Advertisement

Ecosystems

pp 1–16 | Cite as

When the Source of Flooding Matters: Divergent Responses in Carbon Fluxes in an Alaskan Rich Fen to Two Types of Inundation

  • E. S. EuskirchenEmail author
  • E. S. Kane
  • C. W. Edgar
  • M. R. Turetsky
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

The extent of groundwater-influenced rich fens is increasing across northern regions as permafrost thaws. The increase in the extent of these fens, which store large amounts of carbon in deep organic deposits, is coupled to increases in rainfall and runoff. We examine interannual variations in carbon and water fluxes at a rich fen in interior Alaska that included early (May–June) and mid-late (July–September) dry and wet periods, with early season wet periods coincident with runoff from snowmelt and later season wet periods coincident with inundation from rainfall. From May 2011 to December 2018, the fen was estimated as a 170 ± 64 g C m−2 source of CO2. When controlling for soil temperature, net CO2 uptake was greatest during the early season under dry conditions, with the water table position below the surface, and least during the mid-late season when the water table position was above the surface. Methane emissions were lowest during early season wet periods and greatest during late season wet periods. Our results suggest that it is important to consider the seasonality of wet and dry periods, and how these may potentially be related to runoff from snowmelt versus rainfall in boreal rich fens, when considering the annual net C balance and making accurate projections of carbon balance in northern wetlands.

Keywords

Boreal Rainfall Runoff Permafrost thaw Water balance Net ecosystem exchange Methane emissions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by National Science Foundation Grants DEB LTREB 1354370, DEB-0425328, DEB-0724514, and DEB-0830997. Bonanza Creek Long Term Experimental Research station provided lab space, equipment, and time to this project. This research was also funded by the US Geological Survey and received in-kind support from the US Forest Service Northern Research Station.

References

  1. Agethen S, Sander M, Waldemer C, Knorr K-H. 2018. Plant rhizosphere oxidation reduces methane production and emission in rewetted peatlands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 125:125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aurela M, Laurila T, Tuovinen J-P. 2004. The timing of snow melt controls the annual CO2 balance in a subarctic fen. Geophysical Research Letters 31:L16119.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aurela M, Lohila A, Tuovienn J-P, Hatakka J, Riutta T, Laurila T. 2009. Carbon dioxide exchange on a northern boreal fen. Boreal Environment Research 14:699–710.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtold M, Schlaffer S, Tiemeyer B, De Lannoy G. 2018. Inferring Water Table Depth Dynamics from ENVISAT-ASAR C-Band Backscatter over a Range of Peatlands from Deeply-Drained to Natural Conditions. Remote Sensing 10:536.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10040536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridgham SD, Cadillo-Quiroz H, Keller JK, Zhaung Q. 2013. Methane emissions from wetlands: biogeochemical, microbial, and modeling perspectives from local to global scales. Global Change Biology 19:1325–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chivers MR, Turetsky MR, Waddington JM, Harden JW, McGuire AD. 2009. Effects of experimental water table and temperature manipulations on ecosystem CO2 fluxes in an Alaskan rich fen. Ecosystems 12:1329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchill AC, Turetsky MR, McGuire AD, Hollingsworth TN. 2015. Response of plant community structure and primary productivity to experimental drought and flooding in an Alaskan fen. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 45:185–93.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clewley D, Whitcomb J, Moghaddam M, McDonald K, Chapman B, Bunting P. 2015. Evaluation of ALOS PALSAR Data for High-Resolution Mapping of Vegetated Wetlands in Alaska. Remote Sensing 7:7272–97.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70607272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Efron B, Tibshirani R. 1998. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Euskirchen ES, Edgar C, Turetsky MR, Waldrop MP, Harden JW. 2014. Differential response of carbon fluxes to climate in three peatland ecosystems that vary in the presence and stability of permafrost. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 119:1576–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JG002683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Euskirchen ES, Bennett A, Breen AL, Genet H, Lindgren M, Kurkowski T, Mcuire AD, Rupp TS. 2016. Consequences of changes in vegetation and snow cover for climate feedbacks in Alaska and northwest Canada. Environmental Research Letters 11:105003.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Euskirchen ES, Bret-Harte MS, Shaver GR, Edgar CW, Romanovsky VE. 2017. Long-term release of carbon dioxide from arctic tundra ecosystems in northern Alaska. Ecosystems 20:960–74.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-0085-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falge E et al. 2001. Gap filling strategies for defensible annual sums of net ecosystem exchange. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 107:43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fan Z, McGuire AD, Turetsky MR, Harden JW, Waddington JM, Kane ES. 2013. The response of soil organic carbon of a rich fen peatland in interior Alaska to projected climate change. Global Change Biology 19:604–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flanagan LB, Syed KH. 2011. Simulation of both photosynthesis and respiration in response to warmer and drier conditions in a boreal peatland ecosystem. Global Change Biology 17:2271–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helbig M, Wischnewsi K, Natascha K, Chasmer LE, Quinton WL, Detto M, Sonnentag O. 2016. Regional atmospheric cooling and wetting effect of permafrost thaw-induced boreal forest loss. Global Change Biology 22:4048–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jammet M, Dengel S, Kettner E, Parmentier F-J, Wik M, Crill P, Friborg T. 2017. Year-round CH4 and CO2 flux dynamics in two contrasting freshwater ecosystems of the subarctic. Biogeosciences 14:5189–216.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-5189-2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jorgenson MT, Racine CH, Walters JC, Osterkamp TE. 2001. Permafrost degradation and ecological changes associated with a warming climate in central Alaska. Climatic Change 48:551–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorgenson MT, Osterkamp TE. 2005. Response of boreal ecosystems to varying modes of permafrost degradation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:2100–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kane ES, Valentine DW, Michaelson GJ, Fox JD, Ping C-L. 2006. Controls over pathways of carbon efflux from soils along climate and stand productivity gradients in interior Alaska. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 38:1438–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kane ES, Turetsky MR, Harden JW, McGuire AD, Waddington JM. 2010. Seasonal ice and hydrological controls on dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a boreal-rich fen. Journal of Geophysical Research 115:G04012.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolka R, Trettin C, Tang W, Krauss K, Bansal S, Drexler J, Wickland K, Chimner R, Hogan D, Pindilli EJ, Benscoter B, Tangen B, Kane E, Bridgham S, and Richardson C. 2018. Chapter 13: Terrestrial wetlands. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report [Cavallaro N, Shrestha G, Birdsey R, Mayes MA, Najjar RG, Reed SC, Romero-Lankao P, and Zhu Z (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 507-567,  https://doi.org/10.7930/SOCCR2.2018.Ch13.
  23. Lara MJ, Genet H, McGuire AD, Euskirchen ES, Zhang Y, Brown D, Jorgenson MT, Romanovsky V, Breen A, Bolton WR. 2016. Thermokarst rates intensify due to climate change and forest fragmentation in an Alaskan boreal forest lowland. Global Change Biology 22:816–29.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Laine AM, Mäkiranta P, Laiho R, Mehtätalo L, Penttilä T, Korrensalo A, Minkkinen K, Fritze H, Tuittila E-S. 2019. Warming impacts on boreal fen CO 2 exchange under wet and dry conditions. Global Change Biology 25:1995–2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lasslop G, Migliavacca M, Bohrer G, Reichstein M, Bahn M, Ibrom A, Jacobs C, Kolari P, Papale D, Vesala T, Wohlfahrt G, Cescatti A. 2012. On the choice of the driving temperature for eddy-covariance carbon dioxide flux partitioning. Biogeosciences 9:5243–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehmann J, Coumou D. 2015. The influence of mid-latitude storm tracks on hot, cold, dry and wet extremes. Scientific Reports 5: art. No. 17491,  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17491
  27. Li T, Raivonen M, Alekseychik P, Aurela M, Lohila A, Zheng X, Zhang Q, Wang G, Mammarella I, Rinne J, Yu L, Xie B, Vesala T, Zhang W. 2016. Importance of vegetation classes in modeling CH4 emissions from boreal and subarctic wetlands in Finland. Science of the Total Environment 572:1111–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd J, Taylor JA. 1994. On the Temperature Dependence of Soil Respiration. Functional Ecology 8:315–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Massman WJ. 2000. A simple method for estimating frequency response corrections for eddy covariance systems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 104:185–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Massman WJ. 2001. Reply to comment by Rannik on “A simple method for estimating frequency response corrections for eddy covariance systems”. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 107:247–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McPartland MY, Kane ES, Falkowski MJ, Kolka R, Turetsky MR, Palik B, Montgomery RA. 2019. The response of boreal peatland community composition and NDVI to hydrologic change, warming, and elevated carbon dioxide. Global Change Biology 25:93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell CPJ, Branfireun BA. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic Controls on Reduction-Oxidation Conditions across Boreal Upland-Peatland Interfaces. Ecosystems 8:731–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th edn. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Olefeldt D, Euskirchen ES, Harden J, Kane E, McGuire AD, Waldrop M, Turetsky MR. 2017. Greenhouse gas fluxes and their cumulative response to inter-annual variability and experimental manipulation of the water table position in a boreal fen. Global Change Biology 23:2428–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Papale D et al. 2006. Towards a standardized processing of net ecosystem exchange measured with eddy covariance technique: Algorithms and uncertainty estimation. Biogeosciences 3:571–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peichl M, Oquist M, Lofvenius MO, Ilstedt U, Sagerfors J, Grelle A, Lindroth A, Nilsson MB. 2014. A 12-year record reveals pre-growing season temperature and water table level threshold effects on the net carbon dioxide exchange in a boreal fen. Environmental Research Letters. 9(5).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/5/055006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Racine CH, Walter JC. 1994. Groundwater-Discharge Fens in the Tanana Lowlands. Interior Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Research. 26:418–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Radu DD, Duval TP. 2018. Impact of rainfall regime on methane flux from a cool temperate fen depends on vegetation cover. Ecological Engineering 114: 76 - -87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.06.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reichstein M et al. 2005. On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: Review and improved algorithm. Global Change Biology 11:1424–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rinne J, Tuittila E-S, Peltola O, Li X, Raivonen M, Alekseychik P et al. 2018. Temporal variation of ecosystem scale methane emission from a boreal fen in relation to temperature, water table position, and carbon dioxide fluxes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 32:1087–106.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2017GB005747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rupp DR, Kane ES, Dieleman C, Keller JK, Turetsky MR. 2019. Plant functional group effects on peat carbon cycling in a boreal rich fen. Biogeochemistry. 144:305–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-019-00590-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sonnentag O, van der Kamp G, Barr AG, Chen JM. 2010. On the relationship between water table depth and water vapor and carbon dioxide fluxes in a minerotrophic fen. Global Change Biology 16:1762–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02032.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics with Special Reference to the Biological Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill. pp 187–287.Google Scholar
  44. Strack M, Mwakanyamale K, Fard GH, Bird M, Berube V, Rochefort L. 2017. Effect of plant functional type on methane dynamics in a restored minerotrophic peatland. Plant and Soil 410:231–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sulman BN, Desai AR, Saliendra NZ, Lafleur PM, Flanagan LB, Sonnentag O, Mackay DS, Barr AG, van der Kamp G. 2010. CO2 fluxes at northern fens and bogs have opposite responses to inter-annual fluctuations in water table. Geophysical Research Letters 37:L19702.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tebaldi C, Hayhoe K, Armblaster JM, Meehl GA. 2006. Going to the extremes: An intercomparison of model-simulated historical and future changes in extreme events. Climatic Change 79:185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turetsky MR, Treat CC, Waldrop MP, Waddington JM, Harden JW, McGuire AD. 2008. Short-term response of methane fluxes and methanogen activity to water table and soil warming manipulations in an Alaskan peatland. Journal of Geophysical Research 113, G00A10,  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jg000496.
  48. Van Cleve K, Chapin FS III, Ruess RW. 2018. Bonanza Creek LTER: Hourly Precipitation Weighing Bucket Measurements from 1988 to Present in the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest near Fairbanks, Alaska, Bonanza Creek LTER - University of Alaska Fairbanks. BNZ:183,http://www.lter.uaf.edu/data/data-detail/id/183.  https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/1620b43e9ad1755b5d2001537aa13ad5
  49. Vitt DH, Halsey LA, Bauer IE, Campbell C. 2000. Spatial and temporal trends of carbon sequestration in peatlands of continental western Canada through the Holocene. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 37:683–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang X, Wang C, Bond-Lamberty B. 2017. Quantifying and reducing the differences in forest CO2-fluxes estimated by eddy covariance, biometric and chamber methods: A global synthesis. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 247:93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Webster KL, Bhatti JS, Thomson DK, Nelson SA, Shaw CH, Bona KA, Hayne SL, Kurz WA. 2018. Spatially-integrated estimates of net ecosystem exchange and methane fluxes from Canadian peatlands. Carbon Balance and Management 13:16.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0105-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Wofsy SC, Goulden ML, Munger JW, Fan SM, Bakwin PS, Daube BC, Bassow SL, Bazzaz FA. 1993. Net exchange of CO2 in a midlatitude forest. Science 260:1314–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wu J, Roulet NT. 2014. Climate change reduces the capacity of northern peatlands to absorb the atmospheric carbon dioxide: The different responses of bogs and fens. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 27:1005–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yu ZC. 2012. Northern peatland carbon stocks and dynamics: a review. Biogeosciences 9:4071–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. S. Euskirchen
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. S. Kane
    • 2
    • 3
  • C. W. Edgar
    • 1
  • M. R. Turetsky
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Arctic BiologyUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  2. 2.School of Forest Resources and Environmental SciencesMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research StationHoughtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Integrative BiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations