DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

1

CHAPTER 2

2
3

DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS

4
5

Coordinating Lead Authors

6

Matthias Drösler (Germany), Louis V. Verchot (USA), Annette Freibauer (Germany) and Genxing Pan (China)

7

Lead Authors

8910

Christopher David Evans (UK), Richard A. Bourbonniere (Canada), Jukka P. Alm (Finland), Susan Page (UK),Fahmuddin Agus (Indonesia), Kristell Hergoualc'h (France), John Couwenberg (EC/WI/Germany/Netherlands),
Jyrki Jauhiainen (Finland), Supiandi Sabiham (Indonesia) and Changke Wang (China)

11

Contributing Authors

12
13
14

Nalin Srivastava (TFI TSU), Laura Borgeau-Chavez (USA), Aljosja Hooijer (The Netherlands), Kari Minkkinen(Finland), Nancy French (USA), Tara Strand (USA/New Zealand), Andrey Sirin (Russian Federation), RobertMickler (USA), Kevin Tansey (UK) and Narasimhan Larkin (USA)15

Review Editors

16

David Pare (Canada), Bernard Siska (Slovakia) and Iman Rusmana (Indonesia)

17

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.1

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

18

Contents

19

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................420

2.2 Land Remaining in a Land-use Category ..........................................................................................................5

21

2.2.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ......................................................5

22

2.2.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ............................................1723

2.3 Land Converted to a New Land-use Category .................................................................................................39

24

2.2.3

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ....................................................39

25

2.2.4

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ............................................41

26
27

Annex 2A.1 Scientific background for developing CO2-C emission/removal factors for organic soil from thescientific literature in Table 2.1..............................................................................................................................43

28

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors ......................................................................................45

29

Annex 2A.3

Derivation of DOC emission factors .............................................................................................47

30
31

Annex 2A.4 Derivation of CO2-C and non-CO2 emission factors for emissions from burning of drainedorganic soils from scientific literature in Tables 2.6 and 2.7..................................................................................52

32
33

Appendix 2a.1 Estimation for Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) and Dissolved Inorganic Carbon(DIC) loss from peatlands and drained organic soils: Basis for future methodological development 54

34
35

Equations

36
37
38

Equation 2.1 Annual carbon stock changes for a stratum of a land-use category as a sum of changes in all pools(Equation 2.3 in the Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines) ........................................................................539

Equation 2.1 CO2-C emissions/removals by drained inland organic soils ...............................................................640
41Equation 2.3 Annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils excluding emissions
from fires ..................................................................................................................................................................7

42

Equation 2.4 Annual off-site CO2 emissions due to DOC loss from drained organic soils (CO2) .........................15

43

Equation 2.5 Emission factor for annual CO2 emissions due to DOC export from drained organic soils..............15

44

Equation 2.6 Annual CH4 emission from drained organic soils .............................................................................18

45

Equation 2.7 Direct N2O emissions from managed organic soils ..........................................................................26

46

Equation 2.8 Annual CO2-C and non-CO2 emissions from organic soil fire..........................................................32

47

Equation 2a.1 Calculation of POC export from drained organic soils ...................................................................54

48

Figures49

Figure 2.1

Summary of fluxes from drained inland organic soils......................................................................5

50
51

Generic decision tree for identification of the appropriate tier to estimate greenhouse gas
Figure 2.2
emissions from fires on organic soils .....................................................................................................................33

52

2.2

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

53

Tables54

Table 2.1 Tier 1 CO2 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories** ...................955

Table 2.2 Default DOC emission factors for drained organic soils ........................................................................1656

Table 2.3 Tier 1 CH4 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils (EFCH4_land) in all land-use categories ..21

57

Table 2.4 Default CH4 emission factors for drainage ditches ................................................................................25

58

Table 2.5 Tier 1 Direct N2O emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories ..........28

59
60

Table 2.6 Organic soil fuel consumption values (mass of dry matter for a range of organic soil and fire types, tobe used in conjunction with equation 2.8, to estimate the product of quantities MB and Cf) .................................35

61
62

Table 2.7 Emission factors (g kg-1 dry matter burned) for organic soil fires. Values are means ± 95% CI (To beused as quantity Gef in Equation 2.8) .....................................................................................................................36

63
64

Table 2A.3 DOC concentration (above) or flux (below) comparisons between drained and undrained organicsoils, used to derive default value for DOCDRAINAGE...........................................................................................50

65
66
67

Boxes
Box 2.1 Recent advances in satellite-derived fire products....................................................................................38

68

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.3Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

69

2.1

INTRODUCTION

70
71
72
73
74
75

Organic soils are defined in Chapter 3 Annex 3A.5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Section 5, Chapter 1,
section 5 of this Wetlands Supplement. The guidance in this Chapter applies to all organic soils that have been
drained, i.e., drainage of lands that started in the past and that still persists, or newly drained lands within thereporting period. This means that the water table level is at least temporarily below natural levels. Within eachland-use category water table level is manipulated to varying degrees depending on land-use purpose, e.g., forcultivating cereals, rice, or for aquaculture, which can be reflected by different drainage classes.

76
77This Chapter deals with inland organic soils, which do not meet the definition of “coastal” defined in Chapter 4of this Wetlands Supplement.

78
79
80
81
82

This Chapter provides supplementary guidance on estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals fromdrained inland organic soils in the following land-use categories as defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume
4: Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Chapter 5 (Cropland), Chapter 6 (Grassland), Chapter 7 (Wetlands), Chapter 8(Settlements) and Chapter 9 (Other Land). Managed coastal organic soils are covered in Chapter 4 of thisSupplement. Rewetted organic soils are considered in Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement.

83
84
85
86
87

This Chapter clarifies Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by summarizing all emission factors andharmonizing the methods for organic soils in all land-use types. On the basis of recent advances in scientificinformation, this Chapter also updates, improves, and completes methodologies and emission factors forgreenhouse gas emissions and removals of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and fills gaps where new scientificknowledge allows implementation of robust methodologies and use of better emission factors at the Tier 1 level.

88

This Chapter updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for:

89
90



CO2 emissions and removals from drained organic soils (referring to Chapters 4 to 9, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC
Guidelines);91CH4 emissions from drained organic soils (referring to Chapter 7, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines);92

N2O emissions from drained organic soils (referring to Chapter 11, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

93

This Chapter gives new guidance not contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by:

94
95



providing methodologies and emission factors for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches (referring to
Chapters 4 to 9, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines);

96
97
98



providing methodologies and emission factors for off-site CO2 emissions associated with dissolved organiccarbon (DOC) release from organic soils to drainage waters (referring to Chapters 4 to 9, Volume 4, 2006
IPCC Guidelines);99providing methodologies and emission factors for CO2, CH4 and CO emissions from peat fires

100
101
102
103

The chapter also contains an appendix that provides the basis for future methodological development for
estimating CO2 emissions associated with other forms of waterborne carbon loss, specifically particulate organiccarbon (POC) and dissolved inorganic carbon (referring to Chapters 4 to 9)., Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
All fluxes are summarized in Figure 2.1.

104

2.4

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

105

Figure 2.1

Summary of fluxes from drained inland organic soils

106

107
108

2.2

109

LAND REMAINING IN A LAND-USE
CATEGORY

110
111
112

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide guidance for carbon stock changes in the carbon pools in above-ground andbelow-ground biomass, dead wood and litter as well as soil for managed land on organic soils. This Chapter
updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for the soil organic carbon pool in organic soils.

113

2.2.1

114

CO 2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils

115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125

This section deals with the impacts of drainage and management on CO2 emissions and removals from organicsoils due to organic matter decomposition and loss of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in drainage waters. DOC
losses lead to off-site CO2 emissions. There are also erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) andwaterborne transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from autotrophic andheterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. At present the science and available data are not sufficient toprovide guidance on CO2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes; Appendix 2a.1
provides a basis for future methodological development in this area. General information and guidance for
estimating changes in soil carbon stocks are provided in in Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines which needs to be read before proceeding with the guidance provided here. This guidance is based on
the observation that in drained inland organic soils, emissions persist as long as the soil remains drained or as
long as organic matter remains (Wösten et al., 1997; Deverel and Leighton, 2010).

126
127
128
129

Equation 2.3 in Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines refers to annual carbon stock changes for a stratumof a land-use category as a sum of changes in all pools. This section addresses the stratum of a land-use categoryon drained inland organic soils. The Equation is repeated here as Equation 2.1 to demonstrate how the guidancein this Wetlands Supplement links to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

130
131
132
133
134

EQUATION 2.1
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR A STRATUM OF A LAND-USE CATEGORY AS A SUM OF

135

C LU i  C AB  C BB  C DW  C LI  C SO  C HWP

CHANGES IN ALL POOLS(EQUATION 2.3 IN THE CHAPTER 2, VOLUME 4, 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES)

136
137
138

Where:ΔCLUi = carbon stock changes for a stratum of a land-use category

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.5Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
139

Subscripts denote the following carbon pools:

140

AB = above-ground biomass

141

BB = below-ground biomass

142

DW = dead wood143

LI = litter

144

SO = soils

145

HWP = harvested wood products

146
147
148

The guidance for the carbon pools above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, deadwood, litter andharvested wood products in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is not further dealt with in these guidelines.

149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

This section of the Wetlands Supplement updates and complements the guidance on drained inland organic soils
component of ΔCSO, which was called Lorganic in Equation 2.24, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. For transparent distinction between drained and rewetted organic soils, the term is further specified
as CO2-Corganic, drained in Equation 2.2. CO2-Corganic, drained consists of on-site CO2 emissions/removals of theorganic soil from mineralization and sequestration processes (CO2-Csoil-onsite), off-site CO2 emissions fromleached carbon from the organic soil (CO2-CDOC) and anthropogenic peat fires (Lfire). Countries are encouraged toconsider particulate organic carbon (POC) when using higher tier methodologies (see Appendix 2a.1). CO2
emissions from peat fires have not been explicitly addressed in Equation 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, but can be important on drained inland organic soils. Therefore, CO2 emissions from peat fires
are included in Equation 2.2 as Lfire (Section 2.2.2.3).

159
160
161

EQUATION 2.1
CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS BY DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS162

CO2  Corganic ,drained  CO2  Con  site  CO2  C DOC  L fire

163

Where:

164

CO2-Corganic, drained = CO2-C emissions/removals by drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

165

CO2-Con-site = CO2-C emissions/removals by drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

166
167

CO2-CDOC = CO2-C emissions from dissolved organic carbon exported from drained organic soils, tonnes
C yr-1168

Lfire = CO2-C emissions from burning of drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

169

2.2.1.1

170

ON - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS / REMOVALS FROM DRAINEDINLAND ORGANIC SOILS (CO 2 -C O N - S I T E )This section gives supplementary guidance for CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils inall land-use categories as defined in Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The IPCC
land-use categories are discussed in Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Chapter 5 (Cropland), Chapter 6 (Grassland),
Chapter 7 (Wetlands), Chapter 8 (Settlements) and Chapter 9 (Other Land). Flooded Lands (Chapter 7) are notincluded in this Wetlands Supplement.

171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180

Guidance is given for CO2 emissions from the soil carbon pool in drained organic soils in line with the Section
3.3., Chapter 2, Volume 4 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Guidance for changes in the carbon pools in aboveground and below-ground biomass, dead wood, and litter on these lands is provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
and remains unchanged.

181

CHOICE OF METHOD

182
183
184

The most important factors considered for estimating on-site CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils are land-use and climate. Other factors such as nutrient status (or fertility) of the soil and drainage
level affect emissions and can be considered where appropriate and with higher Tier methods. It is good practice

2.6

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

185
186
187

to stratify land-use categories by climate domain (Table 4.1 , Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines),
nutrient status (GPG-LULUCF and Section 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) anddrainage class (shallow or deep) according to the stratification in Table 2.1.

188
189
190

Nutrient status is defined in GPG-LULUCF and 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7, Volume).
Generally, ombrogenic organic soils are characterized as nutrient poor, while minerogenic organic soils arecharacterized as nutrient rich. This broad characterization may vary by peatland type or national circumstances.

191
192
193

Drainage class is defined as the mean annual water table averaged over a period of several years; the shallowdrained class is defined as the mean annual water table depth of less than 30 cm below the surface; the deepdrained class is defined as the mean annual water table depth of 30 cm and deeper below the surface.

194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203

For Tier 1 methods, if the typical range of mean annual water table levels of drained inland organic soils for eachland-use category is unknown, the default is that the organic soil is deep-drained (water-table depth is specificfor land-use categories and climate domains) because deep-drained conditions are the most widespread andsuitable for a wide range of management intensities. Higher Tier methods could further differentiate the drainage
intensity within land-use categories if there are significant areas which differ from the default deep-drained
conditions.

204
205
206
207
208
209

Figure 2.5 in, Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides the decision tree for
identification of the appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions from drained inland organic soils by land-use
category.

Tier 1The basic methodology for estimating annual carbon loss from drained inland organic soils was presented in
Section 2.3.3 and Equation 2.26 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines as further specified in Equation 2.2.
Equation 2.3 refers to CO2-Con-site in Equation 2.2 with stratification of land-use categories by climate domain
and nutrient status. Nutrient status and drainage classes only need to be differentiated for those land-use
categories and climate domains for which emission factors are differentiated in Table 2.1.

210
211
212

EQUATION 2.3
ANNUAL ON-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILSEXCLUDING EMISSIONS FROM FIRES

CO 2 C on site    A  EF 
c ,n ,d213
214

c ,n ,dWhere:

215
216

CO2-Con-site = Annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils in a land-use
category, tonnes C yr-1

217
218

A = Land area of drained inland organic soils in a land-use category in climate domain c, nutrient status n,and drainage class d, ha

219
220

EF = Emission factors for drained inland organic soils, by climate domain c, nutrient status n, anddrainage class d, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228

The Tier 2 approach for CO2 emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils incorporates country-specificinformation in Equations 2.2 and 2.3 to estimate the CO2 emissions/removals. Tier 2 uses the same procedural
steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1. Improvements to the Tier 1 approach may include: 1) a derivation ofcountry-specific emission factors; 2) specification of climate sub-domains considered suitable for refinement ofemission factors; 3) a finer, more detailed classification of management systems with a differentiation of landuse intensity classes; 4) a differentiation by drainage classes; or 5) a finer, more detailed classification of nutrient
status, e.g., by nitrogen, phosphorus or pH.

229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236

It is good practice to derive country-specific emission factors if measurements representing the national
circumstances are available. Methodologies and measurement techniques shall be compatible with the scientificbackground for the Tier 1 emission factors in Annex 2A.1. Moreover, it is good practice for countries to use afiner classification for climate and management systems, in particular drainage classes, if there are significant
differences in measured carbon loss rates among these classes. Note that any country-specific emission factor
must be accompanied by sufficient national or regional land-use/management activity and environmental data to
represent the appropriate climate sub-domains and management systems for the spatial domain for which thecountry-specific emission factor is applied.

237

The general guidance of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 also applies here.

Tier 2DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.7

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246

CO2 emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils can be estimated with model and/or measurement
approaches. Dynamic, mechanistic models will typically be used to simulate underlying processes while
capturing the influence of land-use and management, particularly the effect of seasonally variable levels ofdrainage on decomposition (van Huissteden et al., 2006). The general considerations for organic soils in the
Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines also apply here. It is good practice to describe
the methodologies and models transparently, document the considerations for choosing and applying the modelin the inventory and provide evidence that it represents the national circumstances according to the guidance inSection 5, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

247

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258

Tier 1

259
260
261

The GPG-LULUCF and 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7, Volume 4) distinguish between
nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils in some land-use categories and climate zones. This approach ismaintained here, in line with guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

262
263
264
265
266

Default Tier 1 emission/removal factors for drained inland organic soils (Table 2.1) were generated using a
combination of subsidence and flux data found in the literature as described in Annex 2A.1. CO2-C losses occur
predominantly in the drained, oxic soil layer and thus reflect human-induced CO2-C fluxes. The part of the soil
profile affected by drainage can be deeper or shallower than the default 0 to 30 cm layer considered in the Tier 1
default methodology for SOC pools in mineral soils.

267.

Tier 3

All Tier 1 emission factors have been updated from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines based on a large number of new
measurement data in all land-use categories and climate zones. The new evidence allows for stratification of
more land-use categories and climate domains by nutrient status than in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. In addition,
temperate, nutrient-rich Grassland is further stratified into shallow-drained (less than approximately 30 cm below
surface) and deep-drained. Within each land-use category, drained inland organic soils can experience a wide
range of mean annual water table levels that depend upon regional climatic characteristics and specific land-use
activity or intensity. For temperate Grassland EFs are given for shallow-drained and deep-drained soils. The
shallow-drained and deep-drained Grassland emission factors differ significantly. Without additional national
information about mean annual water table and/or land-use intensity as proxy, countries should choose deepdrained as default.

2.8

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

268
TABLE 2.1
TIER 1 CO2 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES**
Land-use category

Climate /vegetation
zone

Nutrient-poor

BorealEmission
Factor**(tonnes CO2-C
ha-1 yr-1)

0.39

95% ConfidenceInterval

0.0

0.86

No. of sites

64

Komulainen et al.,1999; Lohila et al.,2011; Minkkinen & Laine, 1998;
Minkkinen et al., 1999; Ojanen et al,.
2010, 2013; Simola et al., 2012

Forest Land, drained
Nutrient-rich

Forest Land, drained

Citations/comments

Boreal

1.0

0.68

1.3

78

Komulainen et al., 1999; Laurila et al.,2007 ; Lohila et al., 2007; Mäkiranta etal., 2007; Minkkinen & Laine, 1998;
Minkkinen et al., 1999, 2007b; Ojanen etal., 2010, 2013; Simola et al., 2012

Temperate

2.6

2.0

3.3

8

Glenn et al., 1993; Minkkinen et al.,2007b; Von Arnold et al., 2005a,b,
Yamulki et al., 2013
Ali et al., 2006; Brady, 1997; Chimner &Ewel, 2005; Comeau et al.,2013; Dariah
et al., 2013; Darung et al., 2005;
Furukawa et al., 2005; Hadi et al., 2005;
Harisson et al., 2007; Hergoualc’h &Verchot, 2011; Hertel et al., 2009;
Hirano et al., 2009, 2012; Inubushi et al.,
2003; Ishida et al., 2001; Jauhiainen etal., 2008, 2012a; Melling et al., 2005a,
2007a; Rahaoje et al., 2000; Shimamura& Momose, 2005; Sulistiyanto, 2004;
Sundari et al., 2012
Basuki et al., 2012; Hooijer et al., 2012;
Jauhiainen et al., 2012a; Nouvellon et al.,2012; Warren et al., 2012

Forest Land and cleared Forest Land (shrubland***), drained

Tropical

5.3

-0.7

9.5

n/a

Forest plantations, drained****Tropical

20

16

24

n/a

Grassland, drained

Boreal

5.7

2.9

8.6

8

Grønlund et al., 2006; Kreshtapova &Maslov, 2004; Lohila et al., 2004;
Maljanen et al., 2001a, 2004; Nykänen
et al., 1995; Shurpali et al., 2009

Grassland, drained, nutrient-poor

Temperate

5.3

3.7

6.9

7

Kuntze, 1992; Drösler et al., 2013

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.9Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

Grassland, deep-drained, nutrient- richTemperate

6.1

5.0

7.3

39

Augustin, 2003; Augustin et al., 1996;
Czaplak & Dembek, 2000; Drösler et al.,2013; Elsgaard et al., 2012; Jacobs et al.,
2003; Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 1997;
Langeveld et al., 1997; Leifeld et al.,2011; Lorenz et al., 2002; Meyer et al.,
2001; Nieveen et al., 2005; Okruszko
1989 (Höper, 2002); Schothorst, 1977
(Höper, 2002), Schrier-Uijl, 2010a, c;
Veenendaal et al.,2007; Weinzierl, 1997
(Höper, 2002)

Grassland, shallow drained, nutrient-richTemperate

3.6

1.8

5.4

13

Drösler et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2003 ;Lloyd, 2006

Grassland, drained

Tropical

9.6

4.5

17

n/a.

Updated from Table 6.3, Chapter 6,
Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines *****

39

Drösler et al., 2013; Elsgaard et al.,2012, Grønlund et al., 2008, KasimirKlemedtsson et al., 1997; Leifeld et al.,2011; Maljanen et al., 2001a, 2003a,
2004, 2007a; Morrison et al., 2013b,
Petersen et al. 2012n/a

Ali et al., 2006; Chimner, 2004; Chimner& Ewel, 2004; Dariah et al., 2013;
Darung et al., 2005; Furukawa et al.,2005; Gill and Jackson, 2000; Hairiah etal., 2000; Hirano et al., 2009; Ishida etal., 2001; Jauhiainen et al., 2012;
Melling et al., 2007a;n/aDariah et al., 2013; Furukawa et al.,2005; Hadi et al., 2005; Hairiah et al.,
1999; Inubushi et al., 2003; Ishida et al.,
2001; Matthews et al., 2000; Melling etal., 2007an/aComeau et al., 2013; Dariah et al., 2013;
DID and LAWOO, 1996; Henson and
Dolmat, 2003; Couwenberg, and Hooijer
2013; Lamade and Bouillet, 2005;
Marwanto and Agus, 2013; Melling etal., 2005a, 2007a, 2013; Warren et al.,
2012

n/a

Dariah et al., 2013; Hairiah et al., 1999;
Ishida et al., 2001; Lamade and Bouillet,
2005; Matthews et al., 2000; Melling etal., 2005a, 2007a; Watanabe et al., 2009

Cropland, drained

Cropland and fallow, drained

Cropland, drained – paddy rice

Agriculture – oil palm

Agriculture – sago palm (shallow drained)

2.10

Boreal &Temperate

TropicalTropicalTropicalTropical

7.9

14

9.4

11

1.5

6.5

6.6

-0.2

5.6

-2.3

9.4

26

20

17

5.4

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

Peatland Managed for Extraction

Boreal &Temperate

2.8

1.1

4.2

21

Ahlholm and Silvola 1990; Glatzel et al.,2003, Hargreaves et al., 2003; McNeil
and Waddington 2003; Shurpali et al.,2008; Strack and Zuback 2013; Sundh etal., 2000; Tuittila and Komulainen, 1995;
Tuittila et al., 1999; 2004, Waddington etal., 2010

Peat Extraction

Tropical

2.0

0.06

7.0

n/a.

Table 7.4, Chapter 7, Volume 4, 2006
IPCC Guidelines

Settlements

All climate
zones

Other LandAll climate
zones

There is no fixed default emission/removal factor for Settlement. It is good practice to take the default
emission/removal factor in Table 2.1 of the land-use category that is closest to the national conditionsof drained organic soils under Settlements. Information about national conditions could include
drainage level, vegetation cover, or other management activities. For example, drained organic soils inurban green areas, parks or gardens could use the default Tier 1 emission/removal factor for Grassland,
deep-drained in Table 2.1.
Other Land Remaining Other Land: 0
Land Converted to Other Land: Maintain emission factor of previous land-use category** Mean*** Shrubland refers to any type of land sparsely or fully covered with shrubs or trees, which may or may not fulfil the national forest definition. It extends to degraded lands, which cannot be clearly classified asforest or non-forest.
**** Number derived solely from Acacia plantation data.
***** The emission factor for Cropland in the tropical zone was multiplied with the ratio between the emission factors for Grassland, drained, nutrient-poor and Cropland for the temperate zone; same for confidence
interval. This new ratio updates the ratio applied to derive the emission factor for Grassland in the tropical zone in Table 6.3, Chapter 6, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

269
270

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.11

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
271
272
273
274

Common tropical plantations include oil palm, sago and Acacia crassicarpa. In Table 2.1, plantations for foodand oil crops like sago and oil palm are classified under Cropland, while fibre plantations like Acacia areclassified as Forest Land. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national land-use category
according to the national forest definition.

275
276
277
278
279

Tier 2

280
281
282
283

Tier 2 emission factors could include the following refinements:Use of country specific emission factors measured or calculated locally taking into account climatic factorsthat provide for wetter or drier drainage classes than those defined here;

284
285



Use of country specific emission factors measured or calculated locally taking into account slope factors(e.g., blanket bogs) that may promote wetter or drier drainage classes than those defined here;

286
287



Derivation of emission factors for boreal Forest Land by nutrient status (rich/poor) if the two EFs are
significantly different (See Table 2.1);

288
289
290
291



Development of boreal and temperate Grassland emission factors according to land-use intensity, forexample to distinguish high-intensity (fertilized, ploughed and reseeded) Grassland from low-intensity
permanent Grassland, or moorland rough grazing (grazing by hardier breeds of sheep) on drained blanket
bogs.

292
293

CO2 measurements by methods described in Annex 2A.1, disaggregated by management practices, should be
used to develop more precise, locally appropriate emission factors.

294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303

Tier 3

304
305
306
307
308
309
310

When peat is extracted, the peatland surface is disturbed by machinery and may be fertilized afterwards orotherwise amended for regeneration. Moreover, drainage systems may be renewed and dredging of ditches may
cause disturbances that alter the greenhouse gas emissions and removals. These measures result inemission/removal rates that vary predictably over time, which may in Tier 3 methods be captured by models
used. Emissions from stockpiles of drying peat are much more uncertain. Higher temperatures may cause
stockpiles to release more CO2 than the excavation field, but data are not at present sufficient to provide
guidance. Methods for estimating this emission may be developed at Tier 3.

311

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321

All management practices for land remaining in a land-use category are assumed to result in persistent emissions
from soils as long as the management system remains in place or as long as the land falls under the definition oforganic soils. Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on organic soils stratified byclimate domains, soil nutrient status, drainage class or additional criteria such as management practices. Total
areas should be determined according to approaches laid out in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and should be consistent with those reported under other sections of the inventory. The estimation of
CO2 emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils will be greatly facilitated if this information can beused in conjunction with national soils and climate data, vegetation inventories, and other biophysical data.
Stratification of land-use categories according to climate domains, based on default or country-specificclassifications can be accomplished with overlays of land-use on suitable climate and soil maps.

322
323

Under most circumstances, the area of organic soils will remain constant over time. However, the area oforganic soils may change as organic soil disappears following drainage.

The Tier 2 approach for carbon loss from drained inland organic soils incorporates country-specific informationin Equation 2.2 to estimate the emissions. Also, Tier 2 uses the same procedural steps for calculations asprovided for Tier 1. Tier 2 emission factors by land-use category can, in general, be developed depending on a)
climate, b) drainage layout and intensity, c) nutrient status and d) land-use intensity and practices.

A Tier 3 approach allows for a variety of methods and might use measurements or process-based models or othermore elaborate approaches, adequately validated using observation data that take into account temporal andspatial variations. Tier 3 should involve a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of
CO2 emissions and removals on managed organic soils, including the effect of management practices, sitecharacteristics, peat type and depth, drainage depth, etc. Tier 3 approaches could start by developing
relationships between drainage or nutrient status and heterotrophic CO2 emissions, which can be further refinedby land-use category and fertilization. Furthermore, forested organic soils undergo a cycle related to rotation of
the tree cohorts and carbon losses associated with harvesting and site preparation should be accounted. Models
could describe the rotational variation in water tables.

2.12

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

324
325
326
327
328

Tier 1

329
330
331

Several institutions, including ISRIC and FAO have country-specific and global maps that include organic soils(http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home or http://www.isric.org/). A global consortium has been
formed to make a new digital soil map of the world at fine resolution (http://www.globalsoilmap.net/).

332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340

The GPG-LULUCF and 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7, Volume 4) distinguish between
nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils in some land-use categories and climate zones. This approach ismaintained here, in line with guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Nutrient-poor organic soils predominate inboreal regions, while in temperate regions nutrient-rich organic soils are more common. It is good practice thatboreal countries that do not have information on areas of nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils should use
the emission factor for nutrient-poor organic soils. It is good practice that temperate countries that do not havesuch data use the emission factor for nutrient-rich organic soils. Only one default factor is provided for tropicalregions, so disaggregating by soil fertility is not necessary in the tropical climate zone using the Tier 1 method.
Due to lack of data, rice fields on tropical organic soils are not disaggregated by water management regimes.

341
342
343
344
345

The areas of shallow-drained and deep-drained inland organic soils with Grasslands need to be derived fromnational data. Data from water management plans, such as target water table levels can serve as a source of
information. Land-use intensity, e.g., the time of the first cut of Grassland, grazing intensity or animal productionlevels can serve as a proxy as well as restrictions imposed by water management or biodiversity management(e.g. riparian zones, buffer zones, nature conservation for species or habitats with typical water regime).

346
347

Without additional national information about mean annual water table and/or land-use intensity as proxy,countries should choose deep-drained as the default.

348
349
350
351
352
353
354

Tier 2 and 3

355
356
357
358

The combination of land-use databases and soil maps or spatially explicit data allow delineation of combinationsof land-use categories, climate domains, drainage classes and management systems and their changes over timeon organic soils. Data and their documentation could combine information from a land-use transition matrix
specifically made for organic soils. Stratification needs to be consistently applied across the entire time series.

359

Information sources about drainage with adequate disaggregation may include:

360
361



National land-use statistics, land-use maps and soil maps, maps of water and nature conservation zones withrestrictions for water management, wetlands.

362
363
364
365
366



National water management statistics: in most countries, the agricultural land base including Cropland isusually surveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land-uses, crops, tillage practices andother aspects of management, often at sub-national regional level. These statistics may originate, in part,from remote sensing methods, from which additional information about wetness or periods with seasonal
flooding could be extracted.

367
368
369
370
371



Inventory data from a statistically-based, plot-sampling system of water table wells, ditches and surface
waters on organic soils: water table is monitored at specific permanent sample plots either continuously oron plots that are revisited on a regular basis. It has to be documented that the water data represent the watertable in the organic soil and for what land-use and drainage stratum and that the data cover a representative
period, which represents a multi-year mean annual water table.

372



Water management plans and documentation from water management installations.

373



Drainage maps.

374

Maps of rewetting projects including remote sensing.

The Tier 1 approach requires area data of managed land with organic soils for each land-use category,
disaggregated by appropriate climate domains, nutrient status and drainage class as applicable. Classification
systems for activity data that form the basis for a Tier 1 inventory are provided in the respective land-use
chapters of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Activity data for higher Tier estimates are generally derived following the methods presented in Chapter 3 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines Activity data may be spatially explicit and could be disaggregated by type ofmanagement, drainage depth, and/or nutrient status to improve the accuracy of the inventory if different land
management systems use different drainage depths and/or nutrient levels, and if appropriate emissions factors areavailable. In general, practices that increase carbon stocks in mineral soils by increased organic material input(fertilization, liming, etc.) do not have a sequestration effect in drained organic soils.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.13

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
375

CALCULATION STEPS FOR TIER 1

376

The steps for estimating the direct loss of soil carbon from drained inland organic soils are as follows:

377
378
379
380

Step 1: Determine areas with drained inland organic soils under each land-use category for land remaining in aland use category, disaggregated by climate domain and other appropriate factors as outlined above. Where
needed for Tier 1 emission factors, land areas are further stratified by nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organicsoils. Temperate nutrient-rich Grassland is further stratified into shallow-drained and deep-drained classes.

381
382

Step 2: Assign the appropriate emission factor (EF) from Table 2.1 for annual losses of CO2 to each land-use
category, climate domain, nutrient status and drainage class stratum.

383

Step 3: Multiply each area with the appropriate emission factor using Equations 2.3.

384

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

385
386
387
388
389
390
391

Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in estimating emissions and removals in organic soils: 1) uncertainties
in land-use and management activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in the emission/removal factors forTier 1 or 2 approaches; and 3) model structure/parameter error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, ormeasurement error/sampling variability associated with Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. In general,
precision of an inventory is increased and confidence ranges are smaller with more sampling to estimate values
for land-use categories, while accuracy is more likely to be increased through implementation of higher Tiermethods that incorporate country-specific information.

392
393
394

For Tier 1, the default uncertainty level of emissions/removal factors is the 95% confidence interval in Table 2.1.
Countries developing specific emission factors for their inventories at higher tiers should assess the uncertaintyof these factors.

395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403

If using aggregate land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g., FAO data), the inventory agency may have toapply a default level of uncertainty for the land area estimates on organic soils (±20%; twice the uncertainty
estimate in Table 3.7 for mineral soils in the 2006 Guidelines). It is good practice for the inventory compiler toderive uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a default level of uncertainty.
Uncertainties in activity data may be reduced through a better monitoring system, such as developing or
extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing toprovide additional coverage. Uncertainties in activity data and emission/removal factors need to be combinedusing an appropriate method, such as simple error propagation equations. Details are given in Chapter 3, Volume
1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Chapter 5 of GPG-LULUCF.

404
405
406
407
408
409

Accuracy can be increased by deriving country-specific factors using a Tier 2 method or by developing a Tier 3
country-specific estimation system. The underlying basis for higher tier approaches will be measurements in the
country or neighbouring regions that address the effect of land-use and management on CO2 emissions/removals
from drained organic soils. In addition, uncertainties can be reduced through stratification by significant factors
responsible for within-country differences in land-use and management impacts, such as variation among climate
domains and/or organic soil types.

410

2.2.1.2

411

O FF - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS VIA WATERBORNE CARBONLOSSES FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS

412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419

Waterborne carbon comprises dissolved organic carbon (DOC), particulate organic carbon (POC), the dissolved
gases CO2 and CH4, and the dissolved carbonate species HCO3- and CO32-. Particulate inorganic carbon (PIC)
losses are negligible from organic soils. Collectively, waterborne carbon export can represent a major part of theoverall carbon budget of an organic soil, and in some cases can exceed the net land-atmosphere CO2 exchange(e.g., Billett et al., 2004; Rowson et al., 2010). It is therefore important that waterborne carbon is included influx-based (i.e., gain-loss) approaches for soil carbon estimation, to avoid systematic under-estimation of soil
carbon losses. Airborne (erosional) POC loss may also be significant where land-use leads to bare soil exposure,but few data exist to quantify this (see Appendix 2a.1).

420
421
422
423
424
425

Different forms of waterborne carbon have different sources, behaviour and fate, and different approaches are
therefore required to quantify the off-site CO2 emissions associated with each form. In most peatlands andorganic soils, DOC forms the largest component of waterborne carbon export (e.g., Urban et al., 1989; Dawson
et al., 2004; Jonsson et al., 2007; Dinsmore et al., 2010). DOC export can be affected by land-use, in particulardrainage (Wallage et al., 2006; Strack et al., 2008; Urbanová et al., 2011; Moore et al., 2013). It is reactive
within aquatic ecosystems and most DOC is thought to be ultimately converted to CO2 and emitted to the

2.14

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

426
427

atmosphere (see Annex 2A.2 for supporting discussion). Therefore, it is good practice to include DOC in fluxbased carbon estimation methods, and a Tier 1 methodology is described below.

428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435

Of the other forms of waterborne carbon, POC fluxes are typically very low from vegetated peatlands andorganic soils, but can become very large where bare organic soil becomes exposed, e.g., due to erosion, peat
extraction, burning and conversion to Cropland. Although it may be possible to estimate POC loss fluxes as afunction of bare soil exposure, high uncertainty remains regarding the reactivity and fate of POC exported fromorganic soils. Some POC is likely to be converted to CO2, but POC that is simply translocated from the soil
profile to other stable carbon stores, such as freshwater or marine sediments, may not lead to CO2 emissions. Dueto the uncertain fate of POC export, an estimation method is not presented at this time; current knowledge anddata needs to support POC estimation in future are described in Appendix 2a.1.

436
437
438
439
440
441
442

Gaseous CO2 and CH4 dissolved in water transported laterally from the organic soil matrix represent indirectly
emitted components of the total emission of these gases from the land surface. Dissolved CO2 in excess of
atmospheric pressure will also be degassed from drainage waters, whilst some dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC)
may be transported downstream. At present, available data are insufficient (particularly from drained organicsoils) to permit default emission factors to be derived. Additional information and future methodologicalrequirements to support full accounting of emissions associated with waterborne inorganic carbon are included inAppendix 2a.1.

443

CH OIC E OF M ETHOD

444
445

The basic methodology for estimating annual off-site CO2 emissions associated with waterborne carbon loss
from drained organic soils is presented in Equation 2.4:

446
447
448

EQUATION 2.4
ANNUAL OFF-SITE CO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC LOSS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (CO2)

CO 2 C DOC    A  EFDOC 

449

c ,n

450

c ,n

Where:

451

CO2-CDOC = Annual off-site CO2-C emissions due to DOC loss from drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

452

Ac, n = Land area of drained organic soils in a land-use category in climate zone c and nutrient status n, ha

453
454

EFDOCc,n = Emission factors for annual CO2 emissions due to DOC loss from drained organic soils, by
climate zone c and nutrient status n, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

455

EFDOC can be calculated from Equation 2.5:

456
457
458
459

EQUATION 2.5
EMISSION FACTOR FOR ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC EXPORT FROM DRAINED ORGANICSOILSEFDOC  DOC FLUX _ NATURAL  1  DOC DRAINAGE   Frac DOC CO2

460
461
462
463
464

Where:EFDOC = Emission factor for DOC from a drained site, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

465

DOCFLUX_NATURAL = Flux of DOC from natural (undrained) organic soil, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

466

DOCDRAINAGE = Proportional increase in DOC flux from drained sites relative to un-drained sites

467

FracDOC-CO2 = Conversion factor for proportion of DOC converted to CO2 following export from site

468
469
470
471
472

Because of the lack of data for other components of waterborne carbon fluxes and uncertainty about their sources
and/or fate, off-site CO2 emissions associated with waterborne carbon are only represented by DOC losses at thisstage. However, if in the future adequate data become available or if adequate data are available for higher tiers,
inventory compilers can expand Equation 2.4 to include POC and/or DIC (See section on methodologicalrequirements in Appendix 2a.1).

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.15

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
473

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTOR

474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482

Tier 1
A detailed description of the derivation of default values for Tier 1 is provided in Annex 2A.2. In summary,measurements show clear differentiation of natural DOC fluxes between boreal, temperate and tropical organicsoils, and Tier 1 emission factors therefore follow a broad classification based on climate zones. Annex 2A.2
provides details and data sources for the derivation of parameter values. Note that a single default value forDOCDRAINAGE is currently proposed for all organic soil/land-use types, based on data from a range of studies
undertaken in different climate zones. A substantial body of scientific evidence indicates a high conversion oforganic soil-derived DOC to CO2 in aquatic systems, on which basis a default FracDOC-CO2 value of 0.9 (± 0.1) is
proposed (see Annex 2A.2).
TABLE 2.2
DEFAULT DOC EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS
Climate zone

DOCFLUX_NATURAL( t C ha-1 yr-1)

Boreal0.08 (0.06-0.11)

Temperate
Tropical

0.21 (0.17-0.26)
0.57 (0.49-0.64)

DOCDRAINAGEa

EFDOC_DRAINED(t C ha-1yr-1)
0.12 (0.07-0.19)

0.60(0.43-0.78)

0.31 (0.19-0.46)
0.82 (0.56-1.14)

Values shown in parentheses represent 95% confidence intervals. For data sources and supporting references see Tables 2A.2 and 2A.3.
a
Due to the limited number of available studies, a single Tier 1 value for DOCDRAINAGE has been assigned to all soil types based on all
available comparisons of drained and undrained sites. For fens, there is more uncertainty associated with the estimation of DOC fluxchanges after drainage, therefore countries may choose to apply values of DOCFLUX_NATURAL given above (multiplied by FracDOC-CO2 but
assuming DOCDRAINAGE = 0) or to obtain direct measurements of the DOC flux from drained sites.

483
484
485
486
487

Tier 2488
489

Use of country-level measurements from natural organic soils to obtain accurate values of DOCFLUX-NATURAL
for that country, for example by developing specific values for raised bogs versus fens, or for blanket bogs;

490
491
492
493
494
495



Use of country-level data on the impacts of organic soil drainage on DOC flux to derive specific values of
DOCDRAINAGE that reflect local organic soil types, and the nature of drainage practices and subsequent landuse. If sufficient, robust, direct measurements are available from representative drained sites, these may be
used to estimate DOC fluxes from drained sites, replacing DOCFLUX_NATURAL in Equation 2.5. Specific DOC
flux estimates from drained organic soils in different land-use categories could also be considered wheredata support this level of stratification;

496
497
498



Use of alternative values for FracDOC-CO2 where evidence is available to estimate the proportion of DOC
exported from drained organic soils that is transferred to stable long-term carbon stores, such as lake or
marine sediments.

499
500
501
502
503
504

Tier 3

505
506
507
508

Guidance is not currently presented for the effects of land-use impacts other than drainage on DOC loss frompeatlands and organic soils, for example the effects of managed burning or intensity of agricultural use. However,these may be included in higher tier methods if sufficient evidence can be obtained to develop the associatedemission factors.

509

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

510

Tier 1

A Tier 2 approach for estimation of DOC may follow the Tier 1 methodology provided above, but should use
country–specific information where possible to refine the emission factors used. Possible refinements where
supporting data are available could include:

A Tier 3 approach might include the use of more detailed data to develop and apply process models that describe
DOC release as a function of vegetation composition, nutrient levels, land-use category, water table level andhydrology, as well as temporal variability in DOC release in the years following land-use change (e.g. initialdrainage) and on-going management activity (e.g., drain maintenance, forest management) (see Annex 3A.2,
Chapter 3).

2.16

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

511
512
513
514
515
516

Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on drained organic soils summarised byorganic soil type, climate zones and land-use type (specifically occurrence of drainage). Total areas should bedetermined according to Approaches laid out in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and should be consistent
with those reported under other sections of the inventory. They also need to be consistent with activity data foron-site CO2 emissions. For boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, additional data on annual mean
precipitation may be used to refine emission estimates, as shown in Table 2.2.

517
518
519
520
521
522
523

Tier 2 and 3
For higher Tier approaches, additional activity data requirements may include specific information on the landuse type associated with drained organic soils, and intensity of drainage. Use of a variable FracDOC-CO2 value at acountry level, or within a country, would require information on the characteristics of downstream river networks(e.g., water residence time, extent of lakes and reservoirs, lake sedimentation rates). A Tier 3 modelling approach
could include additional information on the timing of drainage, drain maintenance and land-management (e.g.,forest management, influence of fertiliser application rates on DOC production).

524

CALCULATION STEPS FOR TIER 1

525

The steps for estimating the off-site emissions from soil carbonon drained inland organic soils are as follows:

526
527

Step 1: Determine areas with drained inland organic soils under each land-use category for land remaining in aland-use category, disaggregated by climate domain and other appropriate factors as outlined above.

528
529

Step 2: Assign the appropriate values for DOCFLUX_NATURAL, DOCDRAINAGE FracDOC-CO2 from Table 2.2 for eachland-use category and climate domain.

530

Step 3: Calculate EFDOC for each land-use category using Equation 2.5

531
532

Step4: Multiply activity data by the emission factor for each land-use category and sum across land-use
categories.

533

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

534
535
536
537
538
539

Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in estimating off-site emissions and removals: 1) uncertainties in landuse and management activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in the emission/removal factors for Tier 1
or 2 approaches; and 3) uncertainties in the fraction of DOC that is emitted as CO2. In general, precision of an
inventory is increased and confidence ranges are smaller with more sampling to estimate values for thesecategories, while accuracy is more likely to be increased through implementation of higher tier methods thatincorporate country-specific information.

540
541
542
543
544
545
546

Uncertainties for land use and management activities are the same as for on-site emissions and will not be
repeated here. Uncertainty ranges (95% confidence intervals) are provided for DOC emission factors in Table 2.2.
These ranges are calculated from literature data in Annex 2A.2 based on observations from natural peatlands
used to derive values of DOCFLUX-NATURAL in each of the peat classes used (Table 2A.2); observations of
DOCDRAINAGE from published studies (Table 2A.3); and an uncertainty range for FracDOC-CO2 value of 0.8 to 1.0
as described above. These uncertainty ranges may be adapted or refined under Tier 2 if further sub-classificationaccording to land-use type or intensity is undertaken, based on additional measurement data.

547

2.2.2

548

Non-CO 2 emissions and removals from drained
inland organic soils

549
550
551

In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, CH4 emissions were assumed to be negligible from all drained organic soils. Herenew methodologies and emission factors are provided for soil CH4 emissions from drained organic soils anddrainage ditches (Section 2.2.2.1).

552

2.2.2.1

553

CH 4 emissions and removals from drained organic
soils

554
555
556
557

In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, CH4 emissions were assumed to be negligible from all drained organic soils.
However, recent evidence suggests that some CH4 emissions can occur from the drained land surface, and also
from the ditch networks constructed during drainage. Each of these emission pathways is considered here (Bestand Jacobs, 1997; Minkkinen and Laine 2006; Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011; Hyvönen et al., 2012).

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.17

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569

Drainage lowers the water table and exposes formerly saturated organic soil layers to oxidation and, as describedabove, increases CO2 emissions from the land surface. Drainage alters environmental factors such as temperature,
reduction–oxidation potential, and the amount of easily decomposable organic matter. Drainage also affects theactivity of methanogens and methanotrophs (Blodau, 2002; Treat et al., 2007). Drainage increases plant root
respiration and mitigates CH4 emission dramatically (Martikainen et al., 1995a; Strack et al., 2004; Hergoualc’hand Verchot, 2012) as the methanogenic bacteria thrive only in anoxic conditions. Shifts in vegetation withdominant aerenchymous species to other vegetation types will also reduce the transfer of methane from the soil
profile to the atmosphere (e.g., Tuittila et al., 2000). In general, when the organic soil is drained the natural
production of CH4 is reduced and organic soils may even become a CH4 sink, once methanotrophs dominate theCH4 cycle. As natural CH4 emissions are not included in the inventory, this emission reduction is not consideredwhen natural un-drained organic soils are being drained. However, for completeness any remaining CH4emission from the land surface of drained organic soils needs to be included in inventories.

570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577

Ditch networks provide a further source of CH4 emissions from drained organic soils. This occurs due to a
combination of lateral CH4 transfer from the organic soil matrix, and in-situ CH4 production within the ditches
themselves (e.g., Roulet and Moore, 1995; Van den Pol 1999c; Van Dasselaar et al., 1999a; Sundh et al., 2000;
Minkkinen and Laine, 2006; Teh et al., 2011; Vermaat et al., 2011). These emissions may approach, or evenexceed, the CH4 flux from an undrained organic soil when averaged over the land surface (Roulet and Moore,
1995; Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011). Emission/removal factors for ditch CH4 emissions were compiled from available
published literature (See Annex 2A.1). We present only general factors for ditches because of limited data.
Effects of ditch maintenance, deepening etc. may be addressed at higher Tiers.

578

CHOICE OF METHOD

579
580
581
582
583
584

Tier 1

585
586
587
588
589

Ditch CH4 emissions should be quantified for any area of drained organic soil where there are ditches or drainage
canals (note that CH4 may also be emitted from ditches within re-wetted organic soils, where ditches remainpresent, although at Tier 1 it is assumed that this flux equates to that from the remainder of the re-wetted site; see
Chapter 3). Estimation of ditch CH4 emissions requires information on the land-use class and on the area of thelandscape occupied by the drainage ditch network, Fracditch.

590
591

EQUATION 2.6
ANNUAL CH4 EMISSION FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS

CH4 emissions from the land surface are estimated using a simple emission factor approach (See Equation 2.6),
depending on climate and type of land-use. The default methodology considers boreal, temperate and tropicalclimate zones and nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils. Different land-uses imply drainage to different
depths. The CH4 emission factors depend on gas flux measurements, either from closed chambers or (for landsurface emissions) from eddy covariance.



CH 4 _ organic   Ac ,n , p  1  Frac ditch   EFCH 4 _ land c ,n  Frac ditch  EFCH 4 _ ditchc , p

592



c ,n , p

593
594

Where:

595

CH4_organic = Annual CH4 loss from drained organic soils, kg CH4 yr-1

596
597

Ac,n,p= Land area of drained organic soils in a land-use category in climate zone c, nutrient status nand soil type p, ha

598
599

EFCH4_landc,n = Emission factors for direct CH4 emissions from drained organic soils, by climate zone cand nutrient status n, kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1

600
601

EFCH4_ditchc,p = Emission factors for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches, by climate zone c and soil typep, kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1

602
603

Fracditch = Fraction of the total area of drained organic soil which is occupied by ditches. The ditch area
may be calculated as the width of the ditches (from bank to bank) multiplied by their total length.

604
605
606
607
608

Tier 2The Tier 2 approach for CH4 emissions from drained organic soils incorporates country-specific information in
Equation 2.6 to estimate the emissions. Tier 2 uses the same procedural steps for calculations as provided forTier 1. Under Tier 2, the emission factors for CH4 from the surface of drained organic soils can be further
differentiated by drainage depth, land-use subcategories or vegetation type (such as presence or absence of plant

2.18

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

609
610

species that act as transporters of CH4 from the soil to the atmosphere). Guidance for further stratification
follows the principles given in Section 2.2.1.1 of this chapter.

611
612
613
614
615

Tier 2 approaches for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches generally follow the Tier 1 approach described above,with country-specific measurements or estimates of annual mean ditch CH4 emissions, and national or regional
estimates of fractional ditch area that reflect local drainage practices. The land-use sub-categories in Table 2.4
may be expanded or sub-divided where appropriate to reflect the range of observed land-use on drained organicsoils.

616
617
618
619
620
621
622

Tier 3

623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630

For CH4 emissions from drainage ditches, development of a Tier 3 approach could take account of the influenceof land-management activities (e.g., organic matter additions to agricultural land) on substrate supply formethane production in ditches, of possible short-term pulses of ditch CH4 emissions associated with land-use
change, and of the legacy effects of past land-use (e.g. nutrient-enriched soils). Information on drainage ditch
characteristics and maintenance may be used to refine ditch CH4 emissions estimates, for example taking accountof the potential effects of plant or algal growth within ditches; presence of subsurface drainage in Croplands andGrasslands; water flow rates, transport length of water and oxygen status; ditch maintenance activities, and thedeposition of organic material removed from ditches onto adjacent land areas.

631

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

632
633
634

Tier 1

635
636
637
638
639

At present, literature data are sufficient to provide Tier 1 default values of EFCH4_ditch for each of the four major
land-use classes on organic soils (Forest Land, Grassland, Cropland and Wetlands used for peat extraction) inboreal and temperate regions (Table 2.4). For Cropland, because no data are currently available, Tier 1 default
values for deep-drained Grassland may be applied. For tropical organic soils, few data on ditch CH4 emissions
are currently available, and a single Tier 1 EF is therefore provided for all drained land-use classes.

640
641
642
643

Tier 2Tier 2 emission factors EFCH4_land may be based on country- or region-specific emission factors for CH4
emissions from the surface of drained organic soils. These allow a further stratification of land-use categories bydrainage class, nutrient status or vegetation characteristics.

644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652

Methane emissions from drainage ditches will vary according to peat/soil type, land-use type, drainage intensity,and (for agriculturally managed areas) land-use intensity. For example labile organic matter and nutrient inputs
from terrestrial areas are likely to increase CH4 production in ditches (Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011). The Tier 1
emission factors EFCH4_ditch provided are based on measurements from ditches located within the organic layer.
Subsurface drainage systems may represent additional sources of CH4 emissions in Cropland and Grassland, andcould be incorporated in the approach provided that appropriate measurement data are available. Countries areencouraged to obtain new measurement data for significant land-use classes to enhance the current dataset, andto develop country-specific Tier 2 emission factors. Sharing of data between countries may be appropriate whereenvironmental conditions and practices are similar.

653
654
655

Tier 3

656
657
658
659
660

A Tier 3 approach for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches might include the use of more detailed data todevelop and apply process models that describe CH4 emissions as a function of drainage ditch characteristics andmaintenance, for example taking account of the potential effects of plant or algal growth within ditches; waterflow rates, transport length of water and oxygen status; ditch maintenance activities, and the deposition oforganic material removed from ditches onto adjacent land areas.

Tier 3 methods for estimating CH4 emissions from drained organic soils involve a comprehensive understanding
and representation of the dynamics of CH4 emissions and removals on managed peatlands and organic soils,
including the effect of site characteristics, peat/soil type, peat degradation and depth, land-use intensity, drainage
depth, management systems, and the level and kinds of fresh organic matter inputs. Also emission spikes may
occur, for example during spring thaw or strong rains or when debris from ditch dredging is deposited on
adjacent land.

Default emission factors for the Tier 1 method are provided in Table 2.3 for EFCH4_land and Table 2.4 for
EFCH4_ditch.

A Tier 3 approach for CH4 emissions from drained organic soils might include further details and processes or
capture the seasonal dynamics of CH4 emissions as additional element of stratification or by dynamic modelling.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.19

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
661
662
663

A Tier 3 approach to estimating ditch CH4 emissions could take account of the temporal variability ofhydrological conditions, labile substrate and nutrient supply, and controls on the composition of in-ditchvegetation that might enhance or reduce emission rates.

664
665
666

Emissions from stockpiles of drying peat are uncertain and stockpiles may release or consume CH4 at different
rates than the excavation field, but data are not at present sufficient to provide guidance. Methods for estimating
this flux may be developed for Tier 3 approaches

2.20

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft
TABLE 2.3
TIER 1 CH4 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (EFCH4_LAND) IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES

Land-use category

ForestLand,drainedNutrientpoor

Nutrientrich

Forest Land, drained
Forest Land and cleared
Forest Land(shrubland****), drained

Forest plantations,drained *****

Climate /Vegetation
zones

BorealEmission Factor*** (kgCH4 ha‐1 yr-1)

7.0

95% Confidence Interval(centred on mean)

2.9

11

No. of Sites

Citations/Comment

47

Komulainen et al. 1998 ; Lohila et al., 2011;
Maljanen et al., 2006a ; Martikainen et al., 1992
1993, 1995b; Minkkinen and Laine, 2006 ;Minkkinen et al., 2006a, 2007a; Nykänen et al.,1998 ; Ojanen et al., 2010, 2013

Boreal

2.0

-1.6

5.5

83

Komulainen et al., 1998; Laine, et al., 1996;
Mäkiranta et al., 2007; Maljanen et al., 2001, 2003b,
2006a ; Martikainen et al., 1992, 1995b; Minkkinen
and Laine, 2006; Minkkinen et al., 2007a; Nykänen
et al., 1998; Ojanen et al., 2010, 2013

Temperate

2.5

-0.60

5.7

13

Glenn et al., 1993; Moore and Knowles, 1990;
Sikström et al., 2009; Von Arnold et al., 2005a, b;
Weslien et al., 2009; Yamulki et al., 2013

Tropical/
Subtropical

4.9

2.6**

Jauhiainen et al., 2008; Hirano et al., 2009;
Furukawa et al., 2005

2.7

3.6**

Basuki et al., 2012 Jauhiainen et al, 2012c

Grassland, drained

Boreal

1.4

-1.6

4.5

12

Grønlund et al., 2006; Guðmundsson and Óskarsson
2008; Hyvönen et al., 2009; Maljanen et al., 2001,
2003b, 2004; Nykänen et al., 1995; Regina et al.,2007

Grassland, drained,
nutrient-poor

Temperate

1.8

0.72

2.9

9

Drösler et al., 2013; Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al.,2009; Van Den Bos, 2003

Grassland, deep
drained, nutrient- richTemperate

16

2.4

29

44

Augustin et al., 1996; Best & Jacobs, 1997; Drösler
et al., 2013; Flessa et al. 1997, 1998 ; Jacobs et al.
2003; Kroon et al. 2010; Langeveld et al., 1997;
Meyer et al., 2001; Nykanen et al., 1995; Petersen etal., 2012; Schrier-Uijl, 2010a,b; Teh et al., 2011;
Van Den Bos, 2003; Van den Pol-Van Dasselaar etal., 1997; Wild et al., 2001

Grassland, shallow

Temperate

39

-2.9

81

16

Augustin, 2003; Drösler et al., 2013; Jacobs et al.,

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.21

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

drained, nutrient-rich
Grassland

Cropland, drained

2003, Van den Pol-Van Dasselaar et al., 1997
Tropical/
Subtropical

7.0

Boreal &Temperate0

CroplandRice******
Plantation: oil palm

Tropical/
Subtropical-2.8

Boreal &Temperate

Settlements

All climate
zones

Other LandAll climate
zones

2.8

38

Augustin, 2003; Augustin et al., 1998; Drösler et al.,2013; Elsgaard et al., 2012; Flessa et al., 1998;
Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 2009;Maljanen et al.,2003a,b, 2004, 2007a; Petersen et al., 2012; Regina
et al., 2007; Taft et al., 2013

6.7*

Furukawa et al., 2005; Hirano et al., 2009

143

80*

Furukawa et al., 2005; Hadi et al., 2001; Inubushi
et al., 2003

026

Peat Extraction

Same emission factor as tropical Cropland

7.0

0

Plantation: sago palm

6.7*

667

6.1

Melling et al., 2005b
Watanabe et al., 2009; Melling et al., 2005b;
Inubushi et al., 1998

19*

1.6

11

15

Hyvönen et al., 2009; Nykänen et al., 1996; Strack
and Zuback, 2013; Sundh et al., 2000; Tuittila et al.,
2000; Waddington and Day, 2007

There is no fixed default emission/removal factor for Settlements. It is good practice to take the default emission/removal factor in Table
2.1 of the land-use category that is closest to the national conditions of drained organic soils under Settlements. Information about national
conditions could include drainage level, vegetation cover, or other management activities. For example, drained organic soils in urban green
areas, parks or gardens could use the default Tier 1 emission/removal factor for Grassland, deep-drained in Table 2.1.
Other Land Remaining Other Land: 0
Land Converted to Other Land: Maintain emission factor of previous land-use category**Standard error*** Mean**** Shrubland refers to any type of land sparsely or fully covered with shrubs or trees, which may or may not fulfil the national forest definition. It extends to degraded lands, which cannot be clearly classified
as forest or non-forest.
***** Number derived solely from Acacia plantation data.
****** The default value applies to countries without data about flooding regime for rice on organic soils. Countries with data about flooding regime for rice on organic soil may continue to use themethodologies and emission factors provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2.22

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

668
669
670
671

Plantations can be defined as Forest Land or Cropland, according to national definitions. Plantations that
produce food should be classified as Cropland; plantations producing wood and fibre should be reported as
Forest Land. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national land-use category according to
the national forest definition.

672

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

673
674
675
676
677

Tier 1

678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689

Activity data required to estimate CH4 emissions from drainage ditches at Tier 1 consist of areas of managed
organic soils disaggregated by land-use category (Forest Land, Grassland, Cropland, Wetlands used for peat
extraction) as shown in Table 2.4. Fractional ditch areas recorded in published studies are given for individualsites in Table A2.1, and these data have been used to provide indicative Fracditch values by land-use class in Table
2.4. However it should be noted that these proportions are likely to vary between countries and it is therefore
good practice to derive country-specific activity data on fractional ditch areas wherever possible, to reflect local
land-use practices. This fractional ditch area may depend on the topographic situation and organic soil properties
rather than on land-use alone. Fractional ditch area can be calculated from spatially explicit information about
ditch and canal networks. From these the length and width of ditches can be derived, or alternatively, ditch
spacing and ditch width on organic soils, which gives the ditch area on organic soils. This geometricalinformation is converted to fractional ditch area by dividing the ditch area on organic soils through the area ofdrained organic soils.

690
691
692
693
694

Tier 2 and 3

695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702

Activity data for higher Tier methods may be spatially explicit and consist of areas of organic soils managed for
different forest types, peat extraction, production systems, horticulture and plantations, disaggregated according
to nutrient status of the organic soil if relevant.. More sophisticated estimation methodologies will require thedetermination of areas in different phases of land-uses with longer term rhythms such as age-classes in Forest
Land or in a peat extraction operation, where on abandoned areas drainage or the effects of former peat
extraction are still present. Land-use intensity, particularly fertilizer and organic matter addition, may be used torefine CH4 emission estimates for Grassland and Cropland, as emissions are likely to change under more
intensive management systems.

703
704
705
706
707

To estimate CH4 emissions from drainage ditches, additional activity data are required on fractional ditch area
within each land use category. Country-specific values of fractional ditch areas are used to reflect drainage
methodologies such as typical ditch spacing, depth, width and length, maintenance (such as vegetation clearance)and land-use practices. Fractional ditch area can be stratified by type of organic soil or topographic situation,peat/soil properties and land-use.

708
709
710
711
712
713

Activity data for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches could incorporate additional information on water tablelevel and variability (such as seasonal water management regime), flow rates, in-ditch vegetation and land-use
factors affecting substrate supply for methanogenesis, such as livestock density and fertilizer application in
intensive Grasslands and Croplands. Incorporating seasonal and short-term controls on emissions would require
additional activity data on the nature and timing of agricultural activities (such as organic matter additions) andon hydrological parameters.

714

CALCULATION STEPS FOR TIER 1

715

The steps for estimating the CH4 emissions from drained inland organic soils are as follows:

716
717
718
719
720

Step 1: Determine areas with drained inland organic soils under each land-use category for lands remaining in aland-use category, disaggregated by climate domain and other appropriate factors as outlined above andconsistently with on-site CO2 emissions estimates from drained organic soils. Where needed for Tier 1 emission
factors, land areas are further stratified by nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils. Temperate nutrient-rich
Grasslands are further stratified into shallow-drained and deep-drained classes.

721
722

Step 2: Assign the appropriate value for the fraction of areas covered by ditches using national statistics. If
statistics are not available, values given in Table 2.4 provide appropriate defaults.

It is good practice to use the same activity data for estimating CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions from drainedorganic soils. Information on obtaining these data is provided in Section 2.2.1 above. For countries in boreal andtemperate regions using the Tier 1 method, if the available information does not allow stratification by nutrient
status of organic soils, countries may rely on guidance given in Section 2.2.1.1.

Activity data required for higher Tier methods are likely to include more detailed information on land-use, inparticular land-use intensity within Grassland and Cropland classes. Further stratification may be necessary forother classes if sufficient data become available to estimate emission factors, e.g., for cleared peat swamp forest,
oil palm or pulpwood plantation in tropical peat areas.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.23

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
723
724

Step 3: Assign the appropriate emission factor values (EFCH4_land and EFCH4_ditch) from Tables 2.3 and 2.4,
respectively.

725
726

Step 4: Multiply each area with the appropriate emission factor by using Equation 2.6 and sum across land use
categories.

727

2.24

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

728
TABLE 2.4
DEFAULT CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINAGE DITCHES
Climatezone

Land-use

EFCH4_ditch(kg CH4 ha-1
yr-1)

Drainedforest,Drainedwetlanda

Boreal/temperate

Shallowdrained
Grassland

Deepdrained
Grassland
Croplandb

Peat
Extraction

TropicalAll landuse
involvingdrainage

217

527

1165

542

2259

Uncertainty range(kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1)

41 – 393

285 – 769

335 – 1995

102 – 981

599 – 3919c

No.
of
sites

11

5

6

6

2

Fracditch(indicativevaluesd)References

0.025

Cooper & Evans, 2013;
Glagolev et al., 2008;
Minkkinnen & Laine,2006 (two study areas);
Roulet & Moore, 1995
(three study areas); Sirin
et al., 2012 (3 study
areas); von Arnold etal., 2005b.

0.05

Best & Jacobs, 1997;
Hendriks et al., 2007,2010; Van den Pol-Van
Dasselaar et al.,1999a;
Vermaat et al., 2011;
McNamara, 2013

0.05

Best & Jacobs, 1997;
Chistotin et al., 2006 ;;Schrier-Uijl et al.,2010, 2011; Sirin et al.,2012; Teh et al., 2011;
Vermaat et al., 2011.

0.05

Chistotin et al., 2006;
Nykänen et al., 1996;
Sirin et al., 2012; Sundhet al., 2000; Waddington& Day, 2007; Hyvönen
et al., 2013

0.02

Jauhianen &Silvennoinen, 2012(drained and abandoned,
and pulpwood
plantation)

Values shown in parentheses represent 95% confidence intervals unless otherwise statedaDitch CH4 emissions from wetlands subject to drainage but no other land-use modification are assumed to be equivalent to those fromorganic soils drained for forestry.
b

Ditch CH4 emissions from Cropland are assumed to be the same as those from high-intensity Grassland, for which more data exist.

c

Due to limited data for CH4 emissions from tropical drainage channels, the range of measurements is shown, rather than 95% confidence
intervals.
d

Indicative values for Fracditch within each class are derived from the mean of studies reporting CH4 emission values for this class. Note thatstudies from the Netherlands were not included in this calculation, because they are characterised by much higher fractional ditch areas (0.1
to 0.25) that are not typical of drained organic soils in other countries.

729
730

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739

The principal sources of uncertainty for CH4 emissions from drained organic soils are activity data, including
associated information on the fraction of drained areas covered by ditches, and emission factors. Uncertainty
ranges are provided in Tables 2.3 for values of EFCH4_land and Table 2.4 for values of EFCH4_ditch for each organic
soil/land-use category. Uncertainty ranges in Table 2.3 are expressed as 95% confidence intervals or as standard
errors, depending on the number of studies available. The major source of uncertainty in these values is simply
the small number of studies on which many Tier 1 estimates are based, and the high degree of heterogeneity inmeasured fluxes between different studies undertaken within some classes. Confidence intervals (95%) havebeen calculated for all classes other than the drained tropical organic soil class, for which only one study(Jauhiainen and Silvennoinen, 2012) is available, which provides estimates of ditch CH4 emissions from areas of

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.25

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
740
741
742

drained, deforested and abandoned organic soils, and pulpwood plantation. For the drained tropical organic soils
category, the uncertainty range is provided by the lower (abandoned) and higher (pulpwood plantation) emission
values recorded.

743
744
745
746
747

The final calculation of CH4_organic is also sensitive to uncertainties in the activity data, and in particular to data
used to estimate the proportion of the land area which is occupied by drainage ditches, Fracditch. Many countries
lack such data and although activity data should be country-specific, even for Tier 1, indicative values from
Table 2A.1 can be used at the discretion of the inventory compiler. Uncertainty assessments should therefore
also take account of this source of uncertainty in calculating total CH4 emissions from drained organic soils.

748

2.2.2.2

749
750
751
752
753

N2O emissions from soils are produced by the microbiological processes of nitrification and denitrification (toN2O or N2) (Davidson 1991; Firestone and Davidson, 1989). These processes are controlled by several factors,
including water-filled pore space (Aulakh and Sigh, 1997; Davidson 1991; Dobbie et al. 1999; Ruser et al.,2001), temperature (Keeney et al., 1979; Kroon et al., 2010), and concentration of mineral nitrogen (Bremner
1997; Firestone and Davidson, 1989; Ryden and Lund, 1980).

754
755
756
757
758
759
760

Drained organic soils emit significant amounts of N2O, whereas emissions from wet organic soils are close tozero (Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 1997; Flessa et al., 1998; Couwenberg et al., 2011).). A main reason forincreased N2O emissions is nitrogen mineralization associated with organic matter decomposition in drainedorganic soils (Höper, 2002). Emissions from this N mineralization will be dealt with here. Other sources ofanthropogenic N in organic soils include nitrogen fertilizer, application of crop residues, organic amendments,
and use of N fixing species. These emissions from other N sources are dealt with in Chapter 11 of Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines and in all earlier guidance.

761
762
763
764
765

Most of the published data on N2O fluxes from managed organic soils refer to boreal and temperate ecosystems
and these data served as the basis for the emission factors in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. With new studies
published since 2005, there are enough data to derive separate N2O emission factors for Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland, and peatlands under peat extraction in boreal and temperate zones and these new values replace thevalues Table 7.6 in Volume 4, Chapter 7 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

766
767

There are still limited data available for tropical organic soils. However, the studies that have been publishedover the past decade provide enough data to develop Tier 1 emissions factors for the first time.

768

CHOICE OF METHOD

769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777

Tier 1This section presents the equation for estimating direct emissions of N2O due to drainage of organic soils. The
revisions presented here, as shown in Equation 2.7, are applicable to Equation 11.1 presented in Chapter 11,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This Equation is used to estimate N2O for specific land-use categories,
but there are not enough data available for developing coefficients to modify EFs by condition-specific variables(e.g., variations of drainage depths). The Equations 11.1 and 11.2 have been modified to include variables for theboreal climate zone as well by adding terms FOS, CG Bor NR, FOS, CG, Bor NP, FOS, F, Bor, NR, and FOS, F Bor NP (thesubscripts CG, F, Bor, NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest Land, Boreal, Nutrient-Rich, andNutrient-Poor, respectively) and their respective emissions factors.

778
779
780
781

Direct N2O emissions from managed soils are estimated using Equation 11.1 in Chapter 11, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. This Equation has three segments: one for emissions associated with N inputs, one fororganic soils, and one for urine and dung inputs during grazing. In this section, updates are provided for thesecond segment focusing on organic soils as follows:

N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS

782
783
784

EQUATION 2.7
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED ORGANIC SOILSFOS ,CG , Bor  EF2CG , Bor   FOS ,CG ,Temp  EF2CG ,Temp   FOS ,CG ,Trop  EF2CG ,Trop   N 2O  N OS  FOS , F , Bor , NR  EF2 F , Bor , NR   FOS , F ,Temp , NR  EF2 F ,Temp , NR  F OS , F , Bor , NP  EF2 F , Bor , NP   FOS , F ,Temp , NP  EF2 F ,Temp , NP   FOS , F ,Trop  EF2 F ,Trop 

785
786

Where:

2.26

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

787

N2O–NOS = Annual direct N2O–N emissions from managed organic soils, kg N2O–N yr-1

788
789
790

FOS

791
792
793
794
795

EF2 = Emission factor for N2O emissions from drained/managed organic soils, kg N2O–N ha-1 yr-1;(equivalent to Table 11.1, Chapter 11, Volume 4, of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines but using updated
emission factor values provided in Table 2.5 below; note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop, NR and
NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest Land, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient Rich, and Nutrient
Poor, respectively.).

796
797
798
799
800
801
802

= Annual area of managed/drained organic soils, ha (Note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop,
NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest Land, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient Rich, andNutrient Poor, respectively)

Tier 2Tier 2 estimates are to be based on the Tier 1 Equation 2.7, but use country or region–specific emission factors.
These can be further stratified by drainage class, nutrient status of organic soils or other criteria used forstratifying organic soils for direct N2O emissions. The corresponding emission factors are country or regionspecific and take into account the land management systems. Tier 2 emission factors can follow the Tier 1
assumption that N mineralization from the degrading organic matter exceeds the amount of N input so that themeasured N2O emissions are entirely attributed to the drained organic soil.

803
804
805
806
807
808
809

Tier 3

810
811
812
813
814
815

Tier 3 methods are based on modelling or measurement approaches. Models can simulate the relationshipbetween the soil and environmental variables that control the variation in N2O emissions and the size of thoseemissions (Stehfest & Bouwman, 2006; Kroon et al., 2010; Dechow & Freibauer, 2011). These models can beused at larger scales where measurements are impractical. Models should only be used after validation against
representative measurements that capture the variability of land-use, management practices and climate present
in the inventory (IPCC, 2010).

816

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

817

Tier 1

818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826

Emission factors for boreal and temperate organic soils

Tier 3 approaches can attribute N2O emissions from drained organic soils separately to the mineralization of peator organic matter versus N input by fertilizer, crop residues and organic amendments. Attribution could rely on
the fraction of N2O released by N2O emission peaks after N fertilization, or by subtracting a fertilizer EF fromtotal N2O emissions. Nitrogen mineralization from the drained organic soil can be estimated by the CO2-C
emission from the drained organic soil and the C/N ratio of the topsoil and this value could be used to predict
N2O emissions.

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provided emission factors that were partly disaggregated for land-use types or
climatic zones (Table 11.1), Chapter 11, Volume 4). An increased availability of scientific data allows for an
improved choice of default emission factors (Table 2.5). Nutrient poor and rich organic soils drained for forestry
have different N2O emissions. Croplands and Grasslands are established on nutrient-rich organic soil or are
amended for better nutrient availability, and are considered here as rich. Peat extraction occurs both on nutrientpoor (bogs) and nutrient-rich (fens) peatlands. In all cases the residual bottom organic layers consist ofminerogenous but recalcitrant nutrient-rich peat. There is not enough data available to disaggregate for the peattypes in peat extraction areas.

827

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.27

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
828
TABLE 2.5
TIER 1 DIRECT N2O EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES
Land-use Category

Climate /Vegetation zone

Emission factor(kg N2O-N ha‐1
yr‐1)

95 % confidence
interval

No. of
Sites

Citations/Comment

Nutrientpoor

Boreal

0.22

0.15

0.28

43

Lohila et al., 2011; Maljanen et al., 2006a; Martikainen et al., 1993, 1995a;
Ojanen et al., 2010, 2013; Regina et al., 1996

Nutrientrich

Boreal

3.2

1.9

4.5

75

Ernfors et al., 2011; Mäkiranta et al., 2007; Maljanen et al., 2001, 2003a,
2006a, 2010a; Martikainen et al., 1993, 1995a; Ojanen et al., 2010, 2013 ;Pihlatie et al., 2004; Regina et al.,1998; Saari, et al., 2009

Forest Land, drained

Temperate

2.8

-0.57

6.1

13

Sikström et al., 2009; Von Arnold et al., 2005a, b; Weslien et al., 2009;
Yamulki et al., 2013

Forest Land and cleared
Forest Land(shrubland****),
drainedTropical/
Subtropical

2.4

Grassland, drained

Boreal

9.5

4.6

14

16

Grønlund et al., 2006; Hyvönen et al., 2009; Jaakkola, 1985; Maljanen et al. ,2001, 2003a, 2004, 2009; Nykänen et al., 1995; Regina et al., 1996, 2004

Grassland, drained,
nutrient-poor

Temperate

4.3

1.9

6.8

7

Drösler et al., 2013; Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 2009

ForestLand,drained

1.1*

Furukawa et al., 2005; Jauhiainen et al., 2012b; Takakai et al., 2006

Grassland, deep drained,
nutrient-richTemperate

8.2

4.9

11

47

Augustin and Merbach, 1998; Augustin et al., 1996, 1998; Drösler et al., 2013;
Flessa et al., 1997, 1998; Jacobs et al., 2003; Kroon et al., 2010; Langeveld etal., 1997; Meyer et al., 2001; Nykänen et al., 1995; Petersen et al., 2012; Tehet al., 2011; van Beek et al., 2010; Velthof et al ,1996; Wild et al., 2001

Grassland, shallow
drained, nutrient-richTemperate

1.6

0.56

2.7

13

Drösler et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2003

Tropical/
Subtropical

5.0

Cropland, drained

Boreal &Temperate13

Cropland except rice

Tropical/

5.0

Grassland

2.28

2.7*

8.2

Emission factor for tropical Cropland can be used

18
2.7*

36

Augustin et al., 1998; Drösler et al., 2013; Elsgaard et al., 2012; Flessa et al.,
1998; Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 2009; Maljanen et al., 2003a,b, 2004,
2007a; Petersen et al., 2012; Regina et al., 2004; Taft et al., 2013
Furukawa et al., 2005; Jauhiainen et al.., 2012b; Takakai et al.., 2006

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Final Draft

Subtropical
Rice

0.4

Plantation: oil palm
Plantation: sago palm

0.5*

Furukawa et al, 2005; Hadi et al., 2005; Inubushi et al, 2003

1.2

Melling et al., 2007b

3.3

Melling et al., 2007b

Peatland Managed forExtraction

Boreal &Temperate

0.30

Peatlands Managed forExtraction

Tropical/
Subtropical

3.6

Settlements

All climate zones

Emission factor for Cropland can be used*****

Other Lands

All climate zones

Other Land Remaining Other Land: 0
Land Converted to Other Land: Maintain emission factor of previous land-use category

-0.03

0.64

4

0.2 to 5.0***

Hyvönen et al., 2009 ; Nykänen et al., 1996 ; Regina et al., 1996
Emission factor from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines can be used.

** Standard error*** Mean**** Shrubland refers to any type of land sparsely or fully covered with shrubs or trees, which may or may not fulfil the national forest definition. I extends to degraded lands, which cannot be clearly classified
as forest or non-forest.

***** Lands in the settlements were mostly used for gardens.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.29

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838

Plantations can be defined as Forest Land or Cropland. The attribution to Cropland made in this table is notbinding. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national land-use category according to thenational forest definition.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, emission factors were provided for EF2CG, Trop and EF2F, Trop, based on the
expectation that net mineralization was twice as high in tropical soils compared to temperate soils. Research intropical soils suggests that net mineralization is not a useful predictor of N2O flux and that net nitrification or thenitrate portion of the inorganic-N pool are better predictors (Verchot et al., 1999, 2006; Ishizuka et al., 2005). It
also needs to be highlighted that all measurements of N2O emissions on tropical organic soils to date are fromSoutheast Asia and from a very limited number of studies. Nonetheless these EFs are to be used for all tropicalecosystems until better data become available.

839
840
841
842
843
844
845

Tier 2

846
847
848
849
850

Tier 3Tier 3 emission factors or relations are based on country-specific emission data and models calibrated for
management practices such as drainage intensity; crop, livestock or forest type; fertiliser or organic matter
additions; peat extraction technology and the phases of peat extraction or other relevant factors for N2Oemissions.

851

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

852
853
854
855
856
857

Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on organic soils stratified by major landuse types, management practices, and disturbance regimes. Total areas should be determined according toapproaches laid out in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and should be consistent with those reported
under other sections of the inventory. Stratification of land-use categories according to climate regions, based on
default or country-specific classifications, can be accomplished with overlays of land-use on suitable climate andsoil maps.

858
859
860

Tier 1

861
862
863
864
865

Tier 2 and 3

866
867
868
869
870
871

Activity data for higher Tier methods may be spatially explicit and consist of areas of organic soils managed for
different forest types, peat extraction, cultivation systems, horticulture and plantations, disaggregated according
to nutrient status of the organic soil if relevant, and annual peat production data. More sophisticated estimation
methodologies will require the determination of areas in different phases of land-uses with longer term rhythms
such as age-classes in Forest Land or in a peat extraction cycle, where on abandoned areas drainage or the effects
of former peat extraction are still present.

872

CALCULATION STEPS FOR TIER 1

873

The steps for estimating N2O emissions on drained inland organic soils are as follows:

874
875
876
877

Step 1: Determine areas with drained inland organic soils under each land-use category for lands remaining in aland-use category, disaggregated by climate domain and other appropriate factors as outlined above. Where
needed for Tier 1 emission factors, land areas are further stratified by nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organicsoils. Temperate nutrient-rich Grassland is further stratified into shallow-drained and deep-drained classes.

878
879

Step 2: Assign the appropriate values for EF2 from Table 2.5 for each land-use category, climate domain,
nutrient status and drainage class stratum.

880

Step 3: Multiply activity data by the emission factor for each land use category according to Equation 2.7.

Tier 2 emission factors may be based on country- or region-specific emission factors for N2O emissions from thesurface of drained organic soils. These allow a further stratification of land-use categories by drainage class,nutrient status or vegetation characteristics. Countries are encouraged to obtain new measurement data forsignificant land-use classes to enhance the current dataset, and to develop country-specific Tier 2 emission
factors. Sharing of data between countries may be appropriate where environmental conditions and practices are
similar.

It is good practice to use activity data for N2O emissions consistent with activity data for CO2 and CH4 emissions
from soils. Guidance for activity data is given in the respective sections in this Chapter.
Activity data required for higher Tier methods are likely to include more detailed information on land-use, inparticular land-use intensity within Grassland and Cropland classes. Further stratification may be necessary forother classes if sufficient data become available to estimate emission factors, e.g., for cleared peat swamp forest,
oil palm or pulpwood plantations in tropical peat areas.

2.30

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
881

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

882
883
884
885

Uncertainties in estimates of direct N2O emissions from drained organic soils are caused by uncertainties related
to the emission factors (see Table 2.5 for uncertainty ranges), inter-annual variability associated with temperatureand precipitation, activity data, lack of coverage of measurements, spatial aggregation, and lack of information
on specific on-farm practices.

886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893

Additional uncertainty will be introduced in an inventory when emission factors are derived from measurementsthat are not representative of the variation of conditions in a country. Because of very high spatial variability ofN2O emissions from soils, most estimates have large standard errors relative to the mean flux. In general, theuncertainty of activity data will be lower than that of the emission factors. Additionally, uncertainties may becaused by missing information on variation in drainage levels, and changing management practices in farming.
Generally, it is difficult to obtain information on the actual drainage levels and possible emission reductions
achieved as well as information on farming practices. For more detailed guidance on uncertainty assessment
refer to Chapter 3, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

894

2.2.2.3

895

CO 2 AND NON -CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM FIRES ON DRAINEDORGANIC SOILS

896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903

Fires can be a large and variable source of greenhouse gases and significantly affect other feedbacks within the
climate system. When compared to combustion of above-ground vegetation, the emissions from both
uncontrolled wildfires and managed (prescribed) fires in organic (peat) soils are high. On organic soils, fires
comprise both surface fires that consume vegetation, litter and duff, and ground fires which burn into and below
the surface consuming soil organic matter and deadwood mass as a fuel source. The latter are smouldering fires
that may persist for long periods of time, burn repeatedly in response to changing soil moisture and surfacehydrology, and penetrate to different depths. This section addresses the emissions arising from combustion ofsoil organic material.

904
905
906
907
908
909
910

In any ecosystem, fire activity is strongly influenced by several factors, namely weather/climate, fuel availability,
drainage and ignition agents, including human activities (Johnson, 1992; Swetnam, 1993). In ecosystems withorganic soils, conditions such as organic soil depth and density, soil moisture, vegetation composition and soil
surface micro-topography (e.g., Benscoter and Wieder., 2003) along with fire characteristics, such as intensity,
frequency and duration (Kasischke et al., 1995), which are affected by fire management practices, influence thequantity of organic matter consumed and hence the emissions of greenhouse gases (Kuhry 1994; Kasischke et al.,
1995; Kasischke and Bruhwiler, 2003).

911
912
913
914
915

2006 IPCC Guidelines covered emissions from burning of above-ground carbon stocks (biomass and deadorganic matter) but did not cover the often substantial release of emissions from combustion of organic soils. It
is good practice to report greenhouse gas emissions from fires on all managed lands with organic soils Including
all fire related emissions both from natural fires as well as those that have a human-induced cause(e.g., soil
drainage) even if the initiation of the fire is non-anthropogenic (e.g., lightening strike).

916

This Chapter updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by:

917
918



Providing default methodologies and emission factors for CO2, CH4 and CO emissions from fires on organic
soils

919



Providing generic guidance for higher Tier methods to estimate these fluxes

920
921
922
923

Change in soil organic carbon following fire is the result of both CO2 as well as non-CO2 emissions (principallyof CH4 and CO). Emissions of both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases are addressed in the following sections.
These deal specifically with below-ground biomass as opposed to vegetation and litter losses (the latter are
included in the estimation of carbon stock changes in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

924

CHOICE OF METHOD

925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932

CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from burning of drained organic soils can either be directly measured or estimatedusing data on area burnt along with the default values for mass of fuel consumed and emission factors provided
in this chapter. Previous IPCC Guidelines have noted that emissions from wildfires on managed (and unmanaged)
land can exhibit large inter-annual variations that may be driven by either natural causes (e.g., climate cycles,
random variation in lightning ignitions), or indirect and direct human causes (e.g., prescribed burning, historicalfire suppression and past forest harvest activities) or a combination of all three causes, the effects of whichcannot be readily separated. This variability is also true for emissions from fires on organic soils which criticallydepend on the extent and depth of the organic soil, the fuel moisture, the water table depth, and hence the

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.31

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
933
934
935
936

thickness of the drained layer and the resulting depth of the consumed organics, all of which are affected by sitecharacteristics, weather, land management, fire type, and climate. At Tier 1, differentiation by land management
category and fire type is possible, but reporting at higher Tiers will enable a greater level of differentiation
between land-use, site characteristics and fire types.

937
938
939
940
941
942

The parameters required to calculate the CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from burning organic soils are: area burned,
mass of fuel available for consumption, combustion factor (this is also known as burning efficiency and can beused to characterize smouldering vs. flaming fires) and emission factor. Compared with vegetation fires, theuncertainties involved in estimating emissions from fires on organic soils are much higher because organic soils
can burn repeatedly and to different depths. Furthermore, the type and density of the soil organic material
combined with the combustion efficiency will determine the nature of the gases and other compounds emitted.

943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951

The mass of fuel that can potentially burn in a fire event on organic soils will be determined by measuring thedepth of burn, along with soil bulk density and carbon content; the former is strongly controlled by soil watercontent (influenced by position of the water table or permafrost depth) while the latter variables are ideallymeasured in the field. While default values can be used for Tier 1 reporting, for higher Tiers data on the depth ofburn and soil carbon density need to be determined. The combustion factor describes how much of the fuel massavailable is actually consumed during a fire event, i.e., converted into CO2 or non-CO2 gases. The emission
factor (Gef) determines the mass of CO2 or non-CO2 gas emitted per mass of fuel consumed by the fire (e.g., g
CO2/kg dry fuel). The total emissions of CO2 or non-CO2 gases are calculated from the product of area burnt andthe corresponding biomass loading, combustion factor, and emission factor.

952
953

EQUATION 2.8
ANNUAL CO2-C AND NON-CO2 EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC SOIL FIRE

954

L fire  A  M B  C f  Gef  10 3955

Where:

956

L

957

A = total area burned annually, ha958

M = mass of fuel available for combustion, tonnes ha-1 (i.e. mass of dry organic soil fuel) (default values

fire

B

959

= amount of CO2 or non-CO2 emissions, e.g., CH4 from fire, tonnes

in Table 2.6)960

Cf = combustion factor, dimensionless961

Gef = emission factor for each gas, g kg-1 dry matter burnt (default values in Table 2.7)

962
963
964

Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (the product of
MB and Cf) can be used under Tier 1 methodology (Table 2.6). The value 10-3 converts Lfire to tonnes.

965
966

The amount of fuel that can be burned is given by the area burned annually and the mass of fuel available in that
area.

967
968
969
970

Default values for the Tier 1 method or components of a Tier 2 method are provided in Tables 2.6 and 2.7. For
higher Tiers, data on the variation in the mass of fuel available (based on site or region-specific data, includingarea of organic soil burnt, depth of organic soil, depth of burn and/or depth of water table/soil moisture content
values and soil bulk density) are incorporated.

971
972

Figure 2.1 presents a decision tree that guides the selection of the appropriate Tier level to report CO2 and nonCO2 emissions from the burning of organic soils.

973

2.32

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft

974
975

Figure 2.2

Generic decision tree for identification of the appropriate tier to estimate
greenhouse gas emissions from fires on organic soils
Start

Are detailed data on fires on organic soils
available to estimate GHG emissions using
advanced models or methods?

Yes

Use the detailed data on fires on organicsoils for Tier 3 methods
Box 3: Tier 3

No

Are country specific activity and emission factors
available?

Yes

Use country specific activity data andemission factors for the Tier 2 method
Box 2: Tier 2

Yes

Is prescribed, agricultural or wildfire a key
category1?

No

Are aggregate data on burning of organicsoils available?

No

Yes

Yes

Collect data for Tier 3 or Tier 2 method

Gather data on burning

Use aggregate data and default emission
factors for Tier 1 method

976
977
978
979

Box 1: Tier 1

Note:
1: See Chapter 4, “Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories” (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.33

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
980
981
982
983

Tier 1

984
985
986

If burning in ecosystems with organic soils is a key category, countries are encouraged to report emissions byapplying the highest tier possible, given national circumstances. For prescribed fires, country-specific data will
be required to generate reliable estimates of emissions.

987
988
989
990
991

Tiers 2 and 3992

Knowledge of the amount of soil organic matter consumed;993



The position of the soil water table relative to the surface;

994
995



Improved information on land-use/management and their effects on organic soil condition, in particularhydrological status; and

996
997
998



Improved data on area burnt, estimated using remotely sensed data of adequate spatial and temporal
resolutions and verified according to a robust sampling design at suitable periodicity to take account of themonthly variations of area burnt. Estimates of the depth of burn in a representative number of locations.

999
1000
1001

Countries may further stratify the data on area burnt by depth of burn, organic soil condition (e.g., drained vs.
undrained, with further detail possible through characterisation of the intensity of drainage) and fire types(wildfire vs. prescribed).

1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012

It may also be possible to develop models with algorithms to generate regional scale maps of area burnt using
satellite data of multiple sources and of moderate spatial resolution. Model results should be validated, forexample, by using high spatial resolution data augmented by field observations, and refined based on thevalidation results whenever possible. A sampling approach can be designed to generate estimates of area burnt.
This reporting method should provide estimates (fluxes) of the impact of burning on below-ground biomass,
particularly including the depth of burn, and if feasible the variation of depth within the area burned. Reportingat higher Tiers should differentiate fires burning at different intensities (critical for Tier 3) and with different
proportions of smouldering vs. flaming combustion (i.e. different Modified Combustion Efficiency (MCE)
defined as ΔCO2/(ΔCO2 + ΔCO) which is an index of the relative proportion of smouldering vs. flaming
combustion). The development of robust methodologies to assess burn severity in organic soils would enable
more accurate quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from below-ground fires.

1013

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

1014
1015
1016

Tier 1The Tier 1 method uses default values for MB along with default emissions factors provided in Tables 2.6 & 2.7
respectively.

1017
1018
1019

Due to the limited data available in the scientific literature, organic soils have been very broadly stratified
according to climate domain (boreal/temperate and tropical) and fire type (wild vs. prescribed). Values arederived from the literature for all categories with the exception of prescribed fires.

1020
1021

For all organic soil fires, the default combustion factor is 1.0, since the assumption is that all the fuel iscombusted (Yokelson et al., 1997).

Countries may choose to report CO2 emissions using the Tier 1 method if fires on organic soils are not a key
category. This approach is based on highly aggregated data and default factors. It does, however, require primarydata on area burned.

The Tier 1 method is refined by incorporating more disaggregated area estimates (per organic soil and fire typesub-categories) and country-specific estimates of combustion and emission factors into Equation 1. Tier 2 uses
the same procedural steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1. Potential improvements to the Tier 1 approach
may include:

1022

2.34

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft

1023
TABLE 2.6
ORGANIC SOIL FUEL CONSUMPTION VALUES (MASS OF DRY MATTER FOR A RANGE OF ORGANIC SOIL AND FIRE TYPES, TO BE
USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EQUATION 2.8, TO ESTIMATE THE PRODUCT OF QUANTITIES MB AND CF)
Mean(t d.m. ha-1)

95% CI(t d.m. ha-1)

Wildfire (undrained
peat)

66.4

19.2

Zoltai et al., 1998; Turetsky &Wieder, 2001; Benscoter & Wieder,
2003; Kasischke & Bruhwiler, 2003;
Amiro et al., 2001; Kajii et al., 2002;
Kasischke et al., 1995; Pitkänen etal., 1999; Cahoon et al., 1994;
Turetsky et al., 2011a; Turetsky etal., 2011b; Poulter et al., 2006; deGroot & Alexander, 1986; Kuhry,
1994

Wildfire(drained peat)

336.0

4.0

Turetsky et al., 2011bPrescribed fire (landmanagement)--

No literature foundWildfire (undrained
peat)

-

-

No literature found.

Wildfire(drained peat)

353

183

Page et al., 2002; Usop et al., 2004;
Ballhorn et al., 2009

Prescribed fire(agricultural land
management)†

155

73

Saharjo & Munoz, 2005; Saharjo &Nurhayati, 2005

Climate/vegetationzone

Sub-category

Boreal/temperate

Tropical

References

Note: Where fuel consumption values have been reported as t C ha-1, default values for organic soil bulk density (0.1 g cm-3)* and carbon
density (50% mass dry weight)** have been applied to derive a value for mass of fuel (t ha-1) (following Akagi et al. 2011). At higher Tierlevels, country or ecosystem specific values for both these variables are used.
*The value for surface organic soil bulk density is an average derived from Gorham (1991) who provides a default value of 1.12 g cm-3 for
all northern peatlands and Page et al. (2011) who provide a default value of 0.09 g cm-3 for all tropical peats.
**The value for surface organic soil carbon content is an average derived from the typical average for eutrophic peat of 48% and the typical
average for oligotrophic peat of 52% (after Lucas (1982), Immirzi et al. (1992) as reported in Charman (2002)).
† The consumption value excludes crop residues.

1024
1025

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.35

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

1026
TABLE 2.7
EMISSION FACTORS (G KG-1 DRY MATTER BURNED) FOR ORGANIC SOIL FIRES. VALUES ARE MEANS ± 95% CI (TO BE
USED AS QUANTITY GEF IN EQUATION 2.8)
Climate/vegetation
zone

CO2-C

CO

CH4

References

Boreal/temperate

362 ± 41207 ± 709±4Ward & Hardy, 1984; Yokelson et al.,1997;
Yokelson et al., 2013

464

210

21

Christian et al., 2003

Tropical
1.

2.

These values have been derived from a very limited number of studies. The EF values for boreal/temperate fires arearithmetic means of the two values reported by Yokelson et al. (1997) for Alaska and Minnesota organic soils (carbon
content 49% for Minnesota; n.d. for Alaska); of the minimum and maximum values reported by Ward and Hardy (1984)(no carbon contents reported) and the single value reported by Yokelson et al. (2013) for Alaskan organic soil (carbon
content 42%). Surface (flaming) and deep (smouldering) organic soil fires produce a complex mixture of gases and fineparticles, the nature of which will reflect vegetation type, fire behaviour, soil physical and chemical characteristics aswell as the combustion conditions (in particular combustion efficiency) (Itkonen and Jantunen, 1986; NCDENR, 1998).
The combustion of organic material leads to a loss of carbon; most of this is in the form of CO2, but quantities of CO,
CH4, long-chain hydrocarbons, and carbon particulate matter are also emitted. Other greenhouse gases along with ozone
precursors (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also released (Ramadan
et al., 2000; Gebhart et al., 2001; Honrath et al., 2004; Val Martin et al., 2006; Lapina et al., 2008; Akagi et al,.
2011). Emission factors for N2O and NOx are not provided at Tier 1. There are very limited data for N2O and NOx
emissions from organic soil fires and it should be noted that N2O can be produced in canisters during sample storage (e.g.
Cofer et al., 1990). ). At higher Tiers, N2O and NOx can either be measured directly or could be calculated using
published emission ratios for organic soil fires (e.g. Christian et al., 2003; Hamada et al., 2013).
The composition of organic soil fire emissions differs substantially from forest fires on mineral soils; in part this is afunction of the fact that organic soil fires are dominated by smouldering rather than flaming combustion owing to themoist and often oxygen-limiting substrate conditions. Fire temperatures also differ: the typical peak temperature ofsmouldering organic soil fires is in the range 500-700oC, while for flaming fires it can be 1000-1500oC (Usup et al., 2004;
Rein, 2008). The lower temperatures and smouldering combustion associated with organic soil fires makes them harder todetect by satellites and leads to the emission of high amounts of CO relative to CO2 as well as large amounts of fineparticulate matter (PM2.5 ); fires on tropical organic soils, for example, emit as much as 3 to 6 times more particulatematter per amount of biomass consumed than other types of biomass fires (grassland, forest, plantation fires) (Heil et al.,2006). The emission ratio of CO to CO2 (ERCO/CO2) can be used as an indicator of the relative amount of flaming versus
smouldering combustion during biomass burning with higher ERCO/CO2 observed in smouldering fires (Cofer et al., 1989,
1990; Christian et al., 2007; Yokelson et al., 2007).

1027
1028
1029
1030
1031

Tier 2 and Tier 3

1032
1033



Stratification by drainage class. Position of the soil water table is a proxy for soil moisture which determines
depth of burn.

1034
1035
1036



Stratification by depth of burn. This can be measured in the field post-fire (e.g., Page et al., 2002; Turetsky& Wieder, 2003; Turetsky et al., 2011a, b) or using remote sensing approaches (e.g. LiDAR) (Ballhorn et al.,2009).

1037
1038



Stratification by different fire types (wild vs. prescribed fires). GIS techniques of interpolation may be
helpful in this analysis. Under Tier 3, one might consider annual sampling of a number of control sites.

1039
1040



Stratification by organic soil type taking into account general hydrology (e.g., bog vs. fen); vegetation
structure (open, shrubby, forested) whenever possible.

1041



Use of regionally-specific values for organic soil bulk density and carbon concentration.

1042
1043
1044



Stratification by different land-use and management types, including differences in drainage lay-out andintensity, land-use intensity and practices, all of which will influence the mass of fuel available for
combustion.

1045
1046

Emission factors can be derived from measurements (field or laboratory based) or calculations validated against
country-specific measurements. The literature on emissions from fires on organic soils is very sparse andAt higher Tiers the approach for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from fires on organic soils incorporates
country-specific information in Equation 2.8. When deriving higher Tier emission factors, country-specificcombustion factors need to be developed. Regional factors for stratification could include:

2.36

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1047
1048

countries are encouraged to share data when organic soil quality, environmental conditions and land-use
practices are similar.

1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058

A higher tier approach might also use process-based models, adequately validated using observation data thattake into account temporal and spatial variations in the differences between fires on different types of organicsoils and conditions and fuel combustion efficiencies. This approach will involve a comprehensive mechanistic
understanding of combustion of organic soils, including the effects of site characteristics, drainage intensity,
vegetation cover, soil type and depth, management practices, depth of water table and soil moisture among others.
Higher Tier approaches could start by developing robust relationships between drainage and depth of burn which
could then be further refined by land management category. Models ideally also take into account fire returninterval. Fire changes organic soil chemical and physical characteristics (Yefremova & Yefremov, 1996; Zoltai
et al., 1998; Milner et al., 2013) as well as the rate and nature of post-fire vegetation recovery, and thus can alter
total net ecosystem productivity.

1059

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066

Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category with organic soils stratified by climatezone and fire type. Total areas should be determined according to approaches laid out in Chapter 3 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines and be consistent with those reported under other sections of the inventory. The assessment offire-driven changes in soil carbon will be greatly facilitated if this information can be used in conjunction withnational soils and climate data, vegetation inventories, maps of burned area and other biophysical data.
Stratification of land-use categories according to climate zones, based on default or country-specificclassifications can be accomplished with overlays of land-use on suitable climate and soil maps.

1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079

Tier 1
Tier 1 methods require data on burned area of organic soils stratified by climate domain and fire type (wild vs.
prescribed). Data on burned area can be obtained from ground-based inventories, which can be very valuable inareas of small fire. Some countries/regions may have an established fire inventory method in place which they
are encouraged to maintain rather than go with less comprehensive satellite methods. For larger and/or lessaccessible locations, burned area data are often obtained from a time series of images from remote sensors. In
country burned area maps should ideally be mapped at Landsat TM scale (30-50 m resolution). If not available,
this could be degraded to 250 m and even 1 km data. Box 2.3 provides more details on the remote-sensing
platforms currently used for obtaining burnt area data. Other methods, such as national statistics and forest
inventory fire data can also produce suitable information in some cases, but may not be as reliable or ascomprehensive as remotely sensed data. Caution is advised regarding the use of detecting thermal anomalies
using data sets derived from satellite data. Whilst providing a reasonable indicator of the presence of a fire, one
cannot proceed to easily derive the burned area parameters required in the emission estimate equations.

1080

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.37

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

1081
1082

BOX 2.1
RECENT ADVANCES IN SATELLITE-DERIVED FIRE PRODUCTS

1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109

Recent advances in satellite-derived fire products using MODerate resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data from the Terra and Aqua satellites (Roy et al., 2008; Giglio etal., 2009); the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensor on the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Polar Operation Environmental Satellite(POES); the European AATSR and VEGETATION/PROBA satellites, and the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) have all enabled the derivation of burned area data innear real-time and thereby enhanced the ability to estimate the areal extent of regional and global
wildland fires and hence the scale of emissions (e.g. Gregoire et al., 2003; Simon et al., 2004;
Tansey et al., 2008; Giglio et al., 2009; Kasischke et al., 2011). Products derived from thesatellite data sets either provide an indication of the area burned or an indication that a possible
active fire is burning within the grid cell, which is based on a high surface temperature signal atthermal wavelengths. At the global scale, these data sets are coarse resolution (a pixel size larger
than 500 m). The resulting uncertainties and particular challenges associated with commission andomission errors in remote sensing approaches to peat fire detection and characterization, however,need to be recognized and acknowledged. In normal years, for example, fires on tropical organicsoils are relatively small (several hectares would be towards the upper end), and it is therefore
necessary to consider using satellite data sets acquiring imagery at an appropriate resolution.
During extended smouldering, fires in organic soils may be particularly difficult to pick up by
sensors sensitive to thermal wavelengths. There are on-going issues with cloud cover, which arebeing addressed with increasing use of radar imagery. Furthermore, there are very few operational
systems that can be used to develop robust and temporally stable products. The Landsat-8 mission
and the forthcoming European Space Agency/European Commission Sentinel programme will help
address this issue. The size of the study area is also very important as there may be existing data
sets available from which a long term time series of fire disturbance can be reconstructed (e.g. 40
years of Landsat data with gap filling with radar imagery). There are useful materials on fire
assessment and standards produced by the UN World Meteorological Organisation (e.g. GTOS 68,2010).

1110
1111
1112
1113
1114

Data on the location of organic soils can be obtained from several institutions, including ISRIC and FAO who
havecountry-specificandglobalmaps
thatincludeorganic
soils
(FAO,
2012)
(http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/External-World-soil-database/HTML/;
http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home; or http://www.isric.org/;). A global consortium has been
formed to make a new digital soil map of the world at fine resolution (http://www.globalsoilmap.net/).

1115

Tiers 2 and 3

1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123

Higher Tier methods require more disaggregated and spatially explicit activity data than lower Tiers. This
includes disaggregation according to drainage classes, vegetation type and condition (the latter refers tomoisture, leaf on/off, and other factors); drainage depth, and land management status to improve Tier 1 estimatesand may also take into account such variables as seasonal norms and modifications in water table level due toseasonal weather patterns etc. Data on depth of burn (obtained from in situ field measurements), along withcountry-specific data on organic soil bulk density and carbon content will also greatly improve knowledge of themass of fuel consumed and the scale of carbon emissions. Seasonal variations in fire-driven emissions are thenaggregated to annual emissions.

1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130

The accuracy of emission estimates will be further improved if information is available on land-use and its effecton organic soil condition, since fire extent and severity and hence quantity of emissions increase according to thescale of disturbance (e.g., disturbance of vegetation cover, and the presence of drainage structures associatedwith agriculture, forestry, peat extraction, oil and gas extraction, roads etc. (e.g., Turetsky et al., 2011a, b)).
Remote sensing techniques (e.g., Kasischke et al., 2009) can also be used to provide an indication of the likely
fire risk by estimating soil water conditions and providing an accurate proxy measure of organic soil surface
water content levels and hence likely depth of burn at a landscape scale.

1131

CALCULATION STEPS FOR TIER 1

1132
1133

The steps for estimating the CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fires on drained organic soils for land remaining
in a land-use category are as follows:

2.38

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1134
1135
1136

Step 1: Using guidance in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, stratify areas with drained organic soils ofland remaining in a land-use category for each land-use category according to climate domain and fire type.
Obtain estimates of A (area burnt) from national sources or, if those are not available, from global databases.

1137
1138

Step 2: Assign the appropriate fuel load (MB) and emission factor (Gef) from Table 2.6 and 2.7 respectively forthe gas.

1139
1140

Step 3: Estimate the CO2 or non-CO2 emissions by multiplying burnt area with the appropriate fuel load (MB)and emission factor (Gef) from Tables 2.6 and 2.7 using Equation 2.8.

1141

Step 4: Repeat step 3 for each greenhouse gas using emission factors (Gef) in Table 2.7.

1142

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165

There are several sources of uncertainty related to estimates of CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fires on organicsoils. Fire behaviour varies greatly among wetland types and hence, disaggregation of vegetative formations willlead to greater precision. The fraction of fuel that is actually combusted during burning (the combustion factor)
varies, not only between ecosystems, but also between fires, between years, and as a function of land
management practices. Measurements from a given fire, year, and/or region cannot be extrapolated withconfidence to other locations or years, or to the biome scale. An important cause of uncertainty is the choice ofemission factor that partitions the smoke into CO2, CO and other trace gasses, since this is strongly driven by theamount of flaming versus smouldering combustion that occurs, and this can vary widely in organic soils, and is
not well characterized from field data. In addition, the accuracy of the estimates of area burnt, proportion of theavailable fuel oxidized, and the biomass fuel available also contribute to the emissions uncertainty. Uncertainties
of estimates of areas burnt can vary markedly depending on the methodology employed – for example, wherevery high resolution remote-sensing is used it may be of the order of ±20%, whereas the use of global fire maps
may result in uncertainties of up to two-fold. Uncertainties in estimates of greenhouse gas emissions over large
regions from fire are likely to be at least ±50%, even with good country-specific data, and at least two-fold where
only default data are used. The calculation of emission errors is addressed by French et al. (2004). The study
looked at the possible ranges of error in the input variables, since robust data are not available for the range offire conditions and vegetation types that can burn. The sensitivity analysis revealed that ground-layer fraction
consumed is the most important parameter in terms of output uncertainty, indicating that burning in sites withdeep organic soils can be the most problematic in terms of uncertainty. The results of this work showed that
input data sets are incomplete in describing the possible variability in conditions for both pre-burn and during thefire, and attention to improving measurements and obtaining a range of measurements is a priority for modellingemissions from fire in organic soils.

1166
1167

2.3 LAND CONVERTED TO A NEW LAND-USE
CATEGORY

1168

2.2.3

1169

CO 2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils

1170
1171
1172
1173

CO2 emissions/removals from land converted to a new land-use category on organic soils within the inventory
time period are calculated in the same way as CO2 emissions/removals from land remaining in a land-use
category.1 CO2 emissions/removals for the lands in the conversion category are calculated using Equations 2.1
and 2.2.

1174
1175
1176
1177

On-site CO2 emissions after land-use change on drained organic soils can occur from all five carbon pools. Landuse change can result in direct losses/gains because of biomass clearance/(re)planting. This is addressed by
guidance for changes in the carbon pools in above-ground and below-ground biomass and dead organic matteron lands converted to a new land-use category provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

1178
1179
1180
1181

Land-use change can indirectly affect carbon gains and losses because of altered growth of woody biomass andaltered respiration and organic matter oxidation through altered soil temperature. These effects are included in
the guidance for lands remaining in a land-use category provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for above-groundand below-ground biomass and dead organic matter and updated emission factors in Table 2.1 of section 2.2.1.1.
1

For example if a Forest Land is converted to Cropland, methodology and emission factors for Cropland are to be used.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.39

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1182
1183

Additional carbon losses from biomass and soil can occur through altered fire frequency after drainage and landuse change. These CO2 emissions from fire are addressed in section 2.3.2.3.

1184

2.2.3.1

1185

ON - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS / REMOVALS FROM DRAINED INLANDORGANIC SOILS (CO 2 -C S O I L - O N S I T E )1186

CHOICE OF METHOD

1187
1188
1189
1190
1191

CO2 emissions/removals from land converted to a new land-use category on organic soils within the inventory
time period are calculated in the same way as CO2 emissions/removals from land remaining in a land-use
category. CO2 emissions/removals for the lands in the conversion category are calculated using Equation 2.3 if
the soils are drained. Specific guidance by other land-use categories is given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
Chapters 5, 6, 8 and 9.

1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199

At Tier 1, there is no transition period for CO2 emissions from organic soils because the land immediately
switches to the methods for the new land-use category. High carbon loss from organic soils can occur afterconverting natural vegetation to another land use, e.g. after converting tropical forest land to palm plantations, orconverting grassland to cropland. These additional CO2-Csoil-onsite emissions in the transition phase are notcaptured by the Tier 1 default emission factors shown in Table 2.1. A transitional phase is not captured by the
Tier 1 methodology due to lack of scientific data for deriving default emission factors. If a transitional phaseoccurs, it should be addressed by higher tier methods. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3 approaches isgiven in Section 2.2.1.1.

1200

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1201
1202
1203

At Tier 1, CO2 emissions/removal factors for lands in the conversion category are the same as for land remaining
in a land-use category. For Tier 1 these are given in Table 2.1. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3
emission/removal factors is given in Section 2.2.1.1.

1204
1205
1206
1207

If land conversions on organic soils contribute significantly to CO2 emissions from soils and if CO2 emissions
from soils are a key category, it is good practice to develop country specific Tier 2 emission factors that include
the additional CO2-Csoil-onsite emissions in the transition phase. Unless other country specific evidence is available
the default length of 20 years can be used for the transition phase.

1208
1209

Tier 3 methodologies could further consider the dynamic nature of the additional CO2-Csoil-onsite emissions in thetransition phase, which may be highest in the first years after the transition.

1210

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1211

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.1.1.

1212

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1213

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.1.1.

1214

2.2.3.2

1215

O FF - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS VIA WATERBORNE CARBONLOSSES FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (CO 2 -C S O I L - O N S I T E )1216

CHOICE OF METHOD

1217
1218
1219
1220
1221

Tier 1

1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228

At Tier 1, CO2 emissions/removals from land converted to a new land-use category on organic soils within theinventory time period are calculated in the same way as CO2 emissions/removals from land remaining in a landuse category. Guidance is given in Section 2.2.1.2 for DOC. CO2 emissions/removals for the lands in theconversion category are calculated using Equations 2.4 and 2.5.

Tier 2The Tier 2 approach for waterborne carbon losses from organic soils incorporates country-specific information toestimate the emissions. Tier 2 uses the same procedural steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1. Tier 2emission factors can be developed following the same principles as for land remaining in a land-use category.
Guidance is found in Section 2.2.1.2. Generally, the same stratification should be used for land converted to a
new land-use category as is used for land remaining in a land-use category. Tier 2 approaches for land-use
changes can be further stratified according to the time since land-use change. Specific transition periods can be

2.40

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1229
1230
1231

considered depending on the type of land-use change and the persistence of emissions or removals which differ
from those on lands that have been in the new land-use category for a long time. Alternatively, the default
transition period applicable to the new land-use category in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines can be applied.

1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237

Tier 31238

Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.1.2.

1239

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1240
1241
1242

CO2 emissions/removal factors for the lands in the conversion category are the same as for land remaining in aland-use category. For Tier 1 these are given in Table 2.2. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3
emission/removal factors is given in Section 2.2.1.2.

1243

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1244

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.1.2.

1245

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1246

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.1.2.

1247

2.2.4

Non-CO 2 emissions and removals from drained
inland organic soils

1249

2.2.4.1

CH 4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS

1250

CHOICE OF METHOD

1251
1252
1253
1254

CH4 emissions/removals from land converted to a new land-use category on organic soils within the inventory
time period are calculated in the same way as CH4 emissions/removals from land remaining in a land-use
category2. CH4 emissions/removals for the lands in the conversion category are calculated using Equation 2.5.
Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.2.1.

1255

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1256
1257
1258

CH4 emissions/removal factors for the lands in the conversion category are the same as for land remaining in aland-use category. For Tier 1 these are given in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3
emission/removal factors is given in Section 2.2.2.1.

1259

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1260

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.2.1.

1261

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1262

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.2.1.

1263

2.2.4.2

1264

CHOICE OF METHOD

1265
1266
1267
1268

N2O emissions from land converted to a new land-use category on organic soils within the inventory time period
are calculated in the same way as N2O emissions from land remaining in a land-use category. N2O emissions forlands in the conversion category are calculated using Equation 2.7. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3
approaches is given in Section 2.2.2.2.

The development of Tier 3 approaches follows the guidance given in section 2.2.1.2 including the guidance fortransparent documentation of Tier 3 approaches given in Section 2.2.1.1. Generally, the same approach should be
used for land converted to a new land-use category as is used for land remaining in a land-use category. Tier 3
methods should further differentiate transition effects of increased or reduced waterborne carbon losses afterland-use change and the time since land-use change.

1248

2

N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILSFor example if a Forest Land is converted to Cropland, methodology and emission factors for Cropland are to be used.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.41

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1269

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1270
1271
1272

N2O emission factors for the lands in the conversion category are the same as for land remaining in a land-use
category. For Tier 1 these are given in Table 2.5. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3 emission/removal
factors is given in Section 2.2.2.2.

1273

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1274

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.2.2.

1275

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1276

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.2.2.

1277

2.2.4.3

1278

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1279
1280
1281

Non-CO2 emission factors for the lands in the conversion category are the same as for land remaining in a landuse category. For Tier 1 these are given in Tables 2.6 and 2.7. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3
emission/removal factors is given in Section 2.2.2.3.

1282

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1283

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.2.3.

1284

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1285

Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category in Section 2.2.2.3.

N ON -CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM BURNING ON ORGANIC SOILS

1286

2.42

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft

1289

Annex 2A.1
Scientific background for developing CO2-C
emission/removal factors for organic soil from the scientific
literature in Table 2.1

1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295

The Tier 1 CO2 emission factors presented in Table 2.1 were calculated as annual net change of the soil organiccarbon (SOC) plus the belowground portion of the litter carbon in the different land-uses. CO2 emissions wereobtained by two well established methodologies: (1) Flux method: flux measurements are commonly used on all
types of organic soils to determine gas exchange at frequencies from minutes to weeks over monitoring periodsof up to a few years; or (2) Subsidence method: determining subsidence rates of drained organic soils at
frequencies of months to years, over periods representing one to many years of subsidence.

1296

Flux methods

1297
1298

The flux method uses chamber based techniques or eddy covariance in combination with auxiliary carbon pooldata from the study sites.

1299

Dark chamber measurements

1300
1301
1302
1303
1304

Chamber flux measurements are made with varying frequency over short periods with dark chambers todetermine total respiration (Rt) which includes autotrophic (Ra) plus heterotrophic (Rh) respiration from the soil
and heterotrophic respiration from litter. To obtain organic soil CO2 emissions the observed flux (Rt) must be
adjusted for the contributions from other carbon pools (e.g., litter) and autotrophic (plat root) respiration needs tobe subtracted. For these calculations, the proportion of Rh to Rt was estimated from a limited number of studies.

1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312

As with any mass balance approach, outputs must be balanced against inputs to calculate a net flux to theatmosphere. Thus, inputs in the form of root mortality and aboveground litter fall are important in calculating net
carbon loss or gain. Tier 1 assumes that the litter pool remains constant in a land use remaining in a land use, so
litter inputs to the SOC are equal to litterfall plus root mortality. While litterfall is relatively easy to measure,
belowground litter inputs are hard to measure directly (Finér et al., 2011; Gaudinski et al., 2010; Sah et al.,2010). Estimates of litter inputs were made from a limited number of studies and were subtracted from Rh to
estimate the net flux of carbon to the atmosphere. On Peatlands Managed for Extraction no vegetation is present
so that the net change in soil carbon was assumed to be Rh.

1313

Transparent chambers

1314
1315
1316
1317

CO2 emission measurements using transparent chambers determine net ecosystem exchange (NEE) i.e., thebalance between Rt and the gross primary productivity (GPP). To obtain SOC emissions the observed flux, NEE
must be corrected for the contributions from other carbon pools (e.g., litter, above-ground biomass, etc.). Design
and use of transparent chambers is described in detail by Drösler (2005)

1318

Eddy Covariance flux measurements

1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325

The Eddy Covariance (EC) method finds its greatest utility over larger site or landscape scales. Sophisticatedinstrumentation and data processing software calculate fluxes of gases by the covariance of gas concentrations
with the upward and downward movements of air parcels. In its simplest interpretation for CO2 fluxes the EC
method measures NEE (the balance of ecosystem respiration and GPP). Whenever photosynthetically active
radiation (PAR) is zero (such as at night) GPP is zero and NEE is equivalent to ecosystem respiration or Rt. In
essence the strategy for obtaining Rh from EC results are the same as for transparent chambers - correction isrequired for Ra (above and below ground), removals of biomass carbon, inputs of carbon from fertilizers, etc.

1326

Subsidence Method

1327
1328
1329
1330
1331

Drainage of an organic soil leads to subsidence or loss of elevation (Armentano and Menges, 1986; Grønlund etal., 2008; Leifeld et al., 2011). Oxidative loss of carbon can be related to volume loss of the organic soil using
bulk density and soil carbon content obtained from soil cores or pits. Total subsidence of the drained organic soil
surface is tracked over time using elevation markers. Other markers, such as pollen have been used to correlatehorizons among cores (Minkkinen et al., 1999) as an aid to determining subsidence rates.

1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337

The parameters used for calculating emission in each study varied slightly. We applied a standardized approachto calculating the emissions from each study so that assumptions across sites would be consistent. CO2 emission
estimates are obtained by converting the volume loss to carbon via bulk density, carbon content and estimates ofthe oxidized fraction of the volume lost as compared to compaction. Bulk density was considered to remain
constant over short periods of time and oxidation fractions were calculated from data in each paper, whenavailable, or data from similar sites were used when data were not available. In all papers, carbon content was

1287
1288

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.43

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1338
1339

not measured, so these values were estimated using the relationship of Warren et al. (2012). Subsidence
emissions were corrected for dissolved organic carbon losses using Tier 1 default factors from Section 2.2.1.2.

1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361

Tropical emission/removal factors
Two types of data were available for the tropical climate zone: flux studies and studies based on subsidence.
Integrating the two approaches was problematic because the data for each approach were different. The
approach that was finally adopted was to calculate one estimate using a gain-loss approach based on flux data foreach of the gain and loss terms of the mass balance for each land use. A second estimate was calculated using
the subsidence approach, aggregated by site, with all of the available data for a standardized approach. Eachapproach provided an independent estimate of the EF.

1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370

Selection of studies
A dramatic increase in published studies of CO2 fluxes occurred recently but not all studies reported results that
could be used to develop Table 2.1. Many experimental studies involved manipulations other than drainage sooften their results could not be used; exceptions are results from a “control” drained site. Survey studies,particularly on Cropland and Grassland, often involved fertilization or annual cropping where corrections were
often possible to determine Rh. Most studies in the boreal climate region and many in the temperate wereconducted seasonally – typically from April/May through September/October (in the N. Hemisphere).
Annualization of seasonal results were guided by several studies that specifically targeted winter fluxes (e.g.,
Alm et al., 1999; Heikkinen et al., 2002; Saarnio et al., 2007).

There was a divergence of opinion on several points; the general approach adopted by the authors was to split thedifference on the points where this occurred. One point of divergence was over the importance of consolidationof peat layers below the water table. Another was over the ability of surface flux measurements to adequately
capture respiration of belowground litter. Two calculations were made, one excluding one subsidence site andincluding the belowground carbon inputs to the measured surface fluxes. A second calculation was madeincluding the site previously excluded and excluding below-ground inputs. The final EF was derived from theaverage of these two calculations.
Errors were propagated by the quadrature of absolute errors method (Malhi et al., 2009) for each calculation.
Most estimates converged, but several estimates differed by more than 4 tonnes C ha-1 y-1. These differenceswere not statistically significant and means from each approach were within the 95% CI of each other. To
resolve the discrepancy between the two approaches, the final EF was determined to be the mean of the two
approaches. The uncertainty interval was taken from the highest and lowest value of the 95% CI for either
approach.

2.44

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft

1371

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors

1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384

The Tier 1 default EFs presented in Table 2A.1 were derived from the published studies listed. The number ofstudies available remains relatively small, although some include a substantial number of individual
measurement sites. Measured fluxes are generally quite variable within each soil/land-use type, and are not
evenly distributed across different organic soil types (for example, most of the data for deep-drained andshallow-drained Grassland on organic soils are obtained from studies in The Netherlands). Tier 1 defaults for
EFCH4-ditch were derived from the mean of all data within each land-use class, and uncertainty ranges were
calculated as 95% confidence intervals. Indicative Tier 1 default values for the fractional area of ditches within
drained organic soils were calculated in the same way, except that data from the Netherlands were omitted fromthe Grassland classes, on the basis that fractional ditch areas are considered to be higher here than elsewhere, andthat their inclusion would therefore lead to atypically high default values. Note that here are currently few dataon CH4 emissions from ditches in tropical organic soils or from blanket bogs. Further published data on ditch
CH4 emissions may be used to refine the default values presented in Table 2.4, or to derive country-specific Tier
2 emission factors.
TABLE 2A.1
COLLATED DATA ON DITCH CH4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED AND RE-WETTED ORGANIC SOILSEFCH4_ditch(t CH4-C ha-1 yr-1 )Fracditch

Schrier-Uijl et al., 2010, 2011

0.435

0.21

The
Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.592

0.25

Deep-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Best & Jacobs, 1997

0.072

0.06

Deep-drained Grassland

UK

McNamara, 2013

0.580

0.04

Dee-drained Grassland

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.450

0.04

Deep-drained Grassland

RussiaChistotin et al., 2006

1.989

0.04

Deep-drained Grassland

USA

Teh et al., 2011

1.704

0.05

Shallow-drained
Grassland

The
Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.592

0.25

Shallow-drained
Grassland

The
Netherlands

Best & Jacobs, 1997

0.345

0.06

Shallow-drained
Grassland

The
Netherlands

Van den Pol-Van Dasselaar etal., 1999a,b,c

0.085

0.25

Shallow-drained
Grassland

The
Netherlands

Hendriks et al. (2007, 2010)

0.375

0.10

Drained treed bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.114

0.03

Drained treed fen

Finland

Minkkinen & Laine, 2006

0.783

0.03

Drained afforested fen

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.139

0.02

Drained afforested fen

RussiaGlagolev et al., 2008

0.088

0.04

Drained treed bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.028

0.03

Drained afforested bog

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.301

0.01

Drained afforested bog

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.011

0.01

Drained afforested bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.192

0.03

Drained afforested bog

Sweden

Von Arnold et al., 2005b

0.013

0.02

Organic soil/land-use
typeCountry

Deep-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Deep-drained Grassland

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

Reference

2.45

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
Drained afforested bog

Finland

Minkinnen & Laine, 2006

0.053

0.03

Peat extraction site

FinlandNykänen et al., 1995

0.133

0.02

Peat extraction site

SwedenSundh et al., 2000

0.356

0.03

Peat extraction site

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

1.022

0.04

Peat extraction site

RussiaChistotin et al., 2006

0.797

0.04

Peat extraction site
(inactive)

FinlandHyvönen et al., 2013

0.011

0.06

Peat extraction(inactive)

CanadaWaddington & Day, 2007

0.110

0.05

Drained blanket bog

UK

Cooper & Evans, 2013

0.070

0.03

Drained tropical peat(abandoned)Indonesia

Jauhiainen & Silvennoinen,
2012

0.449

0.02

Drained tropical peat
(pulpwood plantation)

Indonesia

Jauhiainen & Silvennoinen,
2012

2.939

0.02

1385

2.46

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft

1386

Annex 2A.3

Derivation of DOC emission factors

1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is commonly the largest component of waterborne carbon loss from peatlands
and organic soils, with measured fluxes from natural peatlands ranging from 0.04 to 0.63 t C ha-1 yr-1. In many
peatlands, this flux is of comparable magnitude to the rate of long-term carbon accumulation (e.g., Gorham, 1991;
Turunen et al., 2004), and the size of waterborne carbon flux can therefore determine whether the site is a carbon
sink or carbon source (e.g., Billett et al., 2004; Rowson et al., 2010). If this DOC is subsequently converted to
CO2 via photochemical or biological breakdown processes, this flux will also contribute to overall CO2 emissions
from the organic soil (as an ‘off-site’ emission). This section describes the methodology that has been used toderive emission factors for DOC losses from drained peatlands and organic soils. At present, it is not considered
possible to set reliable emission factor estimates for other forms of waterborne carbon loss, or for the effects ofspecific land-use and land-use changes (other than drainage) on DOC loss. Methodological requirements todevelop these emission factors in future are described in Appendix 2a.1. The approach is based on Equation 2.5.

1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403

Estimation of DOC F L U X - N A T U R A L

1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411

Default values for DOCFLUX-NATURAL were derived from 23 published studies reporting DOC fluxes for 26 sites intotal, including natural boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, temperate blanket bogs, and tropical peatswamp forests (Table 2A.2). Most data were derived from catchment-scale studies with natural drainage
channels, for which accurate hydrological data are available, and to avoid double-counting of reactive DOC
exports from peatlands that are rapidly converted to CH4 or CO2 within the ditch network (i.e., on-site emissions).
Clear differences in flux were observed according to climate zone, with the lowest fluxes from boreal sites andthe highest fluxes from tropical sites, supporting a simple Tier 1 classification system for natural DOC flux
estimates based on this classification.

Most of the available published studies of drainage impacts on DOC loss report concentration changes relative toundrained comparison sites, rather than direct (robust) flux measurements. On the other hand, a larger number ofstudies provide reliable DOC flux estimates from natural, or near-natural, peatland systems. These two data
sources (DOC fluxes from natural sites, and DOC changes from drained-natural comparisons) were therefore
combined to derive best estimates of the DOC flux from drained sites, following Equation 2.5.

1412

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.47

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 2A.2
ANNUAL DOC FLUX ESTIMATES FROM NATURAL OR SEMI-NATURAL PEATLANDS USED TO DERIVE DEFAULTVALUES FOR DOCFLUX-NATURAL

Study

DOC flux(t C ha-1 yr-1)

Climate zone

Country

BorealFinland

Juutinen et al., 2013

0.037

BorealCanadaMoore et al. , 2003

0.043

BorealCanadaKoprivnjak & Moore, 1992

0.052

BorealCanadaMoore et al. , 2003

0.060

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al., 2006

0.060

BorealFinland

Jager et al., 2009

0.078

BorealSwedenAgren et al., 2007

0.099

BorealFinland

Rantakari et al., 2010

0.120

BorealSwedenNilsson et al., 2008

0.130

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al., 2006

0.159

Temperate

CanadaStrack et al., 2008

0.053

Temperate

CanadaRoulet et al., 2007

0.164

Temperate

USA

Urban et al., 1989

0.212

Temperate

USA

Kolka et al., 1999

0.235

Temperate

CanadaMoore et al. , 2003

0.290

Temperate

CanadaClair et al., 2002

0.360

Temperate

UK

Dawson et al., 2004

0.194

Temperate

UK

Dinsmore et al., 2011

0.260

Temperate

UK

Billett et al., 2010

0.234

Temperate

UK

Billett et al., 2010

0.276

Temperate

Ireland

Koehler et al. , 2009,2011

0.140

Temperate

Australia

Di Folco & Kirkpatrick, 2011

0.134

TropicalIndonesia

Baum et al., 2008

0.470

TropicalIndonesia

Alkhatib et al., 2007

0.549

TropicalMalaysia

Yule et al., 2009; Zulkifli, 2002

0.632

TropicalIndonesia

Moore et al., 2013

0.625

1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428

Estimation of DOC D R A I N A G E
A total of eleven published studies were identified which provided sufficient data to calculate ratios of either
DOC concentration or DOC flux between comparable drained and un-drained peat sites (Table 2A.3). These
included data from boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, blanket bogs, and tropical peats, and drainage forboth peat extraction and land-use change to agriculture. There is a reasonable degree of consistency among thestudies included; all show an increase in DOC following drainage, with an overall range of 15% to 118%. Mostof the published studies suggest a DOC increase close to the mean (across all studies) of 60%, and there wasinsufficient evidence to support the use of different Tier 1 DOCDRAINAGE values for different peat types, climate
zones, drainage type or drainage intensity. The use of concentration data to estimate DOCDRAINAGE does,
however, assume no corresponding change in total water flux as a result of drainage, which adds uncertainty to
the calculated flux changes. This uncertainty should be relatively small for high-precipitation boreal/temperatebogs, as a large change in water flux could only occur if there is a correspondingly large change inevapotranspiration. For drier bog sites, drainage might be expected to increase water fluxes, therefore amplifying
the observed concentration differences between drained and undrained sites (e.g., Strack and Zuback, 2013).
However for fens, which are fed by external groundwater or surface water inputs rather than solely by

2.48

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438

precipitation, there is greater potential for drainage to lead to fundamental changes in hydrological functioning(e.g., by routing lateral water inputs around the fen rather than through it), thus altering the water flux.
Consequently, although observed DOC concentration changes in drained fens are similar to those from drainedbogs (Table 2A.3), the appropriate default value of DOCDRAINAGE for fens is more uncertain. At Tier 1, it could
therefore be assumed that the DOC flux from a drained fen is unchanged from the natural flux (i.e., that
DOCDRAINAGE is equal to zero, and the DOC export is thus equal to DOCFLUX-NATURAL). At Tier 2 it may bepossible to develop specific estimates of DOCDRAINAGE based on paired comparisons between reliable DOC flux
measurements for undrained and drained fens, either on a country-specific basis or by pooling studies in different
countries. Alternatively, direct measurements of DOC export flux could be used to derive Tier 2 EFs for DOC
emissions from drained fens.

1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445

Overall, the available data support a Tier 1 default DOCDRAINAGE value of 0.60 for drained bogs and tropicalorganic soils. Given difficulties of quantifying the water budget of drained fens, there is greater uncertainty about
the applicable value for DOCDRAINAGE for this organic soil type. Therefore, countries may choose to apply thesame Tier 1 default value as in other soil types, or to make the assumption that DOC export does not increase
with drainage from fens, i.e., to apply the natural DOC flux value to calculate EFDOC. An exception may also bemade where drainage channels are cut into underlying mineral soils, as this has been found to reduce DOC loss
(e.g., Moore, 2007).

1446

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.49

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

TABLE 2A.3
DOC CONCENTRATION (ABOVE) OR FLUX (BELOW) COMPARISONS BETWEEN DRAINED AND UNDRAINED ORGANIC SOILS, USED TODERIVE DEFAULT VALUE FOR DOCDRAINAGE
Organic Soil
type

DOC
Land-use

Country

DrainedDOCDRAINAGE
(%)

Study
Undrained

Concentration-based studies (DOC mg l-1)
Boreal bog

CanadaGlatzel et al., 2003

60

110

83%

Boreal fen

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

CanadaStrack et al., 2008

16

24.29

53%

Boreal fen

Drainage

USA

Kane et al., 2010

56

71.7

29%

Boreal fen

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

Finland

Heikkinen, 1990

17

20

15%

PolandBanaś & Gos, 2004

48

71

49%

New Zealand

108

54%

Czech Republic

Moore & Clarkson,
2007
Urbanová et al., 201170

Temperate bog

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

36

53.9

51%

Temperate fen

Drainage

Czech Republic

Urbanová et al., 2011

17

37.5

118%

Temperate
blanket bog

Drainage

UK

Wallage et al., 2006

28

42.9

55%

Temperate bog
Temperate bog

Flux-based studies (DOC g m-2 yr-1)
Tropical peat
Tropical peat

Drainage(sago palm)
Drainage(agriculture)

Malaysia

Inubushi et al., 1998

33

63

91%

Indonesia

Moore et al., 2013

62

97

54%

1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473

The significance of DOC export in terms of greenhouse gas estimation depends on its ultimate fate, i.e., whether
it is returned to the atmosphere as CO2 (or even CH4), or deposited in stable forms such as lake or marine
sediments. The latter simply represents a translocation of carbon between stable stores, and should not therefore
be included in the estimation. The parameter FracDOC-CO2 sets the proportion of DOC exported from organic soils
that is ultimately converted to CO2. While uncertainty remains in the estimation of this parameter, there is
growing evidence that fluvial systems process a high proportion of incoming terrestrial carbon, and that much ofthis is converted to CO2 (e.g., Cole et al., 2007; Wickland et al., 2007; Battin et al., 2009; Algesten et al., 2003).
Both Jonsson et al. (2007) and Algesten et al. (2003) estimated that around 50% of all terrestrially-derived
organic carbon was mineralised within large, lake-influenced catchments in Sweden. Wickland et al. (2007)
measured 6% to 15% conversion of pore-water DOC to CO2, and 10% to 90% conversion of the vegetationderived DOC, during one-month dark incubations, while Raymond & Bauer (2001) measured 63%
biodegradation of riverine DOC during a one-year dark incubation. Multiple studies showing a strong correlation
between lake DOC concentration and dissolved CO2 concentrations (e.g., Sobek et al., 2003; Stutter et al., 2011
and references therein) all suggest widespread conversion of DOC to CO2 in lakes. Dawson et al. (2001)
estimated that 12-18% of DOC was removed within a 2 km stream reach, Experiments undertaken on lightexposed samples of peat-derived waters (Köhler et al., 2002; Worrall et al., 2013; Jones et al. , 2013)
consistently show rapid and extensive DOC loss, with averages ranging from 33% to 75% over periods of up to
10 days. Both Köhler et al. (2002) and Jones et al. (2013) found that peat-derived DOC was more susceptible tophoto-degradation compared to DOC from other water sources, and Köhler et al. (2002) found that most of the
DOC lost was converted to CO2 (e.g., Opsahl and Benner, 1998). Jones et al. (2013) observed that since muchof this degradation occurs within the first 48 hours, this would be sufficient to convert most peat-derived DOC to
CO2 before it enters the sea. Overall, Algesten et al. (2003) estimated that 90% of the DOC removal in their large
catchments was due to mineralisation to CO2, with only 10% buried in lake sediments. Terrestrially-derived
DOC which does reach the sea largely appears to be photo-chemically or microbially processed in the marine
system, mostly within years to decades (Bianchi, 2011; Opsahl and Benner, 1997).

1474
1475
1476

In summary, there is strong evidence that a high proportion of peat-derived DOC is mineralized rapidly inheadwaters; that this processing continues at a relatively high rate through rivers and lakes; and that any peatderived DOC that does reach the sea will nevertheless largely be mineralized in the marine ecosystem. These

Estimation of Frac D O C - C O 2

2.50

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481

observations support the use of a high value for FracDOC-CO2. Taking the ratio of mineralisation to sediment burial
obtained by Algesten et al. (2003), and assuming that a similar ratio applies to any DOC exported to the ocean,would suggest that around 90% of peat-derived DOC is eventually converted to CO2. On this basis a Tier 1
default value of 0.9 is proposed, with an uncertainty range of 0.8-1.0 to reflect uncertainties in the proportion of
DOC returned to burial in lake or marine sediments.

1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489

There is some evidence that controlled burning (for moorland management) also increases DOC losses (e.g.,
Yallop et al., 2010; di Folco & Kirkpatrick, 2011), although other experimental studies have shown no effect(e.g., Ward et al., 2007; Worrall et al., 2007). A precautionary estimate is that managed burning may increasemean DOC loss by 20-50%, but further work is required to resolve uncertainties on this issue (Holden et al.,2012). Grazing levels on semi-natural vegetation have not been shown to affect DOC loss (Ward et al., 2007;
Worrall et al., 2007), and data on the effects of more intensive agricultural (Grassland and Cropland)
management on DOC loss are currently insufficient to estimate an emissions factor. Therefore, generic values forthe effects of drainage may be used.

1490

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.51

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

1493

Annex 2A.4
Derivation of CO2-C and non-CO2 emission
factors for emissions from burning of drained organic soils fromscientific literature in Tables 2.6 and 2.7

1494
1495
1496

CO2 emission factors for fires on drained organic soils were obtained by a consideration of the available
scientific literature. The data presented in Table 2.6 and Table 2.7 provide default values for mass of available
fuel and emissions factors.

1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507

The data in Table 2.6 were obtained using a variety of different approaches to calculate the mass of fuelcombusted. It should be noted that there are only a limited number of publications providing ground- orlaboratory-based data on the depth (i.e. volume) of soil organic material consumed. Quantitative estimation of
depth of burn as well as organic soil characteristics (i.e. bulk density and carbon content) are not easy todetermine in the field, thus information on these key parameters is often based on theoretical assumptions orlimited ground measurements. This knowledge gap contributes considerably to the overall uncertainties related
to emissions from fires on organic soils because it is difficult to accurately assess the amount of fuel that isconsumed. Field data of depth of burn are available from a number of studies of fires on organic soils in northern
forests and peatlands in North America, Europe and Asia (e.g., Zoltai et al., 1998; Turetsky & Wieder, 2001;
Page et al., 2002; Benscoter & Wieder, 2003; Ballhorn et al., 2009; de Groot et al., 2009; Turetsky et al., 2011a,b), while in other cases, data have been extrapolated from previous studies.

1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513

Obtaining accurate field data on the depth of combustion on organic soils is problematic since there is usually alack of reference data. Turetsky & Wieder (2001) developed a method for field assessment that considered therooting depth of trees, while other studies have used comparison of adjacent unburned sites to quantify
combustion depth (e.g., Kasischke, 2000; Page et al., 2002; de Groot et al., 2009; Turetsky et al., 2011a) or
measurement of fuel loads before and after experimental fires (e.g., Usup et al., 2004). The use of LiDAR remotesensing has also been applied in one study (Ballhorn et al., 2009).

1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522

Nearly all the data presented in Table 2.6 for the boreal and temperate zones are actually from the boreal zone,
with only one study in the temperate zone (Poulter et al., 2006) and two studies in tropical zone (Ballon et al.,2009; Page et al., 2002). Most studies are of wildfires (i.e. unwanted and unplanned fires ignited other than byprescription (e.g., by lightning or as a result of human activities, including escaped prescribed fires as well as
those started through negligence or by arson) and are for fires on undrained peatland organic soils. Only
Turetsky et al. (2011b) provide depth of burn data for a wildfire on a drained boreal organic soil. In addition,
there are no data for organic soil losses associated with prescribed fires in the boreal/temperate zone but somestudies to suggest that DOC increases following fire (see also Annex 2A.2). Most prescribed (i.e. managed) fires
on the vegetation of organic soils probably result in either no or only minimal ignition loss of soil carbon.

1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538

Fuel moisture content, depth of water table and burn history will all determine the extent of organic soil
combustion during a prescribed fire but the scale of loss will often depend on the skill and experience of the fire
manager. In some parts of the temperate zone, prescribed rotational burning of vegetation on organic soils is along-established land management practice. In the UK it is carried out on about 18% of peatlands,
predominantly in the uplands (Marsden & Ebmeier, 2012), with the aim of removing the older, less productive
vegetation and encouraging new growth for livestock grazing and cover for game birds (Worrall et al. 2010). In
North America, prescribed burning of vegetation on organic soils is also practiced, with a range of benefits
including the reduction of wildfire hazards, improvement of wildlife habitats and restoration of ecosystem
diversity and health (e.g., Christensen, 1977). Typically prescribed burning will be carried out when fuelmoisture is high enough to prevent combustion of the organic soil but low enough to carry a surface fire, thus
reducing the risk of soil ignition. Shifts in climate have narrowed the window of opportunity for prescribedburning and changes in weather patterns have resulted in unexpected drying of peatlands during on-goingprescription burns. Some local fire managers have recognised this shift, but unfortunately this is a minimallystudied area and little information exists on the scale of emissions arising from the combustion of organic soils
during prescription burns. At Tier 1, it is assumed that there is either no or very little combustive loss of soilorganic matter during prescribed fires on organic soils.

1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545

For tropical organic soils, the average depth of burn has not been explored in a consistent way that
representatively covers the different geographical regions, vegetation types or the different fire types (i.e. wild vs.
prescribed fires). There have been a limited number of field measurements of depth of burn and estimates oforganic soil combustion losses. These have used either direct field measurements (e.g., Page et al., 2002; Usup etal., 2004) or a combination of field measurements and LiDAR data (e.g., Ballhorn et al., 2009). There are only
three studies of wildfires on drained organic soils and none in undrained organic soils, although studies havedemonstrated that in an intact condition tropical peat swamp forest is at very low risk of fire (e.g., Page et al.,

1491
1492

2.52

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562

2002). There have been a limited number of studies investigating depth of burn on drained organic soils under
agricultural management (e.g., Saharjo & Munoz, 2005). Prescribed agricultural burning is undertaken on both asmall and large scale to improve soil fertility and/or to remove forest or crop residues during land preparation
activities. For example, traditional ‘sonor’ rice cultivation on shallow organic soils involves regular burning ofcrop residues along with the soil surface to enhance soil fertility. In addition to field measurements, there havebeen limited laboratory-based burn tests aimed at establishing the environmental controls on depth of organic
soil combustion (e.g., Benscoter et al., 2011). While more field and laboratory experiments to determine fuelconsumption during fires on organic soils are needed (French et al., 2004) there is also a need for improved
remote sensing methods to aid burn severity mapping in peatlands (defined as the magnitude of ecologicalchanges between pre- and post-fire conditions) which can provide an indication of the likely depth of burn. Burnseverity is not easy to either investigate or quantify but there have been a limited number of studies using
spectral indices to discriminate different levels of burn severity in boreal and temperate forests (e.g., vanWagtendonk et al., 2004; Epting et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2008) but only one study to date of tropical organicsoils (Hoscilo et al., 2013). Even regionally developed consumption models can have large uncertainties withrespect to organic soils consumption. The development of robust methodologies to assess burn severity and totalorganic soil consumption in wetlands would enable more accurate quantification of carbon emissions from bothabove and below-ground fires for reporting at higher tiers.

1563
1564

Accurate assessment of the volume of organic soil combusted during a fire will only be feasible at higher Tier 2
and Tier 3 levels, while at Tier 1 level some simplifying assumptions are required.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.53

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

1568

Appendix 2a.1 Estimation for Particulate Organic Carbon(POC) and Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) loss frompeatlands and drained organic soils: Basis for future
methodological development

1569

This Appendix provides a basis for future methodological development rather than complete guidance.

1570

Particulate Organic Carbon

1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576

Particulate organic carbon (POC) is generally a negligible component of the carbon balance of natural peatlands
and organic soils. However, disturbance of organic soils through land-use change, including drainage (which can
include the dredging of peat from drains and canals), burning (managed burning and wildfire), conversion toarable and peat extraction, can all result in high rates of POC loss via waterborne erosion and also wind erosion.
In actively eroding blanket bogs, POC losses in excess of 100 g C m-2 yr-1 may represent the dominant form ofsoil carbon loss (e.g., Pawson et al., 2008; Worrall et al., 2011).

1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587

Available data suggest that the key determinant of POC loss is the proportion of the total area occupied byexposed (bare) peat, according to Equation 2A.1. The bare peat area, PEATBARE, would include unvegetateddrainage ditches, erosion gullies, peat extraction surfaces, and areas of the soil surface exposed by burning,
intensive grazing or the deposition of peat dredged from drainage channels onto the land surface. For Cropland,some estimation of the annual average proportion of the organic soil surface exposed over the full crop rotation
would be required. Data from eroding UK blanket bogs suggest that waterborne POC exports can be reasonably
well-predicted based on a POC flux from bare peat surfaces (POCFLUX_BAREPEAT) of around 4 t C ha-1 yr-1
(Goulsbra et al., 2013). Further work is required to establish whether different values would be applicable toother soil types, land-use types and climate regimes (in particular whether it is dependent on precipitation
amount or intensity). At present there are few data on which to base an estimate of airborne POC loss, andfurther work is required to quantify this loss term, which may be large in peat extraction and cropland sites.

1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596

Finally, there is limited information currently available from which to derive a value for the proportion of POC
ultimately converted to CO2, (FracPOC-CO2). Unlike DOC, a substantial proportion of POC is mobilized fromorganic soils through physical erosion processes, and its reactivity in fluvial systems is uncertain. Some studies
have shown fairly high rates of POC turnover in river and estuarine systems (e.g., Sinsabaugh and Findlay, 1995),
and POC redeposited on floodplains may be subject to moderate rates of oxidation (Goulsbra et al., 2013).
However, it is likely that a significant proportion of waterborne POC loss from organic soils may simply betransferred to lake or coastal sediments, re-deposited on floodplains, or transported to other land areas via aeoliantransport, rather than converted to CO2. Further research is therefore needed to establish realistic ranges for
FracPOC-CO2 in different systems.

1597
1598

EQUATION 2A.1
CALCULATION OF POC EXPORT FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS

1599

EFPOC  POC FLUX _ BAREPEAT  PEATBARE  Frac POC CO2

1565
1566
1567

1600
1601

Where:

1602

EFPOC = POC emission factor, t C ha-1 yr-1

1603

POCFLUX_BAREPEAT = Flux of POC from a bare peat surface, t C ha-1 yr-1

1604

PEATBARE = Proportion of the ground surface occupied by exposed peat

1605

FracPOC-CO2 = Conversion factor for the fraction of POC converted to CO2 following export from site

1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613

Dissolved Inorganic Carbon
Waterborne carbon fluxes from organic soils, comprising bicarbonate ion (HCO3-), carbonate ions (CO32-) andfree CO2, are collectively termed dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). These different carbon species exist in
equilibrium, depending primarily on the pH of the water. In water draining low-pH organic soils (i.e. bogs),
almost all DIC exists is present as CO2. Most of this CO2 derives from autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration
within organic soils, and is transferred laterally from soils into drainage waters, where it is consistently present at

2.54

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649

concentrations well in excess of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This supersaturated CO2 will be emitted(‘evaded’ or ‘degassed’) to the atmosphere, typically within a few kilometres of its source (e.g., Hope et al.,2001). Limited measurements of CO2 evasion from natural peatlands suggest that this emission is aquantitatively significant component of the overall carbon budget. For example, Dinsmore et al. (2010) recorded
a DIC flux of 0.12 to 0.16 t C ha-1 yr-1 at a Scottish peatland catchment, of which over 90% was evaded to theatmosphere within the first 5 km of the stream length. Although this may be considered an ‘on site’ emission, in
practice it will not be measured as part of the terrestrial CO2 emission using chamber-based methods, and isunlikely to be captured by eddy covariance methods. Consequently, direct measurements of CO2 emissions fromwater bodies draining organic soils (e.g., using floating chambers or gas transfer coefficients linked tomeasurements of dissolved CO2 within the water column) are likely to be required in order to obtain reliable
estimates of this component of the carbon flux. Currently, only a few such measurements are available forundrained organic soils (e.g., Hope et al., 2001; Billett and Moore, 2008; Dinsmore et al., 2009; Dinsmore et al.,2010; Wallin et al., 2012). For drained organic soils, insufficient data are currently available to permit default
emission factors to be developed. Further measurements of CO2 evasion for a range of climate zones, soil types,
land-use classes and drainage systems are therefore required to support future methodological development inthis area. Care is required to avoid double-counting of CO2 emissions associated with mineralisation of DOC
within downstream water bodies, as opposed to the direct degassing of CO2 released from the organic soil into
the water body.
As noted above, other components of the DIC flux can be considered minor for bogs, due to their low pH. This is
not the case for fens, which have a higher pH, so that HCO3- and CO32- may form significant components of thetotal DIC export. However, a high proportion of this flux may derive from weathering processes external to theorganic soil (i.e. in groundwater or river water inputs to the fen) and this geogenic flux cannot be considered apart of the internal carbon budget of the organic soil. On the other hand, autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration
processes may also generate dissolved CO2, which can then dissociate to form HCO3- and CO32- in alkaline
waters. This flux does form a component of the organic soil carbon balance, but further work is needed in orderto i) quantify this flux (particularly for drained organic soils); ii) differentiate this biogenic DIC from geogenic
DIC (for example using isotopic methods); and iii) determine the proportion of DIC exported from organic soils
which is ultimately returned to the atmosphere as CO2, rather than sequestered into sediments, such as marine
carbonate deposits.
Finally, available data consistently suggest that, other than emissions from drainage ditches (see Section 2.2.2.1),
on- or off-site emissions of dissolved CH4 from water bodies represent a negligible component of the total
carbon and greenhouse gas budget of organic soils (e.g., Hope et al., 2001; Dinsmore et al., 2010; Billett andHarvey, 2013).

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.55

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

1650

References

1651
1652
1653

Ågren, A., Jansson, M., Ivarsson, H., Bishop, K., Seibert, J. 2007. Seasonal and runoff-related changes in totalorganic carbon concentrations in the River Öre, Northern Sweden. Aquatic Science doi 10.1007/s00027-0070943-9.

1654
1655

Ahlholm, U. and Silvola, J. 1990. Turvetuotannon ja turpeen käytön osuus maapallon ja Suomen hiilitaseessa,
Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ser. D 183, 1–57, [in Finnish].

1656
1657
1658

Akagi, S. K., R. J. Yokelson, C. Wiedinmyer, M. J. Alvarado, J. S. Reid, T. Karl, J. D. Crounse and P. O.
Wennberg (2011). Emission factors for open and domestic biomass burning for use in atmospheric models.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11: 4039-4072.

1659
1660

Algesten, G., Sobek, S., Bergström, A-K., Ågren, A., Tranvik, L., Jansson, M. 2003. Role of lakes for organiccarbon cycling in the boreal zone. Global Change Biol., 10, 141-147.

1661
1662

Ali, M., Taylor, D., Inubushi, K. 2006. Effects of environmental variations on CO2 efflux from a tropicalpeatland in Eastern Sumatra. Wetlands 26, 612-618.

1663
1664

Alkhatib, M., Jennerjahn, T.C., Samiaji, J. 2007. Biogeochemistry of the Dumai River estuary, Sumatra,Indonesia, a tropical blackwater river. Limnol. Oceanogr., 52: 2410–2417.

1665
1666

Alm J, Schulman L, Walden J, Nykänen H, Martikainen PJ, Silvola J (1999a) Carbon balance of a boreal bog
during a year with an exceptionally dry summer. Ecology, 80(1), 161-174.

1667
1668
1669

Alm, J., Shurpali, N. J., Minkkinen, K., Aro, L, Hytönen, J., Laurila, T., Lohila, A., Maljanen, M., Mäkiranta, P.,
Penttilä, T., Saarnio, S., Silvan, N., Tuittila, E.-S. and Laine, J. 2007. Emission factors and their uncertainty
for the exchange of CO2, CH4 and N2O in Finnish managed peatlands, Boreal Environ. Res., 12, 191–209.

1670
1671
1672

Amiro, B. D., J. B. Todd, B. M. Wotton, K. A. Logan, M. D. Flannigan, B. J. Stocks, J. A. Mason, D. J. Martelland K. G. Hirsch (2001). Direct carbon emissions from Canadian forest fires, 1959-1999. Canadian Journalof Forest Research 31: 512-525.

1673
1674

Andreae, M.O., Merlet, P. 2001. Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 15:955–966.

1675
1676
1677

Augustin, J., Merbach, W., Steffens, L., Snelinski, B. 1998. Nitrous oxide fluxes of disturbed minerotrophic
peatlands. Agribiological Research, 51, 47–57.Aulakh MS, Bijay-Singh 1997. Nitrogen losses and fertilizer
N use efficiency in irrigated porous soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 47, 197–212.

1678
1679

Aulakh MS, Singh, B. 1997. Nitrogen losses and fertilizer N use efficiency in irrigated porous soils. Nutr. cycl.
Agroecosyst., 47, 197–212.

1680
1681
1682

Ballhorn, U., F. Siegert, M. Mason and S. Limin (2009). Derivation of burn scar depths and estimation of carbon
emissions with LIDAR in Indonesian peatlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:
21213–21218.

1683
1684

Banaś, K., Gos, K. 2004. Effect of peat-bog reclamation on the physico-chemical characteristics of ground waterin peat. Polish J. Ecol. 52: 69-74.

1685
1686

Basuki, S., Suwardi, Munoz, C.P., 2012. Emission of CO2 and CH4 from plantation forest of Acacia crassicarpa
on peatlands in Indonesia. 14th International peat congress, Stockholm, Sweden, 3-8 June 2012.

1687
1688

Battin, T.J., Luyssaert, S., Kaplan L.A., Aufdenkampe, A.K., Richter, A., Tranvik, L.J. 2009. The boundlesscarbon cycle. Nature Geosci. 2: 598-600.

1689
1690

Baum, A., Rixen, T., Samiaji, J. 2007. Relevance of peat draining rivers in central Sumatra for the riverine input
of dissolved organic carbon into the ocean. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 73: 563-580.

1691
1692
1693

Benscoter, B. W., D. K. Thompson, J. M. Waddington, M. D. Flannigan, B. M. Wotton, W. J. de Groot and M. R.
Turetsky (2011). Interactive effects of vegetation, soil moisture, and bulk density on depth of burning of thickorganic soils. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20: 418-429.

1694
1695

Best, E.P.H., Jacobs, F.H.H. 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: 129-144.

1696
1697

Bianchi T.S. 2011. The role of terrestrially derived organic carbon in the coastal ocean: A changing paradigm
and the priming effect. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 108: 19473–19481.

2.56

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1698
1699

Billett, M.F., & Harvey, F.H. (2013). Measurements of CO2 and CH4 evasion from UK Peatland headwater
streams. Biogeochemistry, DOI 10.1007/s10533-012-9798-9.

1700
1701

Billett, M.F., Moore, T.R. (2008) Supersaturation and evasion of CO2 and CH4 in surface waters at Mer Bleue
peatland, Canada. Hydrol. Process. 22, 2044-2054.

1702
1703
1704

Billett M.F., Charman, D.J., Clark, J.M., Evans, C.D., Evans, M.G., Ostle, N.J., Worrall, F., Burden, A.,
Dinsmore, K.J., Jones, T., McNamara, N.P., Parry, L., Rowson, J.G., Rose, R. 2010. Carbon balance of UK
peatlands: current state of knowledge and future research challenges. Climate Research, 45: 13-29.

1705
1706
1707

Billett, M.F., Palmer, S.M., Hope, D., Deacon, C., Storeton-West, R., Hargreaves, K.J., Flechard, C., Fowler, D.
2004. Linking land-atmosphere-stream carbon fluxes in a lowland peatland system. Global Biogeochem.
Cycl. 18: GB1024.

1708
1709

Blodau, C. (2002): Carbon cycling in peatlands: A review of processes and controls. Environmental Reviews 10:111-134.

1710
1711

Brady, M.A., 1997. Organic matter dynamics of coastal peat deposits in Sumatry, Indonesia, Department ofForestry. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, p. 258.

1712

Bremner JM 1997. Sources of nitrous oxide in soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 49, 7–16.

1713
1714
1715

Cahoon, D. J., B. J. Stocks, J. Levine, W. Cofer and J. Pierson (1994). Satellite analysis of the severe 1987 forest
fire in northern China and southeastern Siberia. Journal of Geophysical Research 99: 18 627 –618 638.

1716

Charman, D. (2002). Peatlands and Environmental Change. Chichester, U.K., Wiley.

1717
1718

Chimner, R.A., and K.C. Ewel (2005), A tropical freshwater wetland: II. Production, decomposition, and peat
formation, Wetlands Ecology and Management, 13, 671-684.

1719
1720

Chimner, R.A., Ewel, K.C. (2004) Differences in carbon fluxes between forested and cultivated micronesiantropical peatlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12, 419-427.

1721

Chimner, R.A., 2004. Soil respiration rates of tropical peatlands in Micronesia and Hawaii. Wetlands 24, 51–56.

1722
1723

Сhistotin M.V., Siгin A.A., Dulov L.Е. 2006. Sеasonal dynamiсs of caгbon dioхidе and mеthanе emission froma pеatland in Mosсow Rеgion drainеd for pеat eхtгaсtion and agriсultuгal usе. Agrokhimija 6: 54–62.

1724
1725

Christensen, N. L. (1977). Fire and soil-plant nutrient relations in a pine-wiregrass savanna on the coastal plainof North Carolina. Oecologia 31: 27-44.

1726
1727
1728
1729

Christian, T. J., B. Kleiss, R. J. Yokelson, R. Holzinger, P. J. Crutzen, W. M. Hao, B. H. Saharjo and D. E. Ward
(2003). Comprehensive laboratory measurements of biomass-burning emissions: 1. Emissions fromIndonesian, African and other fuels. Journal of Geophysical Research 108: No. D23, 4719,
doi:4710.1029/2003JD003704.

1730
1731
1732
1733

Christian, T. J., R. J. Yokelson, J. A. Carvalho Jr., D. W. T. Griffith, E. C. Alvarado, J. C. Santos, T. G. S. Neto,
C. A. G. Veras and W. M. Hao (2007). The tropical forest and fire emissions experiment: Trace gases emittedby smoldering logs and dung from deforestation and pasture fires in Brazil. Journal of Geophysical Research
112: D18308, doi:18310.11029/12006JD008147.

1734
1735
1736

Clair, T.A., Arp, P., Moore, T.R., Dalvac, M., Meng, F-R. 2002. Gaseous carbon dioxide and methane, as well as
dissolved organic carbon losses from a small temperate wetland under a changing climate. Environ.l Pollut.
116: S143-S148.

1737
1738

Clymo, R.S. and Reddaway, E.J.F. 1971. Productivity of Sphagnum (bog-moss) and peat accumulation.
Hidrobiologia 12: 181–192.

1739
1740

Cofer, W. R., III, J. L. Levine, E. L. Winstead and B. J. Stocks. 1990. Gaseous emissions from Canadian boreal
forest fires. Atmosphere and Environment, Part A 24: 1653–1659.

1741
1742
1743

Cofer, W. R., III, J. S. Levine, D. I. Sebacher, E. L. Winstead, P. J. Riggan, B. J. Stocks, J. A. Brass, V. G.
Ambrosia and P. J. Bost 1989. Trace gas emissions from chaparral and boreal forest fuels. Journal ofGeophysical Research 94: 2255–2259

1744
1745

Cofer III, W.R., Levine, J.S., Winstead, E.L. and Stocks, B.J. (1990) Gaseous emissions from Canadian boreal
foreest fires. Atmos. Environ. A-Gen., 24, 1653-1659..

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.57

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1746
1747
1748

Cole, J.J., Prairie, Y.T., Caraco, N.F., McDowell, W.H., Tranvik, L.J., Striegl, R.G., Duarte, C.M., Kortelainen,
P., Downing, J.A., Middelburg, J.J., Melack, J. 2007. Plumbing the global carbon cycle: Integrating inland
waters into the terrestrial carbon budget. Ecosystems 10: 171-184

1749
1750

Comeau, L.-P., Hergoualc’h, K., Smith, J. U. and Verchot, L. 2013. Conversion of intact peat swamp forest to oilpalm plantation: Effects on soil CO2 fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra. Working Paper 110. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

1751
1752

Comeau, L.-P., Hergoualc'h, K., Verchot, L.V., 2012. Soil respiration rates along a forest conversion to oil palm
plantation transition in Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia. Technical report.

1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759

Cooper M., Evans, C. 2013. CH4 emissions from ditches in a drained upland blanket bog, North Wales, UK. In:
Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters: Report to Defra under project
SP1205: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Non Gaseous Losses of Carbon from Peatlands - fate ofParticulate and Dissolved Carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
UK.Couwenberg, J., Thiele, A., Tanneberger, F., Augustin, J., Bärisch, S., Dubovik, D., Liashchynskaya, N.,
Michaelis, D., Minke, M., Skuratovich, A. & Joosten, H. (2011) Assessing greenhouse gas emissions frompeatlands using vegetation as a proxy. Hydrobiologia, 674, 67–89.

1760
1761

Couwenberg, J.and Hooijer, A and, 2013. Towards robust subsidence-based soil carbon emission factors for peatsoils in south-east Asia, with special reference to oil palm plantations. Mires and Peat,12:1–13.

1762
1763

Czaplak I., Dembek W. 2000. Polish peatlands as a source of emission of greenhouse gases. Zeszyty Edukacyjne
wyd. IMUZ, 6: 61-71.

1764
1765

Dariah, A., Marwanto, S., Agus, F., 2013. Peat CO2 emissions from oil palm plantations, separating root-related
and heterotrophic respirations. Submitted to Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

1766
1767
1768
1769

Darung, U., Morishita, T., Takakai, F., Dohong, S., Limin, H.S., Hatano, R., (2005) The effects of forest fire andagriculture on CO2 emissions from tropical peatlands, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Proceedings of theInternational Workshop on Human Dimension of Tropical Peatland under Global Environmental Changes,
Bogor, Indonesia, December 8 - 9, 2004, pp. 112-119

1770
1771
1772

Davidson EA 1991. Fluxes of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide from terrestrial ecosystems. In Microbial Production
and Consumption of Greenhouse Gases: Methane, Nitrogen Oxides and Halomethanes. Eds JE Roggers and
WB Whitman, pp. 219–235. American Society for Microbiology, Washington.

1773
1774

Dawson, J.J.C., Bakewell, T., Billett, M.F. 2001. Is in-stream processing an important control on spatial changes
in carbon fluxes in headwater catchments? Sci. Total Environ. 265: 153-167.

1775
1776

Dawson, J.J.C., Billett, M.F., Hope, D., Palmer, S.M., Deacon, C.M. 2004. Sources and sinks of aquatic carbon
in a peatland stream continuum. Biogeochemistry 70: 71–92.

1777
1778
1779

de Groot, W. J. and M. E. Alexander (1986). Wildfire behavior on the Canadian Shield; case study of the 1980
Chachukew Fire, east-central Saskatchewan. Proc. Third Central Region Fire Weather Committee Sci. andTech. Seminar, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Can. For. Serv., West. & North. Reg., North. For. Cent., Edmonton.

1780
1781

Dechow R, Freibauer A (2011) Assessment of German nitrous oxide emissions using empirical modelling
approaches. Nutr Cycl Agroecosystems 91(3):235-254.

1782
1783
1784

Department of Irrigation and Drainage and Land and Water Research Group (DID & LAWOO). 1996. Western
JahoreIntegrated Agricultural Development Project. Peat Soil Management Study. Final report, Wageningen,
The Netherlands. ISN 16849. Pp 171.

1785
1786

Deverel, S.J. Leighton, D.A. 2010. Historic, recent, and future subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
California. USA. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 8.

1787
1788

di Folco, M-B., Kirkpatrick, J.B. 2011. Topographic variation in burning-induced loss of carbon from organicsoils in Tasmanian moorlands. Catena 87: 216-255.

1789
1790
1791
1792

Dinsmore, K.J., Billett, M.F., Moore, T.R. (2009) Transfer of carbon dioxide and methane through the soilwater-atmosphere system at Mer Bleue peatland, Canada. Hydrol Process 23, 330-341.Dinsmore, K.J.,
Billett, M.F., Skiba, U.M., Rees, R.M., Drewer, J., Helfter, C. 2010. Role of the aquatic pathway in the
carbon and greenhouse gas budgets of a peatland catchment. Global Change Biol. 16: 2750-2762.

1793
1794
1795

Dobbie KE, McTaggart IP, Smith KA 1999. Nitrous oxide emissions from intensive agricultural systems:
variations between crops and seasons, key driving variables, and mean emission factors. J. Geophys. Res.,
104, 26891– 26899.

2.58

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1796
1797
1798

Drösler, M., 2005. Trace gas exchange and climatic relevance of bog ecosystems, Southern Germany.
Technische
Universität
München,
Freising.
Onlinepublishedat:
http://nbnresolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:91-diss20050901-1249431017

1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804

Drösler, M., Adelmann, W., Augustin, J., Bergman, L., Beyer, C., Chojnicki, B., Förster, Ch., Freibauer, A.,
Giebels, M., Görlitz. S, Höper, H., Kantelhardt, J., Liebersbach, H., Hahn-Schöfl, M., Minke, M., Petschow,U., Pfadenhauer, J., Schaller, L., Schägner, Ph., Sommer, M., Thuille, A., Wehrhan, M. 2013. Klimaschutz
durch Moorschutz. Schlussbericht des BMBF-Vorhabens: Klimaschutz - Moornutzungsstrategien 2006-2010.
201
pp.
publishedonlineat
TIB/UB-Hannover:
http://edok01.tib.unihannover.de/edoks/e01fb13/735500762.pdf

1805
1806
1807
1808

Drösler, M., Schaller, L., Kantelhardt, J., Schweiger, M., Fuchs, D., Tiemeyer, B., Augustin, J., Wehrhan, M.,
Förster, Ch., Bergmann, L., Kapfer A., Krüger G.-M. 2012. Beitrag von Moorschutz- und revitalisierungsmaßnahmen zum Klimaschutz am Beispiel von Naturschutzgroßprojekten. Natur undLandschaft, 87, Heft 02, pp 70-76.

1809
1810

Dutaur, L. and Verchot, L.V. 2007. A global inventory of the soil CH4 sink, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 21,
GB4013,doi:10.1029/2006GB002734, 2007.

1811
1812

Eggelsmann R, Bartels R. 1975. Oxidativer Torfverzehr im Niedermoor in Abhängigkeit von Entwässerung,
Nutzung und Düngung. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft 22: 215-221.

1813
1814
1815

Elsgaard, L., Gorres, C.-M., Hoffmann, C.C., Blicher-Mathiesen, G. Schelde, K., Petersen, S.O. 2012. Net
ecosystem exchange of CO2 and carbon balance for eight temperate organic soils under agricultural
management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 162: 52-67.

1816
1817

Epting, J., D. Verbyla and B. Sorbel (2005). Evaluation of remotely sensed indices for assessing burn severity ininterior Alaska using Landsat TM and ETM+. Remote Sensing of Environment 96: 328-339.

1818
1819
1820

Fiedler, S., Höll, B.S., Freibauer, A., Stahr, K., Drösler, M., Schloter, M,, Jungkunst, H.F. 2008. Particulateorganic carbon (POC) in relation to other pore water carbon fractions in drained and rewetted fens inSouthern Germany. Biogeosciences, 5: 1615–1623.

1821
1822

Finér L., Ohashi, M., Noguchi, K., Hirano, Y. 2011. Fine root production and turnover in forest ecosystems in
relation to stand and environmental characteristics. For. Ecol. Manage., 262: 2008–2023

1823
1824
1825

Firestone MK, Davidson EA 1989. Microbiological basis of NO and N2O production and consumption in soil.
In, Exchange of Trace Gases between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere. Eds MO Andreae and DS
Schimel, 7–21. John Wiley, New York.

1826
1827

Flessa, H., Wild, U., Klemisch, M. and Pfadenhauer, J. 1998. Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes from organicsoils under agriculture. Eur. J. of Soil Scien., 49: 327-335.

1828
1829

French, N. H. F., P. Goovaerts and E. S. Kasischke (2004). Uncertainty in estimating carbon emissions fromboreal forest fires. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, D14, 27, DOI: 10.1029/2003JD003635

1830
1831

Furukawa Y, Inubushi K, Ali M, Itang AM, Tsuruta H 2005. Effect of changing groundwater levels caused byland-use changes on greenhouse gas emissions from tropical peatlands. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 71, 81–91.

1832
1833
1834

Gaudinski, J., Torn, M., Riley, W., Dawson, T., Doslin, D. and Majdi, H.2010. Measuring and modelling thespectrum of fine-root turnover times in three forests using isotopes, minirhizotrons, and the Radix model.
Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles, 24 DOI 10.1029/2009/GB003649.

1835
1836
1837

Gebhart, K. A., S. M. Kreidenweis and W. C. Malm (2001). Back-trajectory analyses of fine particulate mattermeasured at Big Bend National Park in the historical database and the 1996 scoping study. Science of the
Total Environment 36: 185-204.

1838
1839

Giglio, L., T. Loboda, D. P. Roy, B. Quayle and C. O. Justice (2009). An active-fire based burned area mapping
algorithm for the MODIS sensor. Remote Sensing of Environment 113: 408-420.

1840
1841

Gill, R. A., and R. B. Jackson (2000), Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems, New Phytol.,
147, 13–31, doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00681.x.

1842
1843
1844

Glagolev, M.V., Chistotin, M.V., Shnyrev, N.A., Sirin, A.A. 2008. The emission of carbon dioxide and methanefrom drained peatlands changed by economic use and from natural mires during the summer-fall period (onexample of a region of Tomsk oblast). Agrokhimija 5: 46-58.

1845
1846

Glatzel, S., Kalbitz, K., Dalva, M. Moore, T. 2003. Dissolved organic matter properties and their relationship tocarbon dioxide efflux from restored peat bogs. Geoderma 113: 397-411.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.59

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1847
1848

Glenn S., Heyes A., Moore T. 1993. Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes from drained peat soils, southernQuebec. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 7: 247-257.

1849
1850

Gorham, E. (1991). Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming.
Ecological Applications 1: 182-195.

1851
1852

Gorham, E. 1991) Northern Peatlands: Role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming,
Ecol. Appl., 1: 182-195.

1853
1854
1855
1856
1857

Goulsbra, C. Evans, M., Allott, T. 2013. 5. Towards the estimation of CO2 emissions associated with POC
fluxes from drained and eroding peatlands. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland
drainage waters: Report to Defra under project SP1205: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Non
Gaseous Losses of Carbon from Peatlands - fate of Particulate and Dissolved Carbon. Report to the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.

1858
1859

Gregoire, J.-M., K. J. Tansey and J. M. N. Silva (2003). The GBA2000 initiative: Developing a global burnt area
database from SPOT-VEGETATION imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 24: 1369-1376.

1860
1861

Grønlund, A., Hauge, A., Hovde, A., Rasse, D. P., 2008: Carbon loss estimates from cultivated peat soils in
Norway: a comparison of three methods. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 81: 157-167.

1862
1863
1864

Grønlund, A., Sveistrup, T. E., Søvik, A. K., Rasse, D. P. and Kløve, B. 2006. Degradation of cultivated peatsoils in Norway based on field scale CO2, N2O and CH4 emission measurements, Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 52,
149–159.

1865
1866

Guðmundsson, J. & Óskarsson, H. 2008. Summaries of GHG measurement studies. UNESCO/ IHA Greenhouse
Gas Research Project. Measurement Specification Workshop, London, UK, 12–14 Nov.

1867
1868

Hadi, A., Inubushi, K., Furukawa, Y., Purnomo, E., Rasmadi, M., Tsuruta, H. (2005) Greenhouse gas emissions
from tropical peatlands of Kalimantan, Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71, 73-80.

1869
1870
1871
1872

Hairiah, K., M. van Noordwijk, and G. Cadisch (1999), Roots as part of the carbon and nitrogen input and outputof three types of cropping systems on an Ultisol in North Lampung, in Proceedings of the Seminar Toward
Sustainable Agriculture in Humid Tropics Facing 21st Century, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, 27–28
September 1999, edited by C. Ginting et al., pp. 86–95, Int. Cent. for Res. in Agrofor., Bogor, Indonesia.

1873
1874

Hairiah, K., M. van Noordwijk, and G. Cadisch (2000), Crop yield, C and N balance of three types of cropping
systems on an Ultisol in Northern Lampung, Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 48, 3–17.

1875
1876
1877

Hall, R. J., J. T. Freeburn, W. J. De Groot, J. M. Pritchard, T. J. Lynham and R. Landry (2008). Remote sensingof burn severity: experience from western Canada boreal fires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17:476-489.

1878
1879
1880

Hamada, Y., Darung, U., Limin, S.H. and Hatano, R. 2013 Characteristics of fire-generated gas emission
observed during a large peatland fire in 2009 at Kalimantan, Indonesia. Atmospheric Environment, 74, 177181.

1881
1882

Hargreaves, K.J., Milne, R., Cannell, M.G.R. 2003. Carbon balance of afforested peatland in Scotland, Forestry,76, 299-317.

1883
1884
1885
1886

Harrison, M.E., Cheyne, S.M., Sulistiyanto, Y., Rieley, J.O., 2007 Biological effects of smoke from dry-season
fires in non-burnt areas of the Sabangau peat swamp forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Paper presented
at International Symposium and Workshop Carbon‐Climate‐Human Interactions: Carbon Pools, Fire,
Mitigation, Restoration and Wise Use, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 27–31 August. (Available at http://

1887

www.geog.le.ac.uk/carbopeat/media/pdf/yogyapapers/p9.pdf)

1888
1889

Heikkinen, K., 1990. Transport of organic and inorganic matter in river, brook and peat mining water in thedrainage basin of the River Kiiminkijoki. Aqua Fennica, 20: 143-155.

1890
1891
1892

Heil, A., Langmann, B. and Aldrian, E. 2006. Indonesian peat and vegetation fire emissions: Study on factors
influencing large-scale smoke haze pollution using a regional atmospheric chemistry model. Mitigation and
Adaptations Strategies for Global Change 12: 113-133.

1893
1894

Hendriks, D.M.D., Van Huissteden, J., Dolman, A.J. 2010. Multi-technique assessment of spatial and temporalvariability of methane fluxes in a peat meadow. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150: 757-774

1895
1896

Hendriks, D.M.D., Van Huissteden, J., Dolman, A.J., Van der Molen, M.K. 2007 The full greenhouse gasbalance of an abandoned peat meadow. Biogeosciences 4:411-424.

2.60

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1897
1898

Henson, I. E., and M. T. Dolmat (2003), Physiological analysis of an oil palm density trial on a peat soil, J. Oil
Palm Res., 15, 1–27.

1899
1900

Hergoualc’h, K., Verchot, L.V., 2011. Stocks and fluxes of carbon associated with land-use change in Southeast
Asian tropical peatlands: a review. Global Biochem. Cycles 25, GB2001, doi:2010.1029/2009GB003718.

1901
1902

Hergoualc’h, K., 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, 93–101.

1903
1904

Hergoualc’h, K., Verchot, L.V., 2013. Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use and land-use change inSoutheast Asian peatlands. Submitted to Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

1905
1906

Hillebrand, K., 1993. The greenhouse effects of peat production and use compared with coal, oil, natural gas andwood. VTT Tiedotteita - Meddelanden - Research Notes 1494, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

1907
1908

Hirano, T, Segah, H., Harada, T., Limin, S., June, T., Hirata, R., Osaki, M. 2007. Carbon dioxide balance of atropical peat swamp forest in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Global Change Biol. 13: 412–425.

1909
1910

Hirano, T., Jauhiainen, J., Inoue, T., and Takahashi, H. 2009. Controls on the carbon balance of tropicalpeatlands, Ecosystems, 12, 873–887

1911
1912

Hirano, T., Segah, H., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Takahashi, H., Osaki, M. (2012) Effects of disturbances on the
carbon balance of tropical peat swamp forests. Global Change Biology 18, 3410-3422.

1913
1914
1915

Holden, J., Chapman, P.J., Palmer, S.M., Kay, P., Grayson, R., 2012. The impacts of prescribed moorland
burning on water colour and dissolved organic carbon: A critical synthesis. Journal of Environmental
Management 101, 92-103.

1916
1917
1918
1919

Honrath, R. E., R. C. Owen, M. V. Martin, J. S. Reid, K. Lapina, P. Fialho, M. P. Dziobak, J. Kleissl and D. L.
Westphal (2004). Regional and hemispheric impacts of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions onsummertime CO and O3 in the North Atlantic lower free troposphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 109:
D24310, doi:24310.21029/22004JD005147.

1920
1921

Hooijer, A., Page, S., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W.A., Lu, X.X., Idris, A., Anshari, G., 2012. Subsidence and carbon
loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9, 1053-1071.

1922
1923

Hope, D., Palmer, S.M., Billett, M.F., Dawson, J.J.C. (2001) Carbon dioxide and methane evasion from atemperate Peatland stream. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46, 847-857.

1924
1925
1926

Höper, H. 2002. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization rates in German agriculturally used fenlands. 149-164. In:
Broll, G. Merbach, W. and E.-M. Pfeiffer (Eds.). Wetlands in Central Europe. Soil organisms, soil ecologicalprocesses, and trace gas emissions. Springer, Berlin. 244 p.

1927
1928

Hoscilo, A., K. J. Tansey and S. E. Page (2013). Post-fire vegetation response as a proxy to quantify themagnitude of burn severity in tropical peatland. International Journal of Remote Sensing 34: 412-433.

1929
1930

Huttunen J.T., Nykänen H., Turunen J. & Martikainen P.J. 2003a. Methane emissions from natural peatlands inthe northern boreal zone in Finland, Fennoscandia. Atmos. Environ. 37: 147–151.

1931
1932
1933

Hyvönen, N. P., Huttunen, J. T., Shurpali, N. J., Lind, S.E., Marushchak, M.E., Heitto, L., and Martikainen, P. J.
20132012. The role of drainage ditches in greenhouse gas emissions and surfave leaching losses from acutaway peatland cultivated with a perennial bioenergy crop, Boreal Env. Res. 18., 109-126.

1934
1935
1936

Hyvönen, N. P., Huttunen, J. T., Shurpali, N. J., Tavi, N. M., Repo, M. E. and Martikainen, P. J. 2009. Fluxes of
N2O and CH4 on an organic soil: Effect of bioenergy crop cultivation, Biores. Techn.,doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.04.043.

1937
1938

Immirzi, C. P., E. Maltby and R. S. Clymo (1992). The global status of peatlands and their role in carbon cycling.
London, Wetland Ecocystems Research Group, Dept. Geography, University of Exeter: 1-145.

1939
1940
1941

Inubushi K, Furukawa Y, Hadi A, Purnomo E, Tsuruta H 2003. Seasonal changes of CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes
in relation to land-use change in tropical peatlands located in coastal area of South Kalimantan. Chemosphere,
52, 603–608.

1942
1943
1944

Inubushi, K., Hadi, A., Okazaki, M., Yonebayashi, K. 1998. Effect of converting wetland forest to sago palm
plantations on methane gas flux and organic carbon dynamics in tropical peat soil. Hydrol. Process. 12: 20732080.

1945
1946

IPCC 2010, Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Report of IPCC Expert
Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in Greenhouse Gas Inventories 9-11 August 2010, Sydney,

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.61

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1947
1948

Australia) eds: Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K., Baasansuren J., Fukuda M., GHG Pub. IGES, Japan
2010.

1949
1950

Ishida, T,, Suzuki, S.,Nagano, T., Osawa, K., Yoshino, K., Fukumura, K., Nuyim, T. 2001. CO2 emission ratefrom a primary peat swamp forest ecosystem in Thailand. Environ Control Biol 39(4): 305–12.

1951
1952
1953

Ishizuka,S., Iswandi, A., Nakajima, Y., Yonemura, S., Sudo, S., Tsuruta H., and Murdiyarso, D., 2005. The
variation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils of various land-use/cover types in Jambi province,
Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71: 17–32, DOI 10.1007/s10705-004-0382.

1954
1955

Itkonen, A. and M. J. Jantunen (1986). Emissions and particle-size distribution of some metallic elements of twopeat/oil-fired boilers. Environmental Science and Technology 20: 335-341.

1956
1957
1958

Jaakkola, A. 1985. Lannoite ja kasviainestypen hyväksikäyttö ja häviö. Biologisen typensidonnan ja
ravinnetypen hyväksikäytön projekti. Suomen itsenäisyyden juhlavuoden 1967 rahasto. Julkaisu 13. Helsinki.
107 pp. (in Finnish).

1959
1960
1961

Jager, D.F., Wilmking, M., Kukkonen, J.V.K. 2009. The influence of summer seasonal extremes on dissolved
organic carbon export from a boreal peatland catchment: Evidence from one dry and one wet growing season.
Sci. Total Environ. 407: 1373-1382.

1962
1963

Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A., Page, S.E., 2012a. Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation on peatland
in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9, 617-630.

1964
1965
1966

Jauhiainen, J., Silvennoinen, H., Hämäläinen, R., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Raison, R.J., Vasander, H., 2012b.
Nitrous oxide fluxes from tropical peat with different disturbance history and management. Biogeosciences 9,1337-1350.

1967
1968
1969
1970

Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A., Page, S.E., 2012c. Greenhouse gas emissions from a plantation on thick tropical peat.
14th International peat congress, Stockholm, Sweden, 3-8 June 2012.Jauhiainen, J., Limin, S., Silvennoinen,
H., Vasander, H. (2008) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in drained tropical peat before and afterhydrological restoration. Ecology 89, 3503-3514.

1971
1972

Jauhiainen, J., Silvennoinen, H. 2012. Diffusion GHG fluxes at tropical peatland drainage canal water surfaces.
Suo 63, 93-105.

1973
1974

Johnson, E. A. (1992). Fire and vegetation dynamics: studies from the North American boreal forest. Cambridge,
UK, Cambridge University Press.

1975
1976
1977
1978

Jones, T., Jones,. D., Evans, C. 2013. Conversion of waterborne DOC to CO2 – results of laboratory experiments.
In: Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters: Report to Defra under project
SP1205: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Non Gaseous Losses of Carbon from Peatlands - fate ofParticulate and Dissolved Carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.

1979
1980

Jonsson, A. Algesten, G., Bergström, A-K, Bishop, K., Sobek, S., Tranvik, L.J., Jansson, M. (2009). Integrating
aquatic carbon fluxes in a boreal catchment carbon budget. J. Hydrol. 334: 141-150.

1981
1982
1983

Juutinen, S., Väliranta, M, Kuutti, V., Laine, A.M., Virtanen, T., Seppä, H., Weckström, J., Tuittila, E-S. (2013)..
Short-term and long-term carbon dynamics in a northern peatland-stream-lake continuum: A catchment
approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 118, 171-183.

1984
1985
1986
1987

Kajii, Y., S. Kato, D. Streets, N. Tsai, A. Shvidenko, S. Nilsson, I. McCallum, N. Minko, N. Abushenko, D.
Altyntsev and T. Khodzer (2002). Boreal forest fires in Siberia in 1998: estimation of area burned andemissions of pollutants by advanced very high resolution radiometer satellite data. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 107. D24, ACH 4-1–ACH 4-8, 27, DOI: 10.1029/2001JD001078.

1988
1989
1990

Kakuda, K-I; Watanabe, A; Ando, H; Jong, FS (2005) Effects of Fertilizer Application on the Root andAboveground Biomass of Sago Palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) Cultivated in Peat Soil. Jpn. J. Trop. Agr.
49(4) : 264 – 269.

1991
1992
1993

Kane, E.S., Turetsky, M.R., Harden, J.W., McGuire, A.D., Waddington, J.M. Seasonal ice and hydrologic
controls on dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a boreal-rich fen. J. Geophys. Res. 115,
G04012. doi:10.1029/2010JG001366.

1994
1995

Kasimir-Klemedtsson Å., Klemedtsson L., Berglund K., Martikainen P., Silvola J., Oenema O. 1997.
Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: a review. Soil Use and Manag., 13: 245-250.

1996
1997

Kasimir-Klemedtsson, Å ., Weslien, P. and Klemedtsson, L. (2009)). Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from a
farmed Swedish Histosol, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 60, 321–331, doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2389.2009.01124.x.

2.62

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
1998
1999

Kasischke, E. S. 2000. Boreal ecosystems in the carbon cycle. Fire, Climate Change and Carbon Cycling in the
North American Boreal Forest. E. S. Kasischke and B. J. Stocks. New York, Springer-Verlag: 19-30.

2000
2001

Kasischke, E. S. and Bruhwiler, L. P. (2003). Emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane fromboreal forest fires in 1998. Journal of Geophysical Research 108: 8146, doi:8110.1029/2001JD000461.

2002
2003
2004

Kasischke, E. S., Hyer, E. J. Novelli, P. C. Bruhwiler, L. P. French, N. H. F. Sukhinin, A. I. Hewson J. H. andStocks, B. J. (2005). Influences of boreal fire emissions on Northern Hemisphere atmospheric carbon andcarbon monoxide. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19: GB1012, doi:1010.1029/2004GB002300.

2005
2006
2007

Kasischke, E. S., Bourgeau-Chavez, L. L. Rober, A. R. Wyatt, K. H. Waddington J. M. and Turetsky M. R.
(2009). Effects of soil moisture and water depth on ERS SAR backscatter measurements from an
Alaskan wetland complex. Remote Sensing of Environment 113: 1868-1873.

2008
2009

Kasischke, E. S., Christensen, N. L. and Stocks, B. J. (1995). Fire, global warming, and the carbon balance of
boreal forests. Ecological Applications 5: 437-451.

2010
2011
2012

Kasischke, E. S., Loboda, T., Giglio, L., French, N. H. F. Hoy, E. E. de Jong, B. and Riaño, D. (2011).
Quantifying burned area from fires in North American forests: Implications for direct reduction of carbon
stocks. Journal of Geophysical Research 116: doi:10.1029/2011JG001707.

2013
2014

Keeney D.R., Fillery I.R., Marx G.P. 1979. Effect of temperature on the gaseous nitrogen products ofdenitrification in a silty loam soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 43, 1124–1128.

2015
2016

Klemedtsson. L., von Arnold, K., Weslien, P. and Gundersen, P. (2005). Soils CN ratio as scalar parameter topredict nitrous oxide emissions. Global Change Biology 11:1142–1147.

2017
2018

Koehler, A-K., Murphy, K., Kiely, G., Sottocornola, M. (2009). Seasonal variation of DOC concentration andannual loss of DOC from an Atlantic blanket bog in South Western Ireland. Biogeochemistry 95: 231–242.

2019
2020

Koehler, A-K., Sottocornola, M., Kiely, G. (2011). How strong is the current carbon sequestration of an Atlantic
blanket bog? Global Change Biol. 17: 309–319.

2021
2022

Köhler, S., Buffam, I., Jonsson, A., Bishop, K. (2002). Photochemical and microbial processing of stream andsoil water dissolved organic matter in a boreal forested catchment in northern Sweden./ Aquat. Sci. 64, 1-13.

2023
2024

Kolka, R.K., Grigal, D.F., Verry, E.S., Nater, E.A. (1999). Mercury and organic carbon relationships in streams
draining forested upland peatland watersheds. J. Environmental Quality 28: 766-775.

2025
2026
2027

Komulainen, V.-M., Nykänen, H., Martikainen, P. J. and Laine, J. (1998). Short-term effect of restoration onvegetation change and methane emissions from peatlands drained for forestry in southern Finland, Can. J.
For. Res., 28, 402–411.

2028
2029

Komulainen, V.-M., Tuittila, E. S., Vasander, H. and Laine, J. (1999). Restoration of drained peatlands insouthern Finland: initial effects on vegetation change and CO2 balance, J. Appl. Ecol., 36, 634–648.

2030
2031

Koprivnjak, J-F, Moore, T.R. 1992. Sources, sinks and fluxes of dissolved organic carbon in subarctic fen
catchments. Arctic and Alpine Research, 24: 204-210.

2032
2033

Kortelainen, P., Mattsson, T., Finér, L., Ahtiainen, M., Saukkonen, S., Sallantaus, T. (2006). Controls on theexport of C, N, P and Fe from undisturbed boreal catchments, Finland. Aquat. Sci. 68: 453-468.

2034
2035

Kreshtapova V.N., Maslov B.S. 2004. Contents of carbon compounds in reclaimed peat soils as a function of theproperties of peat organic matter. Proc of 12th Peat Cong., Tampere, volume 2: 988-992.

2036
2037
2038

Kroon, P. S., Schrier-Uijl, A. P., Hensen, A., Veenendaal, E. M., Jonker, H. J. J. (2010). Annual balances of
CH4 and N2O from a managed fen meadow using eddy covariance flux measurements. European Journal of
Soil Science 61:773-784, 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01273.x.

2039
2040

Kuhry, P. (1994). The role of fire in the development ofSphagnum-dominated peatlands in western boreal
Canada. Journal of Ecology 82: 899-910.

2041
2042

Kuntze, H., (1992). Peat losses by liming and fertilization of peatlands used as Grassland. Proc 9th Int Peat
Congress, vol. 2: 306–314.

2043
2044
2045
2046

Laine, J., Minkkinen, K., Sinisalo, J., Savolainen, I. and Martikainen, P. J. 1996. Greenhouse Impact of a mire
after drainage for forestry, in: Northern Forested Wetlands, Ecology and Management, edited by: Trettin, C.
C., Jurgensen, M. F., Grigal, D. F., Gale, M. R. and Jeglum, J. K., CRC Lewis Publishers Boca Raton, USA,437–447.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.63

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2047
2048

Lamade, E., and J-P. Bouillet (2005), Carbon storage and global change: the role of oil palm, OCL - Oléagineux,
Corps Gras, Lipides, 12, 154-160.

2049
2050
2051

Langeveld C.A., Segers R., Dirks B.O.M., van den Pol-van Dasselaar A., Velthof G.L., Hensen A. 1997.
Emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O from pasture on drained peat soils in the Netherlands. Europ. J. Agr. 7: 3542.

2052
2053
2054

Lapina, K., R. E. Honrath, R. C. Owen, M. Val Martin, E. J. Hyer and P. Fialho (2008). Late-summer changes inburning conditions in the boreal regions and thier implications for NOx and CO emissions from boreal fires.
Journal of Geophysical Research 113: D11304, doi:11310.11029/12007JD009421.

2055
2056
2057
2058

Laurila, T., Lohila, A., Aurela, M., Tuovinen, J.-P., Thum, T., Aro, L, Laine, J., Penttilä, T., Minkkinen, K.,
Riutta, T., Rinne, J., Pihlatie, M. and Vesala, T. 2007. Ecosystem-level carbon sink measurements on forested
peatlands, in: Greenhouse Impacts of the Use of Peat and Peatlands in Finland, edited by: Sarkkola, S.,
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 11a/2007, 38–40.

2059
2060

Leifeld J., Müller M. & Fuhrer J., 2011. Peatland subsidence and carbon loss from drained temperate fens. Soil
Use and Management, June 2011, 27, 170-176.

2061
2062
2063

Lindroth, A., Klemedtsson, L., Grelle, A., Weslien, P. and Langvall O. 2007. Measurement of net ecosystem
exchange, productivity and respiration in three spruce forests in Sweden shows unexpectedly large soil
carbon losses. Biogeochemistry 89(1): 43–60. DOI 10.1007/s10533-007-9137-8.

2064
2065
2066
2067

Lloyd, C. R., (2006). Annual carbon balance of a managed wetland meadow in the Somerset Levels, UK.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 138 :168–179.Lohila, A., Aurela, M., Tuovinen, J.-P. and Laurila, T.
2004. Annual CO2 exchange of a peat field growing spring barley or perennial forage, J. Geophys. Res., 109,
D18116, doi:10.1029/2004JD004715.

2068
2069
2070

Lohila, A., Laurila, T., Aro, L., Aurela, M., Tuovinen, J.-P., Laine, J. and Minkkinen, K. 2007. Carbon dioxide
exchange above a 30-year-old Scots pine plantation established on organic-soil Cropland, Boreal Environ.
Res., 12, 141–157.

2071
2072
2073

Lohila, A, Minkkinen, K, Aurela, M, Tuovinen, J-P, Penttilä, T and Laurila, T.Lohila, A, Minkkinen, K, Aurela,
M, Tuovinen, J-P, Penttilä, T and Laurila, T. 2011. Greenhouse gas flux measurements in a forestry-drained
peatland indicate a large carbon sink. Biogeosciences Discuss, 8: 5787–5825.

2074
2075

Lorenz, W. D., Sauerbrey, R., Eschner, D., Lehrkamp, H. Zeitz, J. 1992. Zustand der landwirtschaftlich
genutzten Niedermoore in der ehemaligen DDR, Wasser und Boden, 44, 58-61

2076
2077

Lucas, R. E. (1982). Organic soils (Histosols). Formation, distribution, physical and chemical properties andmanagement for crop production. Michigan State University.

2078
2079
2080

Mäkiranta, P., Hytönen, J., Aro, L., Maljanen, M., Pihlatie, M., Potila, H., Shurpali, N. J., Laine, J., Lohila, A.,
Martikainen, P. J. and Minkkinen, K. 2007. Soil greenhouse gas emissions from afforested organic soil
Croplands and peat extraction peatlands, Boreal Environ. Res., 12, 159–175.

2081
2082

Malhi, Y., et al. 2009. Comprehensive assessment of carbon productivity, allocation and storage in three
Amazonian forests, Global Change Biol., doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01780.x.

2083
2084

Maljanen, M. Hytönen, J. Martikainen, PJ. 2010. Cold-season nitrous oxide dynamics in a drained boreal
peatland differ depending on land-use practice. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 40 (3): 565-572.

2085
2086
2087

Maljanen, M. Sigurdsson, B.D., Guðmundsson, J., Óskarsson, H., Huttunen, J.T., and Martikainen, P.J.2010.
Greenhouse gas balances of managed peatlands in the Nordic countries – present knowledge and gaps.
Biogeosciences, 7, 2711–2738.

2088
2089

Maljanen, M., Alm, J., Martikainen, P. J. and Repo, T. 2009a. Prolongation of soil frost resulting from reduced
snow cover increases nitrous oxide emissions from boreal forest soil, Boreal Environ. Res., in press.

2090
2091

Maljanen, M., Hytönen, J. and Martikainen, P. J. 2001b. Fluxes of N2O, CH4 and CO2 on afforested boreal
agricultural soils, Plant Soil, 231, 113–121.

2092
2093
2094

Maljanen, M., Hytönen, J., Mäkiranta, P., Alm, J., Minkkinen, K., Laine, J. and Martikainen, P. J. 2007a.
Greenhouse gas emissions from cultivated and abandoned organic Croplands in Finland, Boreal Environ.
Res., 12, 133–140.

2095
2096
2097

Maljanen, M., Komulainen, V.-M., Hytönen, J., Martikainen, P. J. and Laine, J. 2004. Carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide and methane dynamics in boreal organic agricultural soils with different soil management, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 36, 1801–1808.

2.64

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
2098
2099

Maljanen, M., Liikanen, A., Silvola, J. and Martikainen, P. J. 2003a. Methane fluxes on agricultural and forested
boreal organic soils, Soil Use Manage., 19, 73–79.

2100
2101

Maljanen, M., Liikanen, A., Silvola, J. and Martikainen, P. J. 2003b. Nitrous oxide emissions from borealorganic soil under different land-use, Soil Biol. Biochem., 35, 689–700.

2102
2103

Maljanen, M., Martikainen, P. J., Walden, J. and Silvola, J. 2001a. CO2 exchange in an organic field growing
barley or grass in eastern Finland, Glob. Change Biol., 7, 679–692.

2104
2105

Maljanen, M., Nykänen, H., Moilanen, M. and Martikainen, P. J. 2006a. Greenhouse gas fluxes of coniferous
forest floors affected by wood ash fertilization, For. Ecol. Man., 237, 143–149.

2106
2107
2108
2109

Maljanen, M., Virkajärvi, P., Hytönen, J., Öquist, M., Sparrman, T. and Martikainen, P. J. 2009b. Nitrous oxide
production in boreal soils with variable organic matter content at low temperature snow manipulation
experiment,
Biogeosciences
Discuss.,
6,5305–5337,
2009,
http://www.biogeosciencesdiscuss.net/6/5305/2009/.

2110

Marsden, K. and S. Ebmeier (2012). Peatlands and climate change. SPICe briefing: 35.

2111
2112

Martikainen, P. J., Nykänen, H., Alm, J. and Silvola, J. 1995a. Change in fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane andnitrous oxide due to forest drainage of mire sites of different trophy, Plant Soil, 168–169, 571–577.

2113
2114

Martikainen, P. J., Nykänen, H., Crill, P. and Silvola, J. 1993. Effect of a lowered water table on nitrous oxide
fluxes from northern peatlands, Nature, 366, 51–53.

2115
2116

Martikainen, P. J., Nykänen, H., Crill, P. and Silvola, J.1992. The effect of changing water table on methane
fluxes at two Finnish mire sites, Suo, 43, 237–240.

2117
2118
2119
2120

Martikainen, P. J., Nykänen, H., Regina, K., Lehtonen, M. and Silvola, J. 1995b. Methane fluxes in a drained andforested peatland treated with different nitrogen compounds, in: Northern Peatlands in Global Climatic
Change, edited by: Laiho, R., Laine, J. and Vasander, H. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in
Hyytiälä, Finland, Helsinki, 105–109.

2121
2122
2123

Marwanto, S. and Agus, F. 2013. Is CO2 flux from oil palm plantations on peatland controlled by water table,soil moisture, day/night rhytm and/or temperature? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.
Accepted.

2124
2125
2126

Matthews, R. B., R. Wassmann, L. V. Buendia, and J. W. Knox (2000), Using a crop/soil simulation model and
GIS techniques to assess methane emissions from rice fields in Asia: II. Model validation and sensitivity
analysis, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 58, 161–177, doi:10.1023/A:1009846703516.

2127
2128
2129
2130

McNamara, N. 2013. CH4 emissions from ditches in a drained lowland peat Grassland, Somerset, UK.In:
Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters: Report to Defra under project
SP1205: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Non Gaseous Losses of Carbon from Peatlands - fate ofParticulate and Dissolved Carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.

2131
2132

McNeil, P. and Waddington, J.M. 2003. Moisture controls on Sphagnum growth and CO2 exchange on a cutover
bog. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40:354–367.

2133
2134
2135

Melling, L., Chaddy, A., Goh, K.J. and Hatano, R. 2013. Soil CO2 Fluxes from Different Ages of Oil Palm in
Tropical Peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia as Influenced by Environmental and Soil Properties. Acta Hort.
982:25-35.

2136
2137

Melling L, Hatano R, and Goh KJ 2007b. Nitrous oxide emissions from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of
Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 53, 792–805

2138
2139
2140

Melling, L., Goh, K.J., Beauvais, C., Hatano, R., 2007a. Carbon flow and budget in a young mature oil palm
agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. International symposium and workshop on tropical peatland,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 27-31 August 2007.

2141
2142

Melling, L., Hatano, R., Goh, K.J. (2005a) Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak,
Malaysia. Tellus 57B, 1-11.

2143
2144

Melling, L., Hatano, R., Goh, K.J., 2005b. Methane fluxes from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak,
Malaysia. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37, 1445–1453.

2145
2146
2147

Meyer, K. Höper H., Blankenburg J. 2001. Spurengashaushalt und Klimabilanz von Niedermooren unter dem
Einfluß des Vernässungsmanagements. In Ökosystemmanagement für Niedermoore. Strategien und
Verfahren zur Renaturierung. (Kratz R., Pfadenhauer J., eds) Ulmer, Stuttgart, 104-111.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.65

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2148
2149
2150

Milner, L., A. Boom, S. E. Page, S. Moore and R. Matthews (2013). Effects of fire on the organic mattercomposition of a tropical peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of Organic Geochemistry.
Accepted.

2151
2152

Minkkinen, K. & Laine, J. 2006. Vegetation heterogeneity and ditches create spatial variability in methane fluxes
from peatlands drained for forestry. Plant and Soil: 289–304.

2153
2154

Minkkinen, K. and Laine, J. 1998. Long term effect of forest drainage on the peat carbon stores of pine mires inFinland. Can. J. For. Res: 28: 1267–1275.

2155
2156

Minkkinen, K., Penttilä, T. & Laine, J. 2007a. Tree stand volume as a scalar for methane fluxes in forestrydrained peatlands in Finland. Boreal Environment Research 12: 127-132.

2157
2158

Minkkinen, K., Laine, J., Shurpali, N., Mäkiranta, P., Alm, J. and Penttilä, T. 2007b. Heterotrophic soil
respiration in forestry drained peatlands. Boreal Environment Reserach 12(2): 115-126.

2159
2160

Minkkinen, K., Vasander, H., Jauhiainen, S., Karsisto, M. and Laine, J. 1999. Post-drainage changes invegetation composition and carbon balance in Lakkasuo mire, Central Finland. Plant and Soil 207:107–120.

2161
2162
2163

Moore, S., Evans, C.D., Page, S.E., Garnett, M.G., Jones, T.G., Freeman, C., Hooijer A., Wiltshire, A. Limin, S.
Gauci, V. 2013. Deep instability of deforested tropical peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon fluxes.
Nature, 493, 660-664..

2164
2165

Moore, T.R. 2003. Dissolved organic carbon in a northern boreal landscape. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 17,1109, doi: 10.1029/2003GB002050.

2166
2167
2168
2169

Moore, T.R. and Clarkson, B.R. 2007. Dissolved organic carbon in New Zealand peatlands. New Zealand J.
Marine Freshwater Res. 41: 137-141.Moore, T.R., Matos, L., Roulet, N.T. 2003. Dynamics and chemistry of
dissolved organic carbon in Precambrian Shield catchments and an impounded wetland. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 60: 612-623.

2170
2171

Moore,T.R. and Knowles, R. 1990. Methane emissions from fen, bog and swamp peatlands in Quebec.
Biogeochemistry 11, 45–61.

2172
2173
2174
2175

Morrison R., Cumming A., Taft H., Page S., Kaduk, J., Harding, R., Jones, D. & Balzter, H. (2013). Carbon
dioxide budget of a drained and intensively cultivated lowland fen in the East Anglian Fens. In: Emissions ofgreenhouse gases from UK managed lowland peatlands: Report to Defra under project SP1210:
Lowland peatland systems in England and Wales – evaluating greenhouse gas fluxes and carbon balances.

2176
2177
2178
2179

Morrison R., Page, S., Kaduk, J., Acreman, M., Harding, R. & Balzter, H. (2013). Annual CO2 budget of aregenerating ex-arable peatland in the East Anglian Fens. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases from UK
managed lowland peatlands: Report to Defra under project SP1210: Lowland peatland systems in Englandand Wales – evaluating greenhouse gas fluxes and carbon balances.

2180
2181

Mundel, G. 1976. Untersuchungen zur Torfmineralisation in Niedermooren. Arch. Acker Pflanzenbau Bodenk.
20: 669-679.

2182
2183
2184

Murdiyarso, D., K. Hergoualc'h, and L.V. Verchot. 2010. Opportunities for reducing GHG emissions in
Tropical Peatlands. Proceedings of the American National Academy of Sciences 107: 19655–19660,
doi10.1073/pnas.0911966107.

2185
2186

NCDENR (1998) Smoke from Peat Fire Could
http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/newsrels/presrels.htm.

2187
2188

Nieveen, J.P., Campbell, D.I., Schipper, L.A., Blair, I.J. 2005. Carbon exchange of grazed pasture on a drainedpeat soil. Global Change Biology 11: 607-618.

2189
2190
2191

Nilsson, M., Sagerfors, J., Buffam, I., Laudon, H., Eriksson, T., Grelle, A., Klemedtsson, L., Weslien, P. &Lindroth, A. 2008. Contemporary carbon accumulation in a boreal oligotrophic minerogenic mire - asignificant sink after accounting for all C-fluxes. Global Change Biology 14: 2317–2332.

2192
2193
2194

Nouvellon, Y., Laclau, J.-P., Epron, D., Le Maire, G., Bonnefond, J.-M., Gonçalves, J.L.M., Bouillet, J.-P., 2012.
Production and carbon allocation in monocultures and mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus grandis andAcacia mangium in Brazil. Tree Physiology 32, 680-695.

2195
2196

Nykänen, H., Alm, J., La°ng, K., Silvola, J. and Martikainen, P. J. 1995. Emissions of CH4, N2O and CO2 from avirgin fen and a fen drained for Grassland in Finland, J. Biogeogr., 22, 351–357.

2.66

Pose

HealthConcerns

inCravenCounty.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
2197
2198
2199

Nykänen, H., Alm, J., Silvola, J., Tolonen, K. and Martikainen, P. J. 1998. Methane fluxes on boreal peatlands ofdifferent fertility and the effect of long term experimental lowering of the water table on flux rates, Glob.
Biogeochemical Cycles, 12, 53–69.

2200
2201
2202
2203

Nykänen, H., Silvola, J., Alm, J. and Martikainen, P. J. 1996. Fluxes of greenhouse gases CH4, CO2 and N2O onsome peat mining areas in Finland, in: Northern Peatlands in Global Climatic Change, edited by: Laiho, R.,
Laine, J. and Vasander, H., Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Hyytiälä, Finland. Publicationof the Academy of Finland, Helsinki 1/96, 141–147.

2204
2205

Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K. Alm, J. and Penttilä, T. 2010. Soil-atmosphere CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes in boreal
forestry-drained peatlands. Forest Ecology and Management 260:411-421.

2206
2207

Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K. and Penttilä, T. 2013. The current greenhouse impact of forestry-drained peatlands.
Forest Ecology and Management 289:201-208.

2208
2209
2210

Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K., Lohila, A., Badorek, T. and Penttilä, T. 2012. Chamber measured soil respiration: auseful tool for estimating the carbon balance of peatland forest soils? Forest Ecology and Management277:132-140.

2211
2212

Okruszko, H., 1989. Wirkung der Bodennutzung auf die Niedermoorentwicklung. Ergebnisse eines längjährigen
Feldversuches. Z f Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung 30: 167–176.

2213
2214

Opsahl S., Benner, R. 1997. Distribution and cycling of terrigenous dissolved organic matter in the ocean. Nature
386: 480-482.

2215
2216

Opsahl S., Benner, R. 1998. Photochemical reactivity of dissolved lignin in river and ocean waters. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 43: 1297-1304.

2217
2218

Page, S. E., F. Siegert, J. O. Rieley, H.-D. V. Bohm, A. Jaya and S. Limin (2002). The amount of carbon released
from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420: 61-65.

2219
2220

Page, S. E., J. O. Rieley and C. J. Banks (2011). Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon
pool. Global Change Biology 17: 798-818.

2221
2222

Pawson, R. R., Lord, D. R., Evans, M. G., Allott, T.E.H. (2008). Fluvial organic carbon flux from an eroding
peatland catchment, southern Pennines, UK. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12: 625–634.

2223
2224
2225

Petersen, S.O., Hoffmann, C.C., Schafer, C.-M, Blicher-Mathiesen, G., Elsgaard, L., Kristensen, K. Larsen, S.E.,
Torp, S.B., Greve, M.H. 2012. Annual emissions of CH4, amd N2O, and ecosystem respiration, from eightorganic soils in Western Denmark managed by agriculture. Biogeosciences 9: 403-422.

2226
2227
2228

Pihlatie, M., Rinne, J., Lohila, A., Laurila, T., Aro, L. and Vesala, T. 2004. Nitrous oxide emissions from anafforested peat field using eddy covariance and enclosure techniques. In: Päivänen et al. (Eds.), Proceedingsof 12th International Peat Congress, Tampere, Finland 6–11 Jun 2004, Vol 2, 1010–1014.

2229
2230

Pitkänen, A., J. Turunen and K. Tolonen (1999). The role of fire in the carbon dynamics of a mire, eastern
Finland. Holocene 9: 453-462.

2231

Policy, U. S. F. F. M. (2001). Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy.

2232
2233
2234

Poulter, B., N. L. Christensen and P. N. Halpin (2006). Carbon emissions from a temperate peat fire and its
relevance to interannual variability of trace atmospheric greenhouse gases. Journal of Geophysical Research
111: D06301, doi:06310.01029/02005JD006455.

2235
2236
2237
2238

Rahajoe, J. S., T. Kohyama, and S. H. Limin (2000), Litter decomposition process in two contrastive nutrient
limited forest types in central Kalimantan, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on TropicalPeatlands, Bogor, Indonesia, 22–23 November 1999, edited by T. Iwakuma et al., pp. 223–231, Hokkaido
Univ. and Indonesian Inst. of Sci., Bogor, Indonesia.

2239
2240

Ramadan, Z., X. H. Song and P. K. Hopke (2000). Identification of sources of Phoenix aerosol by positive
matrix factorization. Journal of Air Waste Management 50: 1308-1320.

2241
2242
2243

Rantakari, M., Mattsson, T., Kortelainen, P., Piirainen, S., Finér, L., Ahtiainen, M. 2010. Organic and inorganiccarbon concentrations and fluxes from managed and unmanaged boreal first-order catchments. Sci. Total
Environ., 408: 1649-1658.

2244
2245

Raymond, P.A., Bauer, J.E. 2001. Riverine export of aged terrestrial organicmatter to the North Atlantic Ocean.
Nature, 497, 497-500.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.67

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2246
2247
2248

Regina, K., Nykänen, H., Maljanen, M., Silvola, J. and Martikainen, P. J. 1998. Emissions of N2O and NO andnet nitrogen mineralization in a boreal forested peatland treated with different nitrogen compounds, Can. J.
For. Res., 28, 132–140.

2249
2250

Regina, K., Nykänen, H., Silvola, J. and 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.

2251
2252

Regina, K., Pihlatie, M., Esala, M. and Alakukku, L. 2007. Methane fluxes on boreal arable soils, Agr. Ecosyst.
Environ., 119, 346–352.

2253
2254

Regina, K., Syväsalo, E., Hannukkala, A. and Esala, M. 2004. Fluxes of N2O from farmed peat soils in Finland,
Eur. J. Soil Sci., 55, 591–599.

2255
2256

Rein, G., Cleaver, N., Ashton, C., Pironi,P., and Torero, J.L. 2008. The severity of smouldering peat fires anddamage to the forest soil. Catena, 74: 304–309.

2257
2258

Roulet, N.T. and Moore, T.R. (1995). The effect of forestry drainage practices on the emission of methane from
northern peatlands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25: 491-499.

2259
2260
2261

Roulet, N.T., LaFleur, P.M., Richards, P.J., Moore, T.R., Humphreys, E.R., Bubier, J. (2007). Contemporary
carbon balance and late Holocene carbon accumulation in a northern peatland. Global Change Biol. 13, 397411.

2262
2263

Rowson, J.G., Gibson, H.S.,Worrall, F., Ostle, N., Burt, T.P., Adamson, J.K. (2010). The complete carbon
budget of a drained peat catchment. Soil Use and Management 26: 261-273.

2264
2265
2266

Roy, D. P., L. Boschetti, C. O. Justice and J. Ju (2008). The collection 5 MODIS burned area product—Global
evaluation by comparison with the MODIS activefire product. Remote Sensing of Environment 112: 36903707.

2267
2268

Ruser R., Flessa H., Schilling R., Beese F., Munch J.C. 2001. Effect of crop-specific field management and N
fertilization on N2O emissions from a fine-loamy soil. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 59, 177–191.

2269

Ryden JC, Lund LJ 1980. Nitrous oxide evolution from irrigated land. J. Environ. Qual., 9, 387–393.

2270
2271
2272

Saari, P., Saarnio, S., Kukkonen, J. V. K., Akkanen, J., Heinonen, J., Saari, V. and Alm, J. (2009). DOC andN2O dynamics in upland and peatland forest soils after clear-cutting and soil preparation, Biogeochemistry,
94, 217–231, doi:10.1007/s10533-009-9320-1.

2273
2274

Sah, S.P., Jungner, H., Oinonen, M., Kukkola, M., Helmisaari, H-S. (2010). Does the age of fine root carbon
indicate the age of fine roots in boreal forests? Biogeochem. DOI 10.1007/s10533-010-9485-7

2275
2276

Saharjo, B. H. and Nurhayati, A. D. (2005). Changes in chemical and physical properties of hemic peat underfire-based shifting cultivation. Tropics 14: 263-269.

2277
2278

Saharjo, B. H. and Munoz, C. P. (2005). Controlled burning in peat lands owned by small farmers: a case study
in land preparation. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13: 105-110.

2279
2280

Schothorst C.J. (1977). Subsidence of low moor peat soils in the Western Netherlands. Proc of 5th Int Peat
Congress, Poznan, 1: 206–217.

2281
2282
2283

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Kroon, P.S., Hensen, A., Leffelaar, P.A., Berendse, F. & Veenendaal, E.M. (2010a)..
Comparison of chamber and eddy covariance based CO2 and CH4 emission estimates in a heterogeneous grassecosystem on peat, Agric. For. Meteorol., doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.11.007.

2284
2285
2286

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Hendriks, D.M.D., Kroon, P.S., Hensen, A., van Huissteden, J., Leffelaar, P. A., Nol, L. ,Veenendaal, E.M. and Berendse, F. (2010b). Agricultural peat lands; towards a greenhouse gas sink – asynthesis.

2287
2288
2289

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Hendriks, D.M.D., Kroon, P.S., Hensen, A., van Huissteden, J., Leffelaar, P. A., Nol, L.,
Veenendaal, E.M. and Berendse, F. (2010c), Flushing meadows - The influence of management alternatives
on the greenhouse gas balance of fen meadow areas, Academic Thesis, Wageningen University

2290
2291
2292

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Kroon, P.S., Leffelaar, P.A., van Huissteden, J.C., Berendse, F. and Veenendaal, E.M. 2010.
Methane emissions in two drained peat agro-ecosystems with high and low agricultural intensity. Plant andSoil (2010) 329: 509-520. DOI 10.1007/s11104-009-0180-1.

2293
2294

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Veraart, A.J., Leffelaar, P.J., Berendse, F., Veenendaal, E.M. 2011. Release of CO2 and CH4
from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry, 102: 265–279.

2.68

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
2295
2296

Shimamura, T., Momose, K. (2005) Organic matter dynamics control plant species coexistence in a tropical peatswamp forest. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272, 1503-1510.

2297
2298
2299

Shurpali, N. J., Hyvönen, N. P., Huttunen, J. T., Biasi, C., Nykänen, H., Pekkarinen, N. and Martikainen, P. J.
2008. Bare soil and reed canary grass ecosystem respiration in peat extraction sites in Eastern Finland, Tellus,
60B, 200–209.

2300
2301
2302

Shurpali, N. J., Hyvönen, N., Huttunen, J. T., Clement, R., Reichestein, M., Nykänen, H., Biasi, C. andMartikainen, P. J. 2009. Cultivation of perennial grass for bioenergy use on a boreal organic soil – carbon
sink or source?, Glob. Change Biol. Bioenerg., 1, 35–50, doi:10.1111/j.1757.2009.01003.x.

2303
2304
2305
2306

Sikström, U., Björk, R. G., Ring, E., Ernfors, M., Jacobson, S., Nilsson, M. and Klemedtsson, L. 2009. Tillförsel
av aska i skog på dikad torvmark i södra Sverige. Effekter på skogsproduktion, flöden av växthusgaser,
torvegenskaper, markvegetation och grundvattenkemi. VÄRMEFORSK Service AB, Stockholm, 75 pp., (inSwedish).

2307
2308
2309

Simola, H., Pitkänen, A. & Turunen, J., 2012. Carbon loss in drained forestry peatlands in Finland, estimated byre-sampling peatlands surveyed in the 1980s. European Journal of Soil Science, Dezember 2012, 63, 798-807.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2012.01499.x.

2310
2311
2312

Simon, M., S. Plummer, F. Fierens, J. J. Hoelzemann and O. Arino (2004). Burnt area detection at global scaleusing ATSR-2: The GLOBSCAR products and their qualification. Journal of Geophysical Research 109:
D14S02, doi:10.1029/2003JD003622.

2313
2314

Sinsabaugh, R.L., Findlay, S. 1995. Microbial production, enzyme activity, and carbon turnover in surface
sediments of the Hudson River estuary. Microb. Ecol. 30: 127-141.

2315
2316

Sobek, S., Algesten, G., Bergström, A-K, Jansson, M., Tranvik, J. (2003). The catchment and climate regulationof pCO2 in boreal lakes. Global Change Biol. 9, 630-641.

2317
2318
2319

Soja, A. J., W. R. Cofer, H. H. Shugart, A. I. Sukhinin, P. W. Stackhouse, D. J. McRae and S. G. Conard (2004).
Estimating fire emissions and disparities in boreal Siberia (1998-2002). Journal of Geophysical ResearchAtmospheres 109: D14S06, doi:10.1029/2004JD004570.

2320
2321
2322

Stehfest E., Bouwman L. (2006). N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under naturalvegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modelling of global annual emissions Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems (2006) 74, 207-228.

2323
2324
2325

Strack, M., Waddington, J. M. and Tuittila, E.-S. 2004. Effect of water table drawdown on northern peatland
methane dynamics: Implications for climate change. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 18, GB4003,
doi:10.1029/2003GB002209.

2326
2327
2328

Strack, M., Waddington, J.M., Bourbonniere, R.A., Buckton, L., Shaw, K. Whittington, P., Price, J.S. (2008).
Effect of water table drawdown on peatland dissolved organic carbon export and dynamics. Hydrol. Process.
22: 3373-3385

2329
2330

Strack, M. & Zuback, Y.C.A. (2013). Annual carbon balance of a peatland 10 yr following restoration.
Biogeosciences 10, 2885–2896

2331
2332
2333
2334

Stutter, M.I., Baggaley, N., Barry, C., Chapman, S., Dawson, J.J.C., Helliwell, R.C., Higgins, A., Howden, L.,
Jackson-Blake, L., Lumsdon, D.G., Malcolm, I., Sample, J., Potts, J., Worrall, F. 2011. Assessment of thecontribution of aquatic carbon fluxes to carbon losses from UK peatlands. SNIFFER Report, Project ER18,
James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, 194 pp.

2335
2336

Sulistiyanto, Y. (2004), Nutrient dynamics in different sub‐types of peat swamp forest in central Kalimantan,
Indonesia, Ph.D. thesis, 351 pp., Univ. of Nottingham, Nottingham, U. K.

2337
2338

Sundari, S., Hirano, T., Yamada, H., Kusin, K., Limin, S. (2012) Effects of groundwater level on soil respirationin tropical peat swamp forests. J. Agric. Meteorol. 68, 121-134.

2339
2340

Sundh, I., Nilsson, M., Mikkelä, C., Granberg, G. and Svensson, B. H. 2000. Fluxes of methane and carbon
dioxide on peat-mining areas in Sweden, Ambio, 29, 499–503.

2341

Swetnam, T. W. (1993). Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. Science 262: 885-889.

2342
2343
2344
2345

Taft, H., Cross, P., Jones, D. 2013. Annual emission cycle of greenhouse gases from peat soils managed for
horticultural production. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases from UK managed lowland peatlands: Report to
Defra under project SP1210: Lowland peatland systems in England and Wales – evaluating greenhouse gas
fluxes and carbon balances.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.69

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2346
2347
2348

Takakai F, Morishita T, Hashidoko Y, Darung U, Kuramochi K, Dohong S, Limin SH, and Hatano R 2006.
Effects of agricultural landuse change and forest fire on N2O emission from tropical peatlands, Central
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Sc. Plant Nutr. 53:662-674.

2349
2350
2351

Tansey, K., Grégoire, J.-M., Defourny, P., Leigh, R., Pekel, J.-F., van Bogaert, E., and Bartholomé, E. (2008). A
new, global, multi-annual (2000–2007) burnt area product at 1 km resolution. Geophysical Rsearch Letters
35: L01401, doi:01410.01029/02007GL031567.

2352
2353

Teh, Y.A., Silver, W.L., Sonnentag, O., Detto, M., Kelly, M., Baldocchi, D.D. 2011. Large greenhouse gas
emissions from a temperate peatland pasture.

2354
2355

Treat CC, Bubier JL, Varner RK, Crill PM. 2007. Timescale dependence of environmental and plant-mediatedcontrols on CH4 flux in a temperate fen. Journal of Geophysical Research. G, Biogeosciences 112, G01014.

2356
2357

Tuittila, E.-S. and Komulainen, V.-M. 1995. Vegetation and CO2 balance in an abandoned harvested peatland in
Aitoneva, southern Finland, Suo, 46, 69–80.

2358
2359

Tuittila, E. S., Komulainen, V. M. Vasander, H. Nykänen, H. Martikainen, P. J., Laine, J. 2000. Methane
dynamics of a restored cut-away peatland, Global Change Biol., 6, 569-581.

2360
2361

Tuittila E-S. Vasander, H. and Laine J. 2004. Sensitivity of C Sequestration in Reintroduced Sphagnum to
Water-Level Variation in a Cutaway Peatland. Restoratipon Ecology Vol 12 No 4 pp. 483-493.

2362
2363

Turetsky, M. R. and R. K. Wieder (2001). A direct approach to quantifying organic matter lost as a result ofpeatland fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 363-366.

2364
2365
2366

Turetsky, M. R., Kane, E. S., Harden, J. W., Ottmar, R. D., Manies, K. L. Hoy, E., and Kasischke, E. S. (2011 a).
Recent acceleration of biomass burning and carbon losses in Alaskan forests and peatlands. Nature
Geoscience 4: 27–31.

2367
2368

Turetsky, M. R., Donahue, W. F., and Benscoter, B. W. (2011b). Experimental drying intensifies burning andcarbon losses in a northern peatland. Nature Communications 2:514: DoI: 10.1038/ncomms1523.

2369
2370

Turunen, J., Roulet, N.T., Moore, T.R. (2004). Nitrogen deposition and increased carbon accumulation in
ombrotrophic peatlands in eastern Canada. Global Biogeochem. Cycl. 18, GB3002.

2371
2372

Urban, N.R., Bayley, S.E., Eisenreich, S.J., 1989. Export of dissolved organic carbon and acidity from peatlands.
Water Resour. Res. 25: 1619-1628.

2373
2374

Urbanová, Z., Picek, T, Bárta, J. 2011. Effect of peat re-wetting on carbon and nutrient fluxes, greenhouse gas
production and diversity of methanogenic archaeal community. Ecol. Engineering 37: 1017-1026.

2375
2376

Usop, A., Y. Hashimoto, H. Takahashi and H. Hayasaka (2004). Combustion and thermal characteristics of peatfire in tropical peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Tropics 14: 1-19.

2377
2378
2379
2380

Val Martin, M., Honrath, R.E,. Owen, R.C., .Pfister, G., Fialho, P., and Barata, F. (2006). Significant
enhancements of nitrogen oxides, black carbon, and ozone in the North Atlantic lower free troposphereresulting from North American boreal wildfires. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: D23S60,
doi:10.1029/2006JD007530.

2381
2382
2383
2384
2385

van Beek CL, Pleijter M, Jacobs CMJ, Velthof GL, van Groenigen JW and Kuikman J. 2010. Emissions of N2O
from fertilized and grazed Grassland on organic soil in relation to groundwater level. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst(2010) 86:331-340. DOI 10.1007/s10705-009-9295-2.van den Pol-van Dasselaar A., van Beusichem M.L andOenema O. 1999c. Effects of nitrogen input and grazing on methane fluxes of extensively and intensively
managed Grasslands in the Netherlands. Biol. Fertil. Soils 29: 24-30.

2386
2387

van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A. 1998. Methane emissions from Grassland. PhD thesis. Wageningen Agricultural
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 179 pp.

2388
2389

van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., van Beusichem, M.L. and Oenema, O. 1999b. Determinants of spatial variabilityof methane emissions from wet Grasslands on peat soil. Biogeochemistry 44: 221–237.

2390
2391

van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., van Beusichem, M.L. and Oenema,O. 1999a. Methane emissions from wet
Grasslands on peat soil in a nature preserve. Biogeochemistry 44, 205–220.

2392
2393

van Huissteden J., van den Bos R. & Martikonvena Alvarez. 2006. Modelling the effect of water-table
management on CO2 and CH4 fluxes from peat soils. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 85 – 1; 3 – 18.

2394
2395

van Wagtendonk, J. W., R. R. Root and C. H. Key (2004). Comparison of AVIRIS and Landsat ETM+ detection
capabilities for burn severity. Remote Sensing of Environment 92: 397-408.

2.70

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Final Draft
2396
2397
2398

Veenendaal, E.M., Kolle, O., Leffelaar, P.A., Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Van Huissteden, J., Van Walsem, J., Moller, F.,
and Berendse, F. 2007. CO2 exchange and carbon balance in two grassland sites on eutrophic drained peatsoils. Biogeosciences 4:1027-1040.

2399
2400

Velthof G. L., Brader, A. B., Oenema O.1996. Seasonal variations in nitrous oxide losses from managed
grasslands in The Netherlands. Plant Soil, 181(2): 263-274.

2401
2402
2403

Verchot, L.V., Davidson, E.A. Cattânio, J.H. Ackerman, I.L. Erickson, H.E. and Keller, M. 1999. Land-use
change and biogeochemical controls of nitrogen oxide emissions from soils in eastern Amazonia. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles. 13: 31-46.

2404
2405
2406
2407
2408

Verchot, L.V., Davidson, E.A. Cattânio, J.H. and Ackerman, I.L.. 2000. Land-use change and biogeochemical
controls of methane fluxes in soils of eastern Amazonia. Ecosystems. 3: 41-56Verchot, L.V., L. Hutabarat,
K. Hairiah and M. van Noordwijk. 2006. Nitrogen Availability and Soil N2O Emissions Following
Conversion of Forests to Coffee in Southern Sumatra. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 20: GB4008,
doi10.1029/2005GB002469.

2409
2410

Vermaat, J.E., Hellmann, F., Dias, A.T.C., Hoorens, B., van Logtestijn, R.S.P., Aerts, R. 2011. Greenhouse gas
fluxes from Dutch peatland water bodies: Importance of the surrounding landscape. Wetlands, 31: 493-498.

2411
2412

von Arnold, K., Nilsson, M.,Hånell, B., Weslien, P. and Klemedtsson, L. 2005a. Fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2Ofrom drained organic soils in deciduous forests. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 37:1059-1071.

2413
2414
2415

von Arnold, K., Hånell, B., Stendahl, J. and Klemedtsson, L. 2005c. Greenhouse gas fluxes from drained organic
Forest Land in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 20:5, 400 - 411. DOI:
10.1080/02827580500281975.

2416
2417

von Arnold, K., Weslien, P., Nilsson, M., Svensson, B. H. and Klemedtsson, L. 2005b. Fluxes of CO2, CH4 andN2O from drained coniferous forests on organic soils, Forest Ecol. Manage., 210, 239–254.

2418
2419

Waddington, J.M., and Day, S.M. 2007. Methane emissions from a peatland following restoration. J. Geophys.
Res. 112, doi:10.1029/2007JG000400.

2420
2421
2422

Waddington, J.M., Strack, M. and Greenwood, M.J. 2010. Toward restoring the net carbon sink function of
degraded peatlands: Short-term response in CO2 exchange to ecosystem-scale restoration. J. Geophys. Res.
115, doi:10.1029/2009JG001090.

2423
2424

Wallage, Z.E., Holden, J., McDonald, A.T. 2006. Drain blocking: An effective treatment for reducing dissolved
organic carbon loss and water discolouration in a drained peatland. Sci. Total Environ. 367: 811-821.

2425
2426
2427

Wallin, M.B., Öquist, M.G., Buffam, I., Billett, M.F., Nisell, J., Bishop, K.H. (2011) Spatiotemporal variabilityof the gas transfer coefficient (KCO2) in boreal streams; implications for large scale estimates of CO2 evasion.
Global Biogeochem. Cycles GB3025. doi:10.1029/2010GB003975

2428
2429

Ward, D. E. and C. C. Hardy (1984). Advances in the characterisation and control of emissions from prescribedfires. 77th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. San Francisco, California.

2430
2431

Ward, S.E., Bardgett, R.D., McNamara, N.P., Adamson, J.K., Ostle, N.J. 2007. Long-term consequences ofgrazing and burning on northern peatland carbon dynamics. Ecosystems 10: 1069–1083.

2432
2433
2434

Warren, M.W., Kauffmann, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Anshari, G., Hergoualc´h, K., Kurnianto, S., Purbopuspito, J.,
Gusmayanti, E., Afifudin, M., Rahajoie, J., Alhamd, L., Limin, S., Iswandi, A. (2012) A cost-efficientmethod to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil. Biogeosciences 9, 4477-4485.

2435
2436
2437

Watanabe, A., Purwanto, B.H., Ando, H., Kakuda, K.-i., Jong, F.-S., (2009). Methane and CO2 fluxes from an
Indonesian peatland used for sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) cultivation: Effects of fertilizer andgroundwater level management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 134, 14-18.

2438
2439

Weinzierl W. (1997). Niedermoore in Baden-Würtemberg – Bilanzierung der CO2-Emission am Beispiel desDonaurieds. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft 85: 1059–1062.

2440
2441
2442

Weslien, P., Kasimir Klemedtsson, Å , Börjesson, G. and Klemedsson, L. 2009. Strong pH influence on N2O andCH4 fluxes from forested organic soils, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 60, 311–320, doi:10.1111/j.13652389.2009.01123.x.

2443
2444

Wickland, K.P., Neff, J.C., Aiken, G.R. 2007. Dissolved organic carbon in Alaskan boreal forest: Sources,chemical characteristics, and biodegradability. Ecosystems 10: 1323-1340.

2445
2446

Wild, U., Kampp, T., Lenz,A., Heinz, S. And Pfadenhauer, J. 2001. Cultivation of Thpha spp. In cinstructedwetlands for peatland restoration. Ecological Engineering 17:49-54.

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement

2.71

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
2447
2448

Worrall F., Armstrong, A. Adamson, J.K. 2007. The effects of burning and sheep-grazing on water table depth
and soil water quality in a upland peat. J. Hydrol. 339: 1-14.

2449
2450

Worrall, F., G. Clay, R. Marrs and M. S. Reed (2010). Impacts of burning management on peatlands. Report to
IUCN UK Peatland Programme, Edinburgh.

2451
2452
2453
2454
2455

Worrall, F., Moody, C., Jones, T., Evans, C., (2013). Conversion of waterborne DOC to CO2 – results of field
experiments. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters: Report to Defra
under project SP1205: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Non Gaseous Losses of Carbon from
Peatlands - fate of Particulate and Dissolved Carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food andRural Affairs, UK.

2456
2457
2458

Worrall,F., Rowson, J.G., Evans, M.G., Pawson, R., Daniels, S., Bonn, A. (2011). Carbon fluxes from eroding
peatlands – the carbon benefit of revegetation following wildfire. Earth Surface Process. Landforms 36:
1487–1498.

2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464

Wösten, J.M.H., Ismail, A.B., van Wijk, A.L.M., (1997). Peat subsidence and its practical implications: a casestudy in Malaysia. Geoderma 78, 25-36.Yallop, A.R., Clutterbuck, B., Thacker, J. 2010. Increases in humic
dissolved organic carbon export from upland peat catchments: the role of temperature, declining sulfate
deposition and changes in land management. Climate Res. 45: 43-56.Yallop, A.R., Clutterbuck, B., Thacker,J., (2010). Increases in humic dissolved organic carbon export from upland peat catchments: the role oftemperature, declining sulphur deposition and changes in land management. Climate Research 45, 43-56.

2465
2466

Yamulki, S., Anderson, R. Peace, A., and Morison, J.I.L. 2013. Soil CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes from an afforested
lowland raised peatbog in Scotland: implications for drainage and restoration. Biogeosciences 10:1051-1065.

2467
2468
2469

Yefremova, T. T. and S. P. Yefremov (1996). Ecological effects of peat fire on forested bog ecosystems. Fire inecosystems of boreal Eurasia. J. G. Goldammer and V. V. Furyaev. Netherlands, Kluwer Academic
Publishers: 350-357.

2470
2471
2472
2473
2474

Yokelson, R. J., Burling, I. R., Gilman, J. B., Warneke, C., Stockwell, C. E., de Gouw, J., Akagi, S. J., Urbanski,
S. P., Veres, P., Roberts, J. M., Kuster, W. C., Reardon, J., Griffith, D. W. T., Johnson, D. T., Hosseini, S.,
Miller, J. W., Cocker III, D. R., Jung, D. and Weise, D. R. 2013. Coupling field and laboratory
measurements to estimate the emission factors of identified and unidentified trace gases for prescribed fires.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13: 89-116.

2475
2476
2477

Yokelson, R.J., Karl, T., Artaxo, P., Blake, D. R., Christian, T.J., Griffith, D.W.T., Guenther, A., and Hao, W.M.
(2007). The tropical forest and fire emissions experiment: overview and airborne fire emission factor
measurements. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5175–5196.

2478
2479
2480

Yokelson, R. J., R. Susott, D. E. Ward, J. Reardon and D. W. T. Griffith (1997). Emissions from smoldering
combustion of biomass measured by open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Journal ofGeophysical Research 102: 18865-18877.

2481
2482

Yule, C.M., Gomez, L.N. 2009. Leaf litter decomposition in a tropical peat swamp forest in Peninsular Malaysia.
Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 17: 231–241

2483
2484

Zoltai, S. C., Morrissey, L. A., Livingston, G. P. and de Groot, W. J. (1998). Effects of fires on carbon cyclingin North American boreal peatlands.Environmental Reviews 6: 13-24.

2485
2486
2487
2488

Zulkifli, Y. 2002. Hydrological attributes of a disturbed peat swamp forest. In: Parish F, Padmanabhan E, Lee
CL, Thang HC (eds) Prevention and control of fire in peatlands. Proceedings of workshop on prevention andcontrol of fire in peatlands, 19–21 March 2002, Kuala Lumpur. Global Environment Centre & Forestry
Department Peninsular Malaysia. Cetaktama, Kuala Lumpur, pp 51–5.

2489

2.72

DRAFT Wetlands Supplement