Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp 1227–1241 | Cite as

Infilled Ditches are Hotspots of Landscape Methane Flux Following Peatland Re-wetting

  • Mark. D. A. Cooper
  • Christopher. D. EvansEmail author
  • Piotr Zielinski
  • Peter. E. Levy
  • Alan Gray
  • Mike Peacock
  • David Norris
  • Nathalie Fenner
  • Christopher Freeman
Article

Abstract

Peatlands are large terrestrial stores of carbon, and sustained CO2 sinks, but over the last century large areas have been drained for agriculture and forestry, potentially converting them into net carbon sources. More recently, some peatlands have been re-wetted by blocking drainage ditches, with the aims of enhancing biodiversity, mitigating flooding, and promoting carbon storage. One potential detrimental consequence of peatland re-wetting is an increase in methane (CH4) emissions, offsetting the benefits of increased CO2 sequestration. We examined differences in CH4 emissions between an area of ditch-drained blanket bog, and an adjacent area where drainage ditches were recently infilled. Results showed that Eriophorum vaginatum colonization led to a “hotspot” of CH4 emissions from the infilled ditches themselves, with smaller increases in CH4 from other re-wetted areas. Extrapolated to the area of blanket bog surrounding the study site, we estimated that CH4 emissions were around 60 kg CH4 ha−1 y−1 prior to drainage, reducing to 44 kg CH4 ha−1 y−1 after drainage. We calculated that fully re-wetting this area would initially increase emissions to a peak of around 120 kg CH4 ha−1 y−1, with around two-thirds of the increase (and 90% of the increase over pre-drainage conditions) attributable to CH4 emissions from E. vaginatum-colonized infilled ditches, despite these areas only occupying 7% of the landscape. We predicted that emissions should eventually decline toward pre-drainage values as the ecosystem recovers, but only if Sphagnum mosses displace E. vaginatum from the infilled ditches. These results have implications for peatland management for climate change mitigation, suggesting that restoration methods should aim, if possible, to avoid the colonization of infilled ditches by aerenchymatous species such as E. vaginatum, and to encourage Sphagnum establishment.

Keywords

methane carbon peatland blanket bog re-wetting restoration Eriophorum Sphagnum 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Trystan Edwards, Andrew Roberts, and others at the National Trust for carrying out the ditch blocking for this pilot study, providing access to LiDAR data and for support throughout the study. The authors would also like to thank Tim Jones, Rob Mills, Andy Baird, and two anonymous reviewers for useful discussions, comments, and suggestions at various stages during the development of this manuscript.

References

  1. Alm J, Shurpali NJ, Tuittila ES, Laurila T, Maljanen M, Saarnio S, Minkkinen K. 2007. Methods for determining emission factors for the use of peat and peatlands—flux measurements and modelling. Boreal Environ Res 12:85–100.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong A, Holden J, Kay P, Foulger M, Gledhill S, McDonald AT, Walker A. 2009. Drain-blocking techniques on blanket peat: a framework for best practice. J Environ Manag 90:3512–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bain CG, Bonn A, Stoneman R, Chapman S, Coupar A, Evans M, Gearey B, Howat M, Joosten H, Keenleyside C, Labadz J, Lindsay R, Littlewood N, Lunt P, Miller CJ, Moxey A, Orr H, Reed M, Smith P, Swales V, Thompson DBA, Thompson PS, Van de Noort R, Wilson JD, Worrall F. 2011. IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. Edinburgh: IUCN UK Peatland Programme.Google Scholar
  4. Baird AJ, Beckwith CW, Waldron S, Waddington JM. 2004. Ebullition of methane-containing gas bubbles from near-surface Sphagnum peat. Geophys Res Lett 31:L21505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belyea LR, Baird AJ. 2006. Beyond “The Limits of Peat Bog Growth”: cross-scale feedback in peatland development. Ecol Monogr 76:299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Best EPH, Jacobs FHH. 1997. The influence of raised water table levels on carbon dioxide and methane production in ditch-dissected peat grasslands in the Netherlands. Ecol Eng 8:129–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calhoun A, King GM. 1997. Regulation of root-associated methanotrophy by oxygen availability in the rhizosphere of two aquatic macrophytes. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:3051–8.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll MJ, Dennis P, Pearce-Higgins JW, Thomas CD. 2011. Maintaining northern peatland ecosystems in a changing climate: effects of soil moisture, drainage and drain blocking on craneflies. Glob Change Biol 17:2991–3001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Couwenberg J, Thiele A, Tanneberger F, Augustin J, Barisch S, Dubovik D, Liashchynskaya N, Michaelis D, Minke M, Skuratovich A, Joosten H. 2011. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands using vegetation as a proxy. Hydrobiologia 674:67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denman KL, Brasseur G, Chidthaisong A, Ciais P, Cox PM, Dickinson RE, Hauglustaine D, Heinze C, Holland E, Jacob D, Lohmann U, Ramachandran S, da Silva Dias PL, Wofsy SC, Zhang X. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dias ATC, Hoorens B, Van Logtestijn RSP, Vermaat JE, Aerts R. 2010. Plant species composition can be used as a proxy to predict methane emissions in peatland ecosystems after land-use changes. Ecosystems 13:526–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dinsmore KJ, Skiba UM, Billett MF, Rees RM. 2009. Effect of water table on greenhouse gas emissions from peatland mesocosms. Plant Soil 318:229–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunn C, Freeman C. 2011. Peatlands: our greatest source of carbon credits? Carbon Manag 2:289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis CJ, Tallis JH. 2001. Climatic control of peat erosion in a North Wales blanket mire. New Phytol 152:313–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans CD, Jones TG, Burden A, Ostle N, Zieliński P, Cooper MDA, Peacock M, Clark JM, Oulehle F, Cooper D, Freeman C. 2012. Acidity controls on dissolved organic carbon mobility in organic soils. Glob Change Biol 18:3317–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman C, Ostle N, Kang H. 2001. An enzymic ‘latch’ on a global carbon store—a shortage of oxygen locks up carbon in peatlands by restraining a single enzyme. Nature 409:149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray A, Levy PE, Cooper MDA, Jones T, Gaiawyn J, Leeson SR, Ward SE, Dinsmore KJ, Drewer J, Sheppard LJ, Ostle NJ, Evans CD, Burden A, Zieliński P. 2013. Methane indicator values for peatlands: a comparison of species and functional groups. Glob Change Biol 19:1141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green S, Baird A. 2012. A mesocosm study of the role of the sedge Eriophorum angustifolium in the efflux of methane—including that due to episodic ebullition—from peatlands. Plant Soil 351:207–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green S, Boardman C, Baird A, Gauci V. 2011. Investigation of peatland restoration (grip blocking) techniques to achieve best outcomes for methane and greenhouse gas emissions/balance. Controlled Environment (Mesocosm) Experiment. Final Report to Defra Project Code SP1202, Defra.Google Scholar
  21. Greenup AL, Bradford MA, McNamara NP, Ineson P, Lee JA. 2000. The role of Eriophorum vaginatum in CH4 flux from an ombrotrophic peatland. Plant Soil 227:265–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haapalehto TO, Vasander H, Jauhiainen S, Tahvanainen T, Kotiaho JS. 2011. The effects of peatland restoration on water-table depth, elemental concentrations, and vegetation: 10 years of changes. Restor Ecol 19:587–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, prepared by the national greenhouse gas inventories programme. Miura: IGES.Google Scholar
  24. IPCC. 2014. In: Hiraishi T, Krug T, Tanabe K, Srivastava N, Baasansuren J, Fukuda M, Troxler TG, Eds. 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: wetlands. Switzerland: IPCC.Google Scholar
  25. JNCC. 2011. Towards an assessment of the state of UK peatlands, Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report No. 445. Peterborough: JNCC.Google Scholar
  26. Joosten H. 2010. The global peatland CO2 picture: peatland status and drainage related emissions in all countries of the world. Ede: Wetlands International. www.wetlands.org.
  27. Kalcska M, Arroyo-Mora JP, de Gea J, Snirer E, Herzog C, Moore TR. 2013. Videographic analysis of eriophorum vaginatum spatial coverage in an ombotrophic bog. Remote Sens 5:6501–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levy PE, Burden A, Cooper MDA, Dinsmore KJ, Drewer J, Evans C, Fowler D, Gaiawyn J, Gray A, Jones SK, Jones T, McNamara NP, Mills R, Ostle N, Sheppard LJ, Skiba U, Sowerby A, Ward SE, Zieliński P. 2012. Methane emissions from soils: synthesis and analysis of a large UK data set. Glob Change Biol 18:1657–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levy PE, Gray A, Leeson SR, Gaiawyn J, Kelly MPC, Cooper MDA, Dinsmore KJ, Jones SK, Sheppard LJ. 2011. Quantification of uncertainty in trace gas fluxes measured by the static chamber method. Eur J Soil Sci 62:811–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Livingston GP, Hutchinson GL. 1995. Enclosure-based measurement of trace gas exchange: applications and sources of error. In: Matson PA, Harriss RC, Eds. Biogenic trace gases: measuring emissions from soil and water. Oxford: Blackwell. p 14–51.Google Scholar
  31. Lynas BDT. 1973. The Cambrian and Ordovician rocks of the Migneint area, North Wales. J Geol Soc 129:481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marinier M, Glatzel S, Moore TR. 2004. The role of cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum) in the exchange of CO2 and CH4 at two restored peatlands, eastern Canada. Ecoscience 11:141–9.Google Scholar
  33. McNamara NP, Plant T, Oakley S, Ward S, Wood C, Ostle N. 2008. Gully hotspot contribution to landscape methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes in a northern peatland. Sci Total Environ 404:354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque J-F, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T, Robock A, Stephens G, Takemura T, Zhang H. 2013. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: 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, UK and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Peacock M, Evans CD, Fenner N, Freeman C. 2013. Natural revegetation of bog pools after peatland restoration involving ditch blocking—the influence of pool depth and implications for carbon cycling. Ecol Eng 57:297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petrescu A, Van Beek L, Van Huissteden J, Prigent C, Sachs T, Corradi C, Parmentier F, Dolman A. 2010. Modeling regional to global CH4 emissions of boreal and arctic wetlands. Glob Biogeochem Cycle 24:GB4009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raghoebarsing AA, Smolders AJP, Schmid MC, Rijpstra IE, Wolters-Arts M, Derksen J, Jetten MSM, Schouten S, Sinninghe Damsté JS, Lamers LPM, Roelofs JGM, Op den Camp HJM, Strous M. 2005. Methanotrophic symbionts provide carbon for photosynthesis in peat bogs. Nature 436:1153–6.Google Scholar
  39. Reed MS, Bonn A, Evans C, Joosten H, Bain B, Farmer J, Emmer I, Couwenberg J, Moxey A, Artz R, Tanneberger F, von Unger M, Smyth M, Birnie R, Inman I, Smith S, Quick T, Cowap C, Prior S. 2013. Peatland code research project final report. London: Defra.Google Scholar
  40. Rodwell JS. 1998. British plant communities: mires and heaths. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Roulet NT, Moore TR. 1995. The effect of forestry drainage practices on the emission of methane from northern peatlands. Can J For Res 25:491–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schrier-Uijl AP, Veraart AJ, Leffelaar PA, Berendse F, Veenendaal EM. 2011. Release of CO2 and CH4 from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry 102:265–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ström L, Tagesson T, Mastepanov M, Christensen TR. 2012. Presence of Eriophorum scheuchzeri enhances substrate availability and methane emission in an Arctic wetland. Soil Biol Biochem 45:61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sundh I, Nilsson M, Mikkela C, Granberg G, Svensson BH. 2000. Fluxes of methane and carbon dioxide on peat-mining areas in Sweden. Ambio 29:499–503.Google Scholar
  45. Teh YA, Silver WL, Sonnentag O, Detto M, Kelly M, Baldocchi DD. 2011. Large greenhouse gas emissions from a temperate peatland pasture. Ecosystems 14:311–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tuittila ES, Komulainen VM, Vasander H, Nykanen H, Martikainen PJ, Laine J. 2000. Methane dynamics of a restored cut-away peatland. Glob Change Biol 6:569–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waddington JM, Day SM. 2007. Methane emissions from a peatland following restoration. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 112:G3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 Biogeosci 115:G1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ward S, Bardgett RD, McNamara NP, Adamson JK, Ostle NJ. 2007. Long-term consequences of grazing and burning on northern peatland carbon dynamics. Ecosystems 10:1069–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson D, Alm J, Laine J, Byrne KA, Farrell EP, Tuitilla E-S. 2009. Rewetting of cutaway peatlands: are we re-creating hot spots of methane emissions? Restor Ecol 17:796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson D, Farrell C, Mueller C, Hepp S, Renou-Wilson F. 2013. Rewetted industrial cutaway peatlands in western Ireland: a prime location for climate change mitigation? Mires Peat 11:1–22.Google Scholar
  52. Yu ZC, Loisel J, Brosseau DP, Beilman DW, Hunt SJ. 2010. Global peatland dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophys Res Lett 37:L13402.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark. D. A. Cooper
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher. D. Evans
    • 1
    Email author
  • Piotr Zielinski
    • 2
    • 3
  • Peter. E. Levy
    • 4
  • Alan Gray
    • 4
  • Mike Peacock
    • 2
    • 5
  • David Norris
    • 1
  • Nathalie Fenner
    • 2
  • Christopher Freeman
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Environment Centre WalesBangorUK
  2. 2.Wolfson Carbon Capture Laboratory, School of Biological SciencesBangor UniversityBangorUK
  3. 3.Institute of BiologyUniversity of BialystokBialystokPoland
  4. 4.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyPenicuikUK
  5. 5.Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space and Astronomical Research (CEPSAR), Department of Environment, Earth and EcosystemsThe Open UniversityWalton HallUK

Personalised recommendations