Plant and Soil

, Volume 343, Issue 1–2, pp 287–301 | Cite as

Plant-mediated CH4 transport and C gas dynamics quantified in-situ in a Phalaris arundinacea-dominant wetland

  • Louise Askaer
  • Bo Elberling
  • Thomas Friborg
  • Christian J. Jørgensen
  • Birger U. Hansen
Regular Article

Abstract

Northern peatland methane (CH4) budgets are important for global CH4 emissions. This study aims to determine the ecosystem CH4 budget and specifically to quantify the importance of Phalaris arundinacea by using different chamber techniques in a temperate wetland. Annually, roughly 70 ± 35% of ecosystem CH4 emissions were plant-mediated, but data show no evidence of significant diurnal variations related to convective gas flow regardless of season or plant growth stages. Therefore, despite a high percentage of arenchyma, P. arundinacea-mediated CH4 transport is interpreted to be predominantly passive. Thus, diurnal variations are less important in contrast to wetland vascular plants facilitating convective gas flow. Despite of plant-dominant CH4 transport, net CH4 fluxes were low (– 0.005–0.016 μmol m−2 s−1) and annually less than 1% of the annual C-CO2 assimilation. This is considered a result of an effective root zone oxygenation resulting in increased CH4 oxidation in the rhizosphere at high water levels. This study shows that although CH4, having a global warming potential 25 times greater than CO2, is emitted from this P. arundinacea wetland, less than 9% of the C sequestered counterbalances the CH4 emissions to the atmosphere. It is concluded that P. arundinacea-dominant wetlands are an attractive C-sequestration ecosystem.

Keywords

Plant-mediated CH4 flux Automated closed static chambers Diurnal variation Phalaris arundinacea 

Supplementary material

11104_2011_718_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (2.8 mb)
Supporting Figure 1SStudy site location (PPT 2895 kb)
11104_2011_718_MOESM2_ESM.ppt (1.4 mb)
Supporting Figure 2SStudy site automated chamber instrumentation (PPT 1479 kb)
11104_2011_718_MOESM3_ESM.doc (22 kb)
Appendix S1(DOC 22 kb)

References

  1. Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ (2007) Lifecyle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl 17:675–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong J, Armstrong W (1991) A convective through-flow of gases in Phrigmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steud. Aquat Bot 39:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Askaer L, Elberling B, Glud RN et al (2010) Soil heterogeneity effects on O2 distribution and CH4 emissions from wetlands: in situ and mesocosm studies with planar O2 optodes and membrane inlet mass spectrometry. Soil Biol Biochem 42(12):2254–2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennike O, Houmark-Nielsen M, Böcher J et al (1994) A multi-disciplinary macrofossil study of Middle Weichselian sediments at Kobbelgård, Møn, Denmark. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 111(1–2):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blodau C (2002) Carbon cycling in peatlands—A review of processes and controls. Environ Rev 10(2):111–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brix H, Sorrell BK, Orr PT (1992) Internal pressurization and convective gas flow in some emergent freshwater macrophytes. Limnol Oceanogr 37:1420–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brune A, Frenzel P, Cypionka H (2000) Life at the oxic–anoxic interface: microbial activities and adaptations. FEMS Microbiol Rev 24:691–710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Clymo RS (1983) Peat. In: Gore AJP (ed) Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor. General Studies, Ecosystems of the World, 4A. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, pp 159–224Google Scholar
  9. Commission of the European Communities (2007) Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius. The way ahead for 2020 and beyond. Communication from The Commission to The Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of The Regions. 52007DC0002Google Scholar
  10. Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs (Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriet) (2009) Grøn Vækst. ISBN electronic edition: 978-87-92480-09-5 (in Danish)Google Scholar
  11. Ding W, Cai Z, Tsuruta H (2004) Diel variation in methane emissions from the stands of Carex lasiocarpa and Deyeuxia angustifolia in a cool temperate freshwater marsh. Atmos Environ 38:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards KR, Cizkova H, Zemanova K et al (2006) Plant growth and microbial processes in a constructed wetland planted with Phalaris arundinacea. Ecol Eng 27:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorham E (1991) Northern Peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grünfeld S, Brix H (1999) Methanogenesis and methane emissions: effects of water table, substrate type and presence of Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot 64:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hyvönen NP, Huttunen JT, Shurpali NJ et al (2009) Fluxes of nitrous oxide and methane on an abandoned peat extraction site: effect of reed canary grass cultivation. Bioresour Technol 100:4723–4730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2007) 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, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp 996Google Scholar
  17. Joabsson A, Christensen TR, Wallen B (1999) Vascular plant controls on methane emissions from northern peat forming wetlands. Trends Ecol Evol 14(10):385–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kammann C, Grunhage L, Jager H-J (2001) A new sampling technique to monitor concentrations of CH4, N2O and CO2 in air at well-defined depths in soils with varied water potential. Eur J Soil Sci 52:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kao-Kniffin J, Freyreb DS, Balsera TC (2010) Methane dynamics across wetland plant species. Aquat Bot 93:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kercher SM, Zedler JB (2004) Flood tolerance in wetland angiosperms: a comparison of invasive and noninvasive species. Aquat Bot 80:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knicker H, Skjemstad JO (2000) Nature of organic carbon and nitrogen in physically protected organic matter of some Australian soils as revealed by solid-state 13C and 15N NMR spectroscopy. Aust J Soil Res 38:113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lai DYF (2009) Methane dynamics in Northern Peatlands: a review. Pedosphere 19(4):409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewandowski I, Scurlock JMO, Lindvall E et al (2003) The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 25:335–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maurer DA, Linding-Cisneros R, Werner KJ et al (2003) The replacement of wetland vegetation by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Ecol Res 21:116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mikkelä C, Sundh I, Svensson BH et al (1995) Diurnal variation in methane emission in relation to the water table, soil temperature, climate and vegetation cover in a Swedish acid mire. Biogeochemistry 28:93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papaioannou G, Papanikolaou N, Retalis D (1993) Relationships of photosynthetically active radiation and shortwave irradiance. Theor Appl Climatol 48:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reich JW, Schlesinger WH (1992) The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to climate. Tellus 44B:81–99Google Scholar
  28. Reinhardt CH, Galatowitsch SM (2005) Phalaris arundinacea L. (reed canary grass): rapid growth and growth pattern in conditions approximating newly restored wetlands. Ecoscience 12:569–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roehm CL, Roulet NT (2003) Seasonal contribution of CO2 fluxes in the annual C budget of a northern bog. Glob Biogeochem Cycl 17:1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruimy A, Jarvis PG, Baldocchi D et al (1995) CO2 fluxes over plant canopies and solar radiation: a review. Adv Ecol Res 26:1–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Segers R (1998) Methane production and methane consumption: a review of processes underlying wetland methane fluxes. Biogeochemistry 41:23–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Strom L, Mastepanov M, Christensen TR (2005) Species-specific effects of vascular plants on carbon turnover and methane emissions from wetlands. Biogeochemistry 75(1):65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tokida T, Mizoguchi M, Miyazaki T et al (2007) Episodic release of methane bubbles from peatland during spring thaw. Chemosphere 70:165–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watson A, Stephen KD, Nedwell DB et al (1997) Oxidation of methane in peat: kinetics of CH4 and O2 removal and the role of plant roots. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1165–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whalen SC (2005) Biochemistry of methane exchange between natural wetlands and the atmosphere. Environ Eng Sci 22(1):73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whiting GJ, Chanton JP (1993) Primary production control of methane emission from wetlands. Nature 364:794–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whitting GJ, Chanton JP (1996) Control of diurnal pattern of methane emission from aquatic macrophytes by gas transport mechanisms. Aquatic Botany 54:237–253Google Scholar
  38. Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group (2009) Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Management Guide: Recommendations for Landowners and Restoration Professionals, PUB-FR-428 2009Google Scholar
  39. Wuebbles DJ, Hayhoe K (2002) Atmospheric methane and global change. Earth Sci Rev 57(3):177–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise Askaer
    • 1
  • Bo Elberling
    • 1
  • Thomas Friborg
    • 1
  • Christian J. Jørgensen
    • 1
  • Birger U. Hansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography and GeologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen KDenmark

Personalised recommendations