist H, Zorita E, Brattström G, Frank D (2016) Northern Hemisphere hydroclimate variability over the past twelve centuries. Nature 532:94–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17418
Lloyd K, Madramootoo CA, Edwards KP, Grant A (2019) Greenhouse gas emissions from selected horticultural production systems in a cold temperate climate. Geoderma 349:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.04.030
Lohila A, Minkkinen K, Aurela M, Tuovinen JP, Penttilä T, Ojanen P, Laurila T (2011) Greenhouse gas flux measurements in a forestry-drained peatland indicate a large carbon sink. Biogeosciences 8:3203–3218. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-3203-2011
Loisel J, Gallego-Sala A (2022) Ecological resilience of restored peatlands to climate change. Commun Earth Environ 3:208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00547-x
Maddison M, Järveoja J, Kuller R, Muhel M, Ostonen I, Teder H, Teemusk A, Torga R, Viru B, Mander Ü (2016) Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) cultivation as bioenergy crop on an abandoned peat extraction area with low soil pH. 20th EGU General Assembly, EGU2018, Proceedings from the conference held 4–13 April, 2018 in Vienna, Austria, p.6310. 2018EGUGA.20.6310M
Mäkiranta P, Hytönen J, Aro L, Maljanen M, Pihlatie M, Potila H, Shurpali NJ, Laine J, Lohila A, Martikainen PJ, Minkkinen K (2007) Soil greenhouse gas emissions from afforested organic soil croplands and cutaway peatlands. Boreal Environ Res 12(2):159–175
Maljanen M, Sigurdsson BD, Guðmundsson J, Óskarsson H, Huttunen JT, Martikainen PJ (2010) Greenhouse gas balances of managed peatlands in the Nordic countries – present knowledge and gaps. Biogeosciences 7:2711–2738. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-2711-2010
Mander Ü, Lõhmus K, Teiter S, Uri V, Augustin J (2008) Gaseous nitrogen and carbon fluxes in riparian alder stands. Boreal Environ Res 13:231–241
Mander Ü, Järveoja J, Maddison M, Soosaar K, Aavola R, Ostonen I, Salm J (2012) Reed canary grass cultivation mitigates greenhouse gas emissions from abandoned peat extraction areas. GCB Bioenergy 4:462–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01138.x
Mander Ü, Krasnova A, Escuer-Gatius J, Espenberg M, Schindler T, Machacova K, Pärn J, Maddison M, Megonigal P, Pihlatie M, Kasak K, Niinemets Ü, Junninen H, Soosaar K (2021) Forest canopy mitigates soil N2O emission during hot moments. Npj Clim Atmos Sci 4:39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-021-00194-7
Mander Ü (2016) Carbon and nitrogen cycle in drained peatland forests. Research project report. Appendix 1. Estonian State Forest Management Centre (RMK), 20 p. (In Estonian). https://media.rmk.ee/files/Rakendusuuringu%20lopparuanne_Kodusoometsad.pdf
Martens M, Karlsson MPE, Ehde PM, Mattsson M, Weisner SEB (2021) The greenhouse gas emission effects of rewetting drained peatlands and growing wetland plants for biogas fuel production. J Environ Manage 277:111391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111391
Melling L, Hatano R, Goh KJ (2007) Nitrous oxide emissions from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 53:792–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00196.x
Minke M, Augustin J, Burlo A, Yarmashuk T, Chuvashova H, Thiele A, Freibauer A, Tikhonov V, Hoffmann M (2016) Water level, vegetation composition, and plant productivity explain greenhouse gas fluxes in temperate cutover fens after inundation. Biogeosciences 13:3945–3970. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-3945-2016
Minkkinen K, Laine J (1998) Long-term effect of forest drainage on the peatcarbon stores of pine mires in Finland. Can J For Res 28(9):1267–1275. https://doi.org/10.1139/x98-104
Minkkinen K, Ojanen P, Koskinen M, Penttilä T (2020) Nitrous oxide emissions of undrained, forestry-drained, and rewetted boreal peatlands. Forest Ecol Manag 478:118494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118494
Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque J-F, Lee L, Mendoza B, Nakajima T, Robock A, Stephens G, Takemura T, Zhang H (2013) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom and New York, pp 659–740
Nugent KA, Strachan IB, Strack M, Roulet NT, Rochefort L (2018) Multi-year net ecosystem carbon balance of a restored peatland reveals a return to carbon sink. Glob Change Biol 24(12):5751–5768. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14449
Oestmann J, Tiemeyer B, Düvel D, Grobe A, Dettmann U (2022) Greenhouse gas balance of Sphagnum farming on highly decomposed peat at former peat extraction sites. Ecosystems 25:350–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-021-00659-z
Oktarita S, Hergoualc’h K, Anwar S, Verchot LV (2017) Substantial N2O emissions from peat decomposition and N fertilization in an oil palm plantation exacerbated by hotspots. Environ Res Lett 12:104007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa80f1
Page S, Hoscilo A, Langner A, Tansey K, Siegert F, Limin S, Rieley J (2009) Tropical peatland fires in Southeast Asia. In: Cochrane M (ed) Tropical Fire Ecology. Climate Change, Land Use and Ecosystem Dynamics. Praxis Publishing Ltd, Chichester, pp 263–287
Pärn J, Verhoeven JTA, Butterbach-Bahl K, Dise NB, Ullah S, Aasa A, Egorov S, Espenberg M, Järveoja J, Jauhiainen J, Kasak K, Klemedtsson L, Kull A, Laggoun-Défarge F, Lapshina ED, Lohila A, Lõhmus K, Maddison M, Mitsch WJ, Müller C, Niinemets Ü, Osborne B, Pae T, Salm JO, Sgouridis F, Sohar K, Soosaar K, Storey K, Teemusk A, Tenywa MM, Tournebize J, Truu J, Veber G, Villa JA, Zaw SS, Mander Ü (2018) Nitrogen-rich organic soils under warm well-drained conditions are global nitrous oxide emission hotspots. Nat Commun 91(9):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03540-1
Pärn J, Soosaar K, Schindler T, Machacova K, Alegria-Muñoz W, Fachín-Malaverri LM, Jibaja-Aspajo JL, Negron-Juarez R, Maddison M, Rengifo-Marin JE, Garay-Dinis DJ, Arista-Oversluijs AG, Ávila-Fucos MC, Chávez-Vásquez R, Wampuch RH, Peas-García E, Sohar K, Cordova-Horna S, Pacheco-Gómez T, Urquiza-Muñoz JD, Tello-Espinoza R, Mander Ü (2023) Effects of water table fluctuation on greenhouse gas emissions from wetland soils in the Peruvian Amazon. In press, Wetlands
Petrescu AMR, Lohila A, Tuovinen J-P, Baldocchi DD, Desai AR, Roulet NT, Vesala T, Dolman AJ, Oechel WC, Marcolla B, Friborg T, Rinne J, Matthes JH, Merbold L, Meijide A, Kielyn G, Scottocornola ST, Zona D, Varlagin A, Lair DYF, Veenendaals E, Parmentier F-JW, Skiba U, Lund M, Hensen A, van Huissteden J, Flanagan LB, Shurpali NJ, Grünwald T, Huphreys ER, Jackowicz-Korczynski M, Aurela MA, Laurila T, Grüning C, Corradi CAR, Schrier-Uijls AP, Christensen TR, Tamstorf MP, Mastepanov M, Martikainen PJ, Verma SB, Bernhofer C, Cescatti A (2015) The uncertain climate footprint of wetlands under human pressure. P Natl Acad Sci USA 112(15):4594–4599. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416267112
Rafat A, Rezanezhad F, Quinton WL, Humphreys ER, Webster K, Van Cappellen P (2021) Non-growing season carbon emissions in a northern peatland are projected to increase under global warming. Commun Earth Environ 2:111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00184-w
Renou-Wilson F, Mueller C, Moser G, Wilson D (2016) To graze or not to graze? Four years greenhouse gas balances and vegetation composition from a drained and a rewetted organic soil under grassland. Agric Ecosys Environ 222:156–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.011
Rosset T, Binet S, Rigal F, Gandois L (2022) Peatland dissolved organic carbon export to surface waters: Global significance and effects of anthropogenic disturbance. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096616
Sakata R, Shimada S, Arai H, Yoshioka N, Yoshioka R, Aoki H, Kimoto N, Sakamoto A, Melling L, Inubushi K (2015) Effect of soil types and nitrogen fertilizer on nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions in oil palm plantations. Soil Scie Plant Nutr 61:48–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2014.960355
Salm JO, Maddison M, Tammik S, Soosaar K, Truu J, Mander Ü (2012) Emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O from undisturbed, drained and mined peatlands in Estonia. Hydrobiologia 694(1):41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0934-7
Samariks V, Lazdinš A, Bardule A, Kaleja S, Butlers A, Spalva G, Jansons A (2023) Impact of former peat extraction field afforestation on soil greenhouse gas emissions in hemiboreal region. Forests 14:184. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020184
Schaller C, Hofer B, Klemm O (2022) Greenhouse gas exchange of a NW German peatland, 18 years after rewetting. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JG005960
Schindler T, Mander Ü, Machacova K, Espenberg M, Krasnov D, Escuer-Gatius J, Veber G, Pärn J, Soosaar K (2020) Short-term flooding increases CH4 and N2O emissions from trees in a riparian forest soil-stem continuum. Sci Rep 10(1):3204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60058-7
Sjögersten S, Cheesman AW, Lopez O, Turner BL (2011) Biogeochemical processes along a nutrient gradient in a tropical ombrotrophic peatland. Biogeochemistry 104:147–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9493-7
Strack M, Keith AM, Xu B (2014) Growing season carbon dioxide and methane exchange at a restored peatland on the Western Boreal Plain. Ecol Eng 64:231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.013
Swenson MM, Regan S, Bremmers DTH, Lawless J, Saunders M, Gill LW (2019) Carbon balance of a restored and cutover raised bog: implications for restoration and comparison to global trends. Biogeosciences 16:713–731. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-713-2019
Takakai F, Morishita T, Hashidoko Y, Darung U, Kuramochi K, Dohong S, Limin SH, Hatano R (2006) Effects of agricultural land-use change and forest fire on N2O emission from tropical peatlands, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 52:662–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2006.00084.x
Tang ACI, Stoy PC, Hirata R, Musin KK, Aeries EB, Wenceslaus J, Melling L (2018) Eddy covariance measurements of methane flux at a tropical peat forest in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. Geophys Res Lett 45:4390–4399. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017GL076457
Tiemeyer B, Freibauer A, Borraz EA, Augustin J, Bechtold M, Beetz S, Beyer C, Eblie M, Eickenscheidt T, Fiedler S, Förster C, Gensior A, Giebels M, Glatzel S, Heinichen J, Hoffmann M, Höper H, Jurasinski G, Laggner A, Leiber-Sauheitl K, Peichl-Brak M, Drösler M (2020) A new methodology for organic soils in national greenhouse gas inventories: Data synthesis, derivation and application. Ecol Indic 109:105838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105838
Toma Y, Takakai F, Darung U, Kuramochi K, Limin SH, Dohong S, Hatano R (2011) Nitrous oxide emission derived from soil organic matter decomposition from tropical agricultural peat soil in central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 57:436–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2011.587203
Truu M, Nõlvak H, Ostonen M, Oopkaup K, Maddison M, Ligi T, Espenberg M, Uri V, Mander Ü, Truu J (2020) Soil bacterial and archaeal communities and their potential to perform N-cycling processes in soils of boreal forests growing on well-drained peat. Front Microbiol Terr Microbiol 11:591358. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.591358
Turetsky MR, Kotowska A, Bubier J, Dise NB, Crill P, Hornibrook ERC, Minkkinen K, Moore TR, Myers-Smith IH, Nykänen H, Olefeldt D, Rinne J, Saarnio S, Shurpali N, Tuittila E-S, Waddington JM, White JR, Wickland KP, Wilmking M (2014) A synthesis of methane emissions from 71 northern, temperate, and subtropical wetlands. Glob Change Biol 20:2183–2197. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12580
Vanselow-Algan M, Schmidt SR, Greven M, Fiencke C, Kutzbach L, Pfeiffer EM (2021) High methane emissions dominate annual greenhouse gas balances 30 years after bog rewetting. Biogeosciences Discuss 12:2809–2842. https://doi.org/10.5194/bgd-12-2809-2015
Veber G, Kull A, Paal J (2021) Spatio-temporal variability of greenhouse gases along drainage gradient in 17 peatlands across Estonia. Proceedings of the 16th International Peatland Congress 2021, Tallinn, Estonia. Publicon PCO, pp. 120–126. ISBN 978–9916–4–0652–6
Veber G, Paal J, Läänelaid A, Sohar K, Tampuu T, Salm JO, Maddison M, Teemusk A, Mander Ü, Kull A (202X) Simple vegetation and soil parameters determine greenhouse gas fluxes along drainage gradient in peatlands. Unpublished manuscript.
Viru B, Veber G, Jaagus J, Kull A, Maddison M, Muhel M, Espenberg M, Teemusk A, Mander Ü (2020) Wintertime greenhouse gas fluxes from hemiboreal drained peatlands. Atmosphere 11:731. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070731
Vroom RJE, Xi FJ, Geurts JJM, Chojnowska A, Smolders AJP, Lamers LPM, Fritz C (2018) Typha latifolia paludiculture effectively improves water quality and reduces greenhouse gas emissions in rewetted peatlands. Ecol Eng 124:88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.09.008
Waddington JM, Strack M, Greenwood MJ (2010) Toward restoring the net carbon sink function of degraded peatlands: Short-term response in CO2 exchange to ecosystem-scale restoration. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences 115(G1):G01008. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001090
Walker XJ, Baltzer JL, Cumming SG, Day NJ, Ebert C, Goetz S, Johnstone JF, Potter S, Rogers BM, Schuur EAG, Turetsky MR, Mack MC (2019) Increasing wild fires threaten historic carbon sink of boreal forest soils. Nature 572:520–523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1474-y
Wichtmann W, Schröder C, Joosten H (2026) Paludiculture - Productive Use of Wet Peatlands: Climate Protection - Biodiversity - Regional Economic Benefits. Scweizerbart Science Publishers, Stuttgart, p 272
Wilson D, Blain D, Couwenberg J, Evans CD, Murdiyarso D, Page SE, Renou-Wilson F, Rieley JO, Sirin A, Strack M, Tuittila ES (2016a) Greenhouse gas emission factors associated with rewetting of organic soils. Mires Peat 17:1–28. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.222
Wilson D, Farrell CA, Fallon D, Moser G, Müller C, Renou-Wilson F (2016b) Multiyear greenhouse gas balances at a rewetted temperate peatland. Glob Change Biol 22:4080–4095. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13325
Wilson D, Mackin F, Tuovinen JP, Moser G, Farrell C, Renou-Wilson F (2022) Carbon and climate implications of rewetting a raised bog in Ireland. Glob Change Biol 28(21):6349–6365. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16359
Wong GX, Hirata R, Hirano T, Kiewa F, Aeries EB, Musin KK, Waili JW, Lo KS, Melling L (2018) Micrometeorological measurement of methane flux above a tropical peat swamp forest. Agr Forest Meteorol 256–257:353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.03.025
Zhang W, Furtado K, Zhou TJ, Wu PL, Chen XL (2022) Constraining extreme precipitation projections using past precipitation variability. Nat Commun 13:6319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34006-0
Zheng B, Ciais P, Chevallier P, Yang H, Canadell JG, Chen Y, van der Felde IR, Aben I, Chuvieco E, Davis SJ, Deeter M, Hong CP, Kong YW, Li HY, Li H, Lin X, He KB, Zhang QA (2023) Record-high CO2 emissions from boreal fires in 2021. Science 379:912–917. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade0805
Acknowledgements
The concept for this paper was developed at the workshop titled "Peatlands for climate change mitigation in agriculture" that took place in Aarhus, Denmark, on 4–5 October 2022, and which was sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Co-operative Research Programme: Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems. This study was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under grant agreement No 101096403 (MLTOM23415R), the Estonian Research Council (PRG352, and MOBERC20 and MOBERC44), the European Commission through the European Regional Development Fund (Center of Excellence EcolChange, TK-131), and the EU programmes: HORIZON-CSA project No 101079192 “Living Labs for Wetland Forest Research (LiWeFor)”, LIFE21-IPC-EE-LIFE-SIP AdaptEst (MLTOM23090 (101069566) “Implementation of national climate change adaptation activities in Estonia”, and the Estonian State Forest Management Centre financed project LLTOM17250 "Water level restoration in cut-away peatlands: development of integrated monitoring methods and monitoring".
Funding
OECD Cooperative Research Programme,European Research Council,101096403,Ülo Mander, HORIZON EUROPE Widening Participation and Strengthening the European Research Area,101079192, Ülo Mander,Eesti Teadusagentuur,MOBERC20,Ülo Mander,MOBERC44,Ülo Mander,PRG352,Ülo Mander,European Regional Development Fund,EcolChange TK131,Ülo Mander,LIFE21-IPC-EE-LIFE-SIP, 101069566, Ain Kull,State Forest Management Centre,LLTOM17250, Ain Kull
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
UM: conceptualized the study, acquired funding, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. ME: conceptualized the study, analyzed the data, generated visualizations, and contributed to reviewing the manuscript. LM: contributed to reviewing the manuscript. AK: conceptualized the study, acquired funding, collected original data, analyzed the data, and contributed to reviewing the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Klaus Butterbach-Bahl.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mander, Ü., Espenberg, M., Melling, L. et al. Peatland restoration pathways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and retain peat carbon. Biogeochemistry 167, 523–543 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-023-01103-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-023-01103-1