Greenhouse gas emissions in restored secondary tropical peat swamp forests

  • Daniel Murdiyarso
  • Meli Fitriani Saragi-Sasmito
  • Anggi Rustini
Original Article

Abstract

Restoration of deforested and drained tropical peat swamp forests is globally relevant in the context of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The seasonal flux of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) in a restoration concession in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, was measured in the two contrasting land covers: shrubs and secondary forests growing on peatlands. We found that land covers had high, but insignificantly different, soil carbon stocks of 949 + 56 and 1126 + 147 Mg ha−1, respectively. The mean annual CO2 flux from the soil of shrub areas was 52.4 ± 4.1 Mg ha−1 year−1, and from secondary peat swamp forests was 42.9 ± 3.6 Mg ha−1 year−1. The significant difference in mean soil temperature in the shrubs (31.2 °C) and secondary peat swamp forests (26.3 °C) was responsible for the difference in total CO2 fluxes of these sites. We also found the mean annual total soil respiration was almost equally partitioned between heterotrophic respiration (20.8 + 1.3 Mg ha−1 year−1) and autotrophic respiration (22.6 + 1.5 Mg ha−1 year−1). Lowered ground water level up to − 40 cm in both land covers caused the increase of CO2 fluxes to 40–75%. These numbers contribute to the provision of emission factors for rewetted organic soils required in the national reporting using the 2013 Supplement of the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for wetlands as part of the obligation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Keywords

Emission factors REDD+ Ground water level Microbial biomass Spatial variability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We also acknowledge in-kind contributions of PT Rimba Makmur Utama, Jakarta, Indonesia, and their field staff.

Supplementary material

11027_2017_9776_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 28 kb).

References

  1. Abrams JF, Hohn S, Rixen T, Baum A, Merico A (2016) The impact of Indonesian peatland degradation on downstream marine ecosystems and the global carbon cycle. Glob Chang Biol 22(1):325–337.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baral KJ, Arthur E, Olesen JE, Petersen SO (2016) Predicting nitrous oxide emissions from manure properties and soil moisture: an incubation experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 97:112–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.03.005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouwer H, Rice RC (1976) A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resour Res 12(3):423–428.  https://doi.org/10.1029/WR012i003p00423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson KM, Goodman LK, May-Tobin CC (2015) Modeling relationships between water table depth and peat soil carbon loss in Southeast Asian plantations. Environ Res Lett 10(7):074006.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/074006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chimner RA (2004) Soil respiration rates of tropical peatlands in Micronesia and Hawaii. Wetlands 24(1):51–56.  https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0051:SRROTP]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comeau L-P, Hergoualc’h K, Smith JU, Verchot L (2013) Conversion of intact peat swamp forest to oil palm plantation: effects on soil CO2 fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), BogorGoogle Scholar
  7. Dariah A, Marwanto S, Agus F (2014) Root- and peat-based CO2 emissions from oil palm plantations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 19(6):831–843.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9515-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dommain R, Couwenberg J, Joosten H (2011) Development and carbon sequestration of tropical peat domes in south-east Asia: links to post-glacial sea-level changes and Holocene climate variability. Quat Sci Rev 30(7-8):999–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.01.018. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gumbricht T, Roman-Cuesta RM, Verchot L, Herold M, Wittmann F, Householder E, Herold N, Murdiyarso D (2017) An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Glob Chang Biol. 23(9):3581–3599.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hiraishi T, Krug T, Tanabe K, Srivastava N, Baasansuren J, Fukuda M, Troxler TG (eds) (2014) 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: wetlands. IPCC, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Hogan JM, van der Kamp G, Barbour SL, Schmidt R (2006) Field methods for measuring hydraulic properties of peat deposits. Hydrol Process 20(17):3635–3649.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (2014) 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelenes for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. In: Hirashi T, Krug T, Tanabe K, Srivastava N, Baasunsuren J, Fukuda M, and Troxler TG (eds) IPCC, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Jauhiainen J, Hooijer A, Page SE (2012) Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9(2):617–630.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-617-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kauffman JB, Arifanti VB, Basuki I, Kurnianto S, Novita N, Murdiyarso D, Donato DC, Warren MW (2016) Protocols for the measurement, monitoring, and reporting of structure, biomass, carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peat swamp forests. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), BogorGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim DJ, Chung SG, Lee SH, Choi JW (2012) Relation of microbial biomass to counting units for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Afr J Microbiol Res 6(21):4620–4622.  https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR10.902. Google Scholar
  16. Lähteenoja O, Ruokolainen K, Schulman L, Alvarez J (2009) Amazonian floodplains harbor minerotrophic and ombrotrophic peatlands. Catena 79(2):140–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2009.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lähteenoja O, Reategui YR, Rasanen M, Del Castillo Torres D, Oinonen M, Page S (2011) The large Amazonian peatland carbon sink in the subsiding Pastaza-Maranon foreland basin, Peru. Glob Chang Biol 18(1):164–178.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02504.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Linn DM, Doran JW (1984) Effect of water-filled pore space on carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide production in tilled and nontilled soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48(6):1267–1272.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1984.03615995004800060013x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Manuri S, Brack C, Nugroho NP, Hergoualc’h K, Novita N, Dotzauer H, Verchot L, Putra CAS, Widyasari E (2014) Tree biomass equations for tropical peat swamp forest ecosystems in Indonesia. For Ecol Manag 334:241–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meurer KHE, Franko U, Stange CF, Rosa JD, Madari BE, Jungkunst HF (2016) Direct nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes from soils under different land use in Brazil—a critical review. Environ Res Lett 11(2):023001.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/023001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC (2012) Two decades of destruction in Southeast Asia’s peat swamp forests. Front Ecol Environ 10(3):124–128.  https://doi.org/10.1890/100236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miettinen J, Hooijer A, Vernimmen R, Liew SC, Page SE (2017) From carbon sink to carbon source: extensive peat oxidation in insular Southeast Asia since 1990. Environ Res Lett 12:024014.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/115b6f
  23. Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2010) Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. PNAS 107(46):19655–19660.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911966107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Novita N (2016) Carbon stocks and soil greenhouse gas emissions associated with forest conversion to oil palm plantations in Tanjung Puting tropical peatlands, Indonesia. Dissertation, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. Sayok AK, Nik AR, Melling L, Samad RA, Efransyah E (2008) Some characteristics of peat in Loagan Bunut National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Workshop and Seminar on Tropical Peatland, Yogyakarta, pp 27–31. http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/carbopeat/yogyaproc.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2017
  26. Skopp J, Jawson MD, Doran JW (1990) Steady-state aerobic microbial activity as a function of soil water content. Soil Sci Soc Am J 54(6):1619–1625.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1990.03615995005400060018x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Warren M, Hergoualc’h K, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kolka R (2017) An appraisal of Indonesia’s immense peat carbon stock using national peatland maps: uncertainties and potential losses from conversion. Carbon Balance Manag 12(1):12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-017-0080-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Murdiyarso
    • 1
    • 2
  • Meli Fitriani Saragi-Sasmito
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anggi Rustini
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)BogorIndonesia
  2. 2.Department of Geophysics and MeteorologyBogor Agricultural UniversityBogorIndonesia

Personalised recommendations