Advertisement

Global Boundary Lines of N2O and CH4 Emission in Peatlands

  • Jaan PärnEmail author
  • Anto Aasa
  • Sergey Egorov
  • Ilya Filippov
  • Geofrey Gabiri
  • Iuliana Gheorghe
  • Järvi Järveoja
  • Kuno Kasak
  • Fatima Laggoun-Défarge
  • Charles Kizza Luswata
  • Martin Maddison
  • William J. Mitsch
  • Hlynur Óskarsson
  • Stéphanie Pellerin
  • Jüri-Ott Salm
  • Kristina Sohar
  • Kaido Soosaar
  • Alar Teemusk
  • Moses M. Tenywa
  • Jorge A. Villa
  • Christina Vohla
  • Ülo Mander
Chapter

Abstract

Predicting N2O (nitrous oxide) and CH4 (methane) emissions from peatlands is challenging because of the complex coaction of biogeochemical factors. This study uses data from a global soil and gas sampling campaign. The objective is to analyse N2O and CH4 emissions in terms of peat physical and chemical conditions. Our study areas were evenly distributed across the A, C and D climates of the Köppen classification. Gas measurements using static chambers, groundwater analysis and gas and peat sampling for further laboratory analysis have been conducted in 13 regions evenly distributed across the globe. In each study area at least two study sites were established. Each site featured at least three sampling plots, three replicate chambers and corresponding soil pits and one observation well per plot. Gas emissions were measured during 2–3 days in at least three sessions. A log-log linear function limits N2O emissions in relation to soil TIN (total inorganic nitrogen). The boundary line of N2O in terms of soil temperature is semilog linear. The closest representation of the relationship between N2O and soil moisture is a local regression curve with its optimum at 60–70 %. Semilog linear upper boundaries describe the effects of soil moisture and soil temperature to CH4 best.

The global N2O boundary lines revealed a striking similarity with the Southern German N2O boundary lines, as well as with analogous scattergrams for Europe (Couwenberg et al. 2011) and Southern Queensland (Wang and Dalal 2010). This suggests that local rather than global conditions determine land-use-based greenhouse gas emissions.

Further work will analyse relationships between the environmental factors and the spatial distribution of the main functional genes nirS, nirK and nosZ regulating the denitrification process in the soil samples currently stored in fridge at −18°. An additional analysis will study the relationships between the intensity of CH4 emissions and methanogenesis-regulating functional genes mcrA, pmoA and dsrAB.

Keywords

Bog Ecosystem Fen Histosol Hydromorphic Landscape Methane Microbiology Mire Nitrous oxide Organic soil 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the IAEA’s Coordinated Research Project (CRP) on “Strategic placement and area-wide evaluation of water conservation zones in agricultural catchments for biomass production, water quality and food security”, the Ministry of Education and Science of Estonia (grant SF0180127s08), the Estonian Research Council (grant IUT2-16); and the EU through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence ENVIRON). We are sincerely grateful to the assistance of Mr. Charles Kizza Luswata in the selection of study sites. Our work benefitted from the contribution of Prof. Jaak Truu, Dr. Marika Truu, Mrs. Teele Ligi and Mr. Kristjan Oopkaup to the perspective microbiological study.

References

  1. Alm, J., Shurpali, N. J., Minkkinen, K., Aro, L., Hytönen, J., Laurila, T., Lohila, A., Maljanen, M., Martikainen, P. J., Mäkiranta, P., Penttila, T., Saarnio, S., Silvan, N., Tuittila, E. S., & Laine, J. (2007). Emission factors and their uncertainty for the exchange of CO2, CH4 and N2O in Finnish managed peatlands. Boreal Environment Research, 12, 191–209.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, A. A., Palmer, P. I., Fraser, A., Reay, D. S., & Frankenberg, C. (2010). Large-scale controls of methanogenesis inferred from methane and gravity spaceborne data. Science, 327, 322–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, S. (1983). Nitrous-oxide emission from a soil under permanent grass – seasonal and diurnal fluctuations as influenced by manuring and fertilization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 15, 531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conen, F., Dobbie, K. E., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Predicting N2O emissions from agricultural land through related soil parameters. Global Change Biology, 6, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Couwenberg, J., & Fritz, C. (2012). Towards developing IPCC methane ‘emission factors’ for peatlands (organic soils). Mires and Peat, 10, 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. Couwenberg, J., Dommain, R., & Joosten, H. (2010). Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in south-east Asia. Global Change Biology, 16, 1715–1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Couwenberg, J., Thiele, A., Tanneberger, F., Augustin, J., Baerisch, 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
  8. Del Grosso, S. J., Parton, W. J., Mosier, A. R., Ojima, D. S., Kulmala, A. E., & Phongpan, S. (2000). General model for N2O and N2 gas emissions from soils due to denitrification. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 14, 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EPA. (2013). Wetland types. United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/types_index.cfm
  10. Farquharson, R., & Baldock, J. (2008). Concepts in modelling N2O emissions from land use. Plant and Soil, 309, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frenzel, P., & Karofeld, E. (2000). CH4 emission from a hollow-ridge complex in a raised bog: The role of CH4 production and oxidation. Biogeochemistry, 51, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodroad, L. L., & Keeney, D. R. (1984). Nitrous-oxide production in aerobic soils under varying pH, temperature and water-content. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 16, 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorham, E. (1991). Northern peatlands: Role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecological Applications, 1, 182–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray, A., Levy, P. E., Cooper, M. D. A., Jones, T., Gaiawyn, J., Leeson, S. R., Ward, S. E., Dinsmore, K. J., Drewer, J., Sheppard, L. J., Ostle, N. J., Evans, C. D., Burden, A., & Zieliński, P. (2013). Methane indicator values for peatlands: A comparison of species and functional groups. Global Change Biology, 19, 1141–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hergoualc’h, K. A., & Verchot, L. V. (2012). Changes in soil CH4 fluxes from the conversion of tropical peat swamp forests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 9, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC. (2013). 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Pre-publication version. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/wetlands.html
  17. Jones, C. M., Stres, B., Rosenquist, M., & Hallin, S. (2008). Phylogenetic analysis of nitrite, nitric oxide, and nitrous oxide respiratory enzymes reveal a complex evolutionary history for denitrification. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 25, 1955–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koponen, H. T., & Martikainen, P. J. (2004). Soil water content and freezing temperature affect freeze-thaw related N2O production in organic soil. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 69, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Mer, J., & Roger, P. (2001). Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of methane by soils: A review. European Journal of Soil Biology, 37, 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, C., Frolking, S., & Frolking, T. A. (1992). A model of nitrous oxide evolution from soil driven by rainfall events: 1. Model structure and sensitivity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 97, 9759–9776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ligi, T., Oopkaup, K., Truu, M., Preem, J.-K., Nõlvak, H., Mitsch, W. J., Mander, Ü., & Truu, J. (2014a). Characterization of bacterial communities in soil and sediment of a created riverine wetland complex using high-throughput 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Ecological Engineering.Google Scholar
  22. Ligi, T., Truu, M., Truu, J., Nõlvak, H., Kaasik, A., Mitsch, W. J., & Mander, Ü. (2014b). Effects of soil chemical characteristics and water regime on denitrification genes (nirS, nirK, and nosZ) abundances in a created riverine wetland complex. Ecological Engineering.Google Scholar
  23. Martikainen, P. J., Nykänen, H., Crill, P., & Silvola, J. (1993). Effect of a lowered water table on nitrous oxide fluxes from northern peatlands. Nature, 366, 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O., & Banks, C. J. (2010). Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Global Change Biology, 17, 798–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Regina, K., Nykänen, H., Silvola, J., & Martikainen, P. J. (1996). Fluxes of nitrous oxide from boreal peatlands as affected by peatland type, water table level and nitrification capacity. Biogeochemistry, 35, 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sabrekov, A. F., Glagolev, M. V., Kleptsova, I. E., Machida, T., & Maksyutov, S. S. (2013). Methane emission from mires of the West Siberian taiga. Eurasian Soil Science, 46, 1182–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt, U., Thöni, H., & Kaupenjohann, M. (2000). Using a boundary line approach to analyze N2O flux data from agricultural soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 57, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sjörs, H. (1981). The zonation of northern peatlands and their importance for the carbon balance of the atmosphere. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 7, 11–14.Google Scholar
  29. Stocker, T. F., Dahe, Q., & Plattner, G.-K. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Cambridge: IPCC, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Teiter, S., & Mander, Ü. (2005). Emission of N2O, N2, CH4, and CO2 from constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and from riparian buffer zones. Ecological Engineering, 25, 528–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Terry, R. E., Tate, R. L., & Duxbury, J. M. (1981). Nitrous-oxide emissions from drained, cultivated organic soils of South Florida. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 31, 1173–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Topp, C., Wang, W., Cloy, J., Rees, R., & Hughes, G. (2013). Information properties of boundary line models for N2O emissions from agricultural soils. Entropy, 15, 972–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Cleemput, O. (1998). Subsoils: Chemo-and biological denitrification, N2O and N2 emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 52, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang, W., & Dalal, R. (2010). Assessment of the boundary line approach for predicting N2O emission ranges from Australian agricultural soils. In 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World (pp. 1–6). Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Weier, K. L., Doran, J. W., Power, J. F., & Walters, D. T. (1993). Denitrification and the dinitrogen/nitrous oxide ratio as affected by soil water, available carbon, and nitrate. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 57, 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaan Pärn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anto Aasa
    • 1
  • Sergey Egorov
    • 1
  • Ilya Filippov
    • 2
  • Geofrey Gabiri
    • 3
    • 4
  • Iuliana Gheorghe
    • 5
  • Järvi Järveoja
    • 1
  • Kuno Kasak
    • 1
  • Fatima Laggoun-Défarge
    • 6
  • Charles Kizza Luswata
    • 4
  • Martin Maddison
    • 1
  • William J. Mitsch
    • 7
  • Hlynur Óskarsson
    • 8
  • Stéphanie Pellerin
    • 9
  • Jüri-Ott Salm
    • 1
    • 10
  • Kristina Sohar
    • 1
  • Kaido Soosaar
    • 1
  • Alar Teemusk
    • 1
  • Moses M. Tenywa
    • 4
  • Jorge A. Villa
    • 6
  • Christina Vohla
    • 1
  • Ülo Mander
    • 1
    • 11
  1. 1.Institute of Ecology and Earth SciencesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.UNESCO Chair of Environmental Dynamics and Climate ChangeYugra State UniversityKhanty-MansiyskRussian
  3. 3.Department of GeographyKenyatta UniversityNairobiKenya
  4. 4.Department of Agricultural Production, College of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesMakerere UniversityKampalaUganda
  5. 5.Faculty of Ecology and Environmental ProtectionEcological University of BucharestBucharestRomania
  6. 6.Institut des Sciences de la Terre d’OrléansCNRS-Université d’OrléansOrléansFrance
  7. 7.Everglades Wetland Research Park, Kapnick CenterFlorida Gulf Coast UniversityFort MyersUSA
  8. 8.Faculty of Environmental SciencesAgricultural University of IcelandBorgarnesIceland
  9. 9.Institut de recherche en biologie végétaleUniversité de Montréal, Jardin botanique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  10. 10.Department of GeographyEstonian Fund for NatureTartuEstonia
  11. 11.Hydrosystems and Bioprocesses Research UnitNational Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (Irstea)Antony CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations