DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

1

CHAPTER 2

2
3

DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS

4
5

Coordinating Lead Authors

6

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

7

Lead Authors8910

Annette Freibauer (Germany), Christopher David Evans (UK), Richard A. Bourbonniere (Canada), Jukka P. Alm(Finland), Susan Page (UK), Fahmuddin Agus (Indonesia), Supiandi Sabiham (Indonesia), Changke Wang
(China)11

Contributing Authors

12
13
14
15

Nalin Srivastava (TFI TSU), John Couwenberg (The Netherlands/Germany), Kristell Hergoualc'h (CIFOR),
Aljosja Hooijer (The Netherlands), Jyrki Jauhiainen (Finland), Kari Minkkinen (Finland), Nancy French (USA),
Tara Strand (USA/New Zealand), Andrey Sirin (Russian Federation), Robert Mickler (USA), Kevin Tansey(UK), Narasimhan Larkin (USA)16

Review Editors

17David Pare (Canada), Bernard Siska (Slovakia), Iman Rusmana (Indonesia)

18

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.1

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

Contents

19

20

2.1

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................6

21

2.2

Land Remaining in a Land-use Category .................................................................................................6

22

2.2.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ......................................................6

23

2.2.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ............................................2024

2.3 Land Converted to a New Land-use Category .............................................................................................45

25

2.3.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ....................................................45

26

2.3.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ............................................47

27

Annex 2A.1

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors ................................................................................49

28

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of DOC emission factors ..............................................................................................51

29
30

Appendix 2a.1 Estimation for Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) loss from peatlands and drainedorganic soils: Basis for future methodological development ......................................................................56

31
32

Appendix 2a.2 CO2 emission factors for drained tropical peatlands: Basis for future methodological development................................................................................................................................................................................57

33

References ..............................................................................................................................................................59

34

2.2

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

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 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4, Chapter 2) ........................................................................7

39
40Equation 2.2 Annual carbon emissions and removals (except fire) in the soils pool for the strata of a land-use
category on drained inland organic soils ..................................................................................................................7

41

Equation 2.3 Annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils ...................................842

Equation 2.4 Annual off-site carbon loss from drained organic soils (CO2) ..........................................................18

43

Equation 2.5 Emission factor for annual CO2 emissions due to DOC export from drained peatlands ...................18

44

Equation 2.6 Annual CH4 emission from drained organic soils .............................................................................2145

Equation 2.7 Direct N2O emissions from organic soils ..........................................................................................30

46

Equation 2.8 Annual CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from organic soil fire..............................................................36

47

Equation 2a.1 Calculation of POC export from drained peatlands.........................................................................56

48

Figures

49
50

Generic decision tree for identification of the appropriate tier to estimate greenhouse gas
Figure 2.1
emissions from fire in a land-use for land remaining in the same land-use category ............................................37

51
52
53

Figure 2.2
Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate carbon stocks and non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions for wild (uncontrolled) and managed (prescribed and agricultural) fires in managed
wetlands with organic soils ....................................................................................................................................38

54

55

Tables56

Table 2.1 Tier 1 CO2 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories*** ...............1257

Table 2.2 Default DOC emission factors for drained peatlands and organic soils .................................................1958

Table 2.3 Tier 1 CH4 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories .....................24

59

Table 2.4 Default CH4 emission factors for drainage ditches ................................................................................29

60

Table 2.5 Tier 1 N2O emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories .....................32

61
62
63

Table 2.6 Peat fuel consumption values (tonnes dry matter ha-1) for fires in a range of peatland types (To beused in conjunction with Equation 2.7, to estimate the product of quantities MB and Cf, i.e. an absolute amount)................................................................................................................................................................................4264
65

Table 2.7 Emission factors (g kg-1 dry matter burned) for peat fires. Values are means ± SD. (To be used as
quantity Gef in Equation 2.7) ..................................................................................................................................43

66
67

Table 2A.2 Annual DOC flux estimates from natural or seminatural peatlands used to derive default values for
DOCflux_natural...........................................................................................................................................................52

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.3Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
68
69

Table 2A.3 DOC concentration (above) or flux (below) comparisons between drained and undrained peats, used
to derive default value for DOCDRAINAGE ............................................................................................................54

70
71

Table 2a.1 Two preliminary alternatives for emission factors for drained tropical peatlands, based on twoalternative preferred ways of author groups to calculate and integrate the underlying data...................................58

72

2.4

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

73

Boxes

74
75

Box 2.1 Scientific background for developing CO2 emission/removal factors for peat carbon from the scientific
literature in table 2.1 ..............................................................................................................................................1076
77

Box 2.2 Scientific background for developing CO2 and non-CO2 emission factors for emissions from burning oforganic soils from scientific literature in Table 2.6 and Table 2.7 .........................................................................3978

Box 2.3 Recent advances in satellites derived fire products ..................................................................................44

79

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.5Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

80

2.1

81
82
83
84
85

This Chapter provides supplementary guidance on estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals fromdrained inland organic soils for 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. The rewetting and restoration of managed peatlands and organic soils is considered in Chapter 3 of this Supplement.

86
87
88
89
90

Organic soils are defined in Chapter 3 Annex 3A.5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The guidance in this Chapter
applies to all organic soils that are in the state of being drained or are newly drained. Anthropogenic greenhousegas emissions persist as long as the drainage persists. This means that the water table level is below natural levels.
Within each land-use category water table level is manipulated to varying degrees depending on land-use
purpose, e.g. for cultivating cereals, rice, or for aquaculture, which can be reflected by different drainage classes.

91
92
93
94
95

This Chapter clarifies the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 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 now allows implementation of robust methodologies and emission factors at the Tier 1 level.

96

This Chapter updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for:

97
98



CO2 emissions and removals from organic soils (referring to 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapters 4 to
9);

99



CH4 emissions from organic soils (referring to 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter 7);100N2O emissions from organic soils (referring to 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter 11).

101

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

102
103



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

104
105
106



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

107
108
109



providing generic guidance for higher Tier methods to estimate these fluxes, as well as CO2 emissions
associated with other forms of waterborne carbon loss, specifically particulate organic carbon (POC)(referring to 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapters 4 to 9).

110

2.2

111

INTRODUCTIONLAND REMAINING IN A LAND-USE
CATEGORY

112
113
114
115

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide guidance for carbon stock changes in the carbon pools above-ground andbelow-ground biomass, dead wood and litter for managed land on organic soils. This Chapter updates the 2006
IPCC Guidelines for the combined soil organic carbon and belowground litter pool in organic soils. The natureof organic soils makes separation of the two pools difficult, so inventory compilers can integrate these two pools.

116

2.2.1

117

CO 2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils

118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126

This section deals with the impacts of drainage and management on CO2 emissions from organic soils due topeat 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; see Appendix 2a.1) anddissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) losses in drainage waters. At present the science is not advanced enough toseparate the DIC sources from autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration, or sources within the peat from adjacentor underlying weathering sources, but only DIC from heterotrophic respiration of the peat is a potential
anthropogenic CO2 source. Therefore, no guidance on DIC is provided here. General information and guidancefor estimating changes in soil C stocks are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in Volume 4, Chapter 2,
Section 2.3.3 (including Equations), and this section needs to be read before proceeding with a consideration of

2.6

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

127
128
129

specific guidance dealing with organic soil C stocks. 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 peat remains (Wösten etal., 1997; Grønlund Grønlund et al., 2008; Deverel and Leighton, 2010).

130
131
132
133

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

134
135
136
137
138

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 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES, VOLUME 4, CHAPTER 2)
 C LU i   C AB   C BB   C DW   C LI  C SO   C HWP

139
140

Where:

141

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

142

Subscripts denote the following carbon pools:

143

AB = above-ground biomass

144

BB = below-ground biomass

145

DW = deadwood

146

LI = litter147

SO = soils

148

HWP = harvested wood products

149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161

The guidance for the carbon pools above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, deadwood, litter andharvested wood products in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines remains unchanged. This section of the Wetlands
Supplement updates and complements the guidance for the soils pool on drained inland organic soils (ΔCSO in
Equation 2.1) as shown in Equation 2.2. For all practical purposes, the belowground litter pool is
indistinguishable from soil organic matter pool in peatlands and the two pools are treated as one. Change in soilorganic carbon consists of on-site CO2 emissions/removals of the organic soil from mineralization andsequestration processes (CO2-Csoil-onsite), off-site CO2 emissions from leached carbon from the organic soil (CO2CDOC) and anthropogenic peat fires. Countries are encouraged to consider CO2-CPOC when using higher tiermethodologies (see Appendix 2a.1). CO2 emissions from peat fires have not been explicitly addressed in
Equation 2.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, vol. 4, chapter 2, but can be important on drained inland organic soils.
To maintain consistency with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, CO2 emissions from peat fires are not included in
Equation 2.2 either, but will have to be reported separately as Lfire (Section 2.2.2.3).

162
163
164

EQUATION 2.2
ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS (EXCEPT FIRE) IN THE SOILS POOL FOR THE
STRATA OF A LAND-USE CATEGORY ON DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS165

C SO   CO2  C soil onsite  CO2  C DOC



166
167
168

ΔCSO = carbon stock changes expressed as annual carbon emissions and removals in the soils pool on
drained inland organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

169

CO2-Csoil-onsite = on-site CO2-C emissions/removals by drained inland organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

170

CO2-CDOC = off-site CO2-C emissions from dissolved organic carbon, tonnes C yr-1

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.7

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

171

2.2.1.1

172

ON - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS / REMOVALS FROM DRAINEDINLAND ORGANIC SOILS (CO 2 -C S O I L - O N S I T E )This section gives supplementary guidance for CO2 emissions from drained inland organic soils in all land-use
categories as defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter2, Section 2.3.3. The IPCC land-use
categories are discussed in Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Chapter 5 (Cropland), Chapter 6 (Grasslands), Chapter 7(Wetlands), Chapter 8 (Settlements) and Chapter 9 (Other Land). Flooded Lands (Chapter 7) are not included inthis Wetlands Supplement.

173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182

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

183

CHOICE OF METHOD

184
185
186
187
188
189

The most important factors that affect on-site CO2 emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils areland-use and climate. Other factors such as nutrient status of the soil and drainage level affect emissions and canbe factored in where appropriate. It is good practice to stratify land-use categories by climate domain (Table 4.1of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 4), nutrient status (2003 GPG LULUCF and 2006 IPCC
Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter 7, Section7.2.1.1) and drainage class (shallow or deep) according to thestratification in Table 2.1.

190
191
192

Drainage class is defined as the mean annual water table averaged over a period of at least three to five years; theshallow-drained class is defined as the mean annual water table depth of less than 30 cm below the surface; thewell-drained class is defined as the mean annual water table depth of 30 cm and deeper below the surface.

193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201

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 deeply drained (water-table depth is specificfor land-use categories and climate domains) because deeply 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 deeply drained
conditions.
Figure 2.5 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3 provides the decision tree for
identification of the appropriate Tier to estimate CO2 emissions from drained inland organic soils by land-use
category.

202
203
204
205
206
207

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. Equation 2.3 here derives from
Equation 2.26 in 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 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.

208
209

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

CO2  C soil onsite   ( A  EF ) c ,n ,d210

c ,n ,d211

Where:

212

CO2-Csoil-onsite = Annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

213
214

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

215
216

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

217
218
219

Tier 2The 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 emissions/removals. Tier 2 uses the same procedural steps

2.8

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

220
221
222
223
224

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 more suitable for thecountry; 3) a finer, more detailed classification of management systems with a differentiation of land-use
intensity classes; 4) a differentiation by drainage classes; or 5) a finer, more detailed classification of nutrient
status.

225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232

It is good practice to derive country-specific emission factors if representative experimental data are available.
Methodologies and measurement techniques shall be compatible with the scientific background for the Tier 1
emission factors in Box 2.1. Moreover, it is good practice to use a finer classification for climate andmanagement 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, since 1990, for the spatial domain for which the country-specificemission factor is applied.

233

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

234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242

Tier 3CO2 emissions from drained inland organic soils can be estimated with either model or measurement approaches.
Dynamic, mechanistic models will typically be used to simulate underlying processes while capturing theinfluence of land-use and management, particularly the effect of seasonally variable levels of drainage on
decomposition (van Huissteden et al., 2006). The general considerations for mineral and organic soils in the2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3 also apply here. It is good practice to transparently
describe the methodologies and models, document the considerations for choosing and applying the model in theinventory and provide evidence that it represents the national circumstances according to the guidance in the2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter 2, Section 5 and Chapter 7 of this Wetlands Supplement.

243

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.9Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

244
245
246
247

BOX 2.1
SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPING CO2 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR PEAT CARBON FROMTHE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IN TABLE 2.1

248
249
250
251

CO2 emissions were obtained by two well-established methods: (1) gain-loss or flux method:
fluxes have been studied extensively using gas exchange methods at frequencies of seconds toweeks over measurement periods of up to few years or (2) stock difference method: observed
subsidence of the peat layer at frequencies of months to years over a year or longer periods of time.

252

Gain-loss or flux method

253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267

The gain-loss method either used chamber based techniques or eddy covariance in combination
with data about partial carbon fluxes in pools. CO2 emission measurement techniques based ondark chambers can only determine total respiration (autotrophic plus heterotrophic) from the peat
surface over relatively small time periods, and small surface area. The balance of net emission or
net removal depends on the conditions for growth and decomposition, typical for nutrient poor andnutrient rich peatlands (Ojanen et al 2012). The role of fine root litter and turnover rate is decisive
for the peat net C loss or gain, but is hard to measure directly (Finér et al., 2011; Gaudinski et al.
2010; Sah et al., 2010). Root autotrophic respiration has been separated in chamber gas exchange
studies and the measurements made at least one year after the trenching. In fertile sites,
heterotrophic respiration rate has been found higher than in nutrient poor sites (von Arnold et al.,2005c; Minkkinen et al., 2007; Silvola et al., 1996). Reported CO2 emissions based on respirationchambers which included autotrophic respiration were converted to CO2-Csoil-onsite by applying sitespecific ratios of heterotrophic respiration to total respiration and deducing aboveground litter
input or also fine root litter when reported in the study. Dark chamber techniques have been
applied in all land-use types in boreal and temperate climate zones.

268
269
270
271
272
273

CO2 emission measurement techniques based on transparent chambers determine total net
ecosystem exchange similar to eddy covariance techniques, but over relatively small time periods,
and small surface area. Measured flux rates are aggregated to annual carbon balance by light andtemperature response models (e.g. Bellisario, 1998; Alm et al., 1999; Drösler 2005). Transparent
chamber techniques have been applied in croplands, grasslands and peat extraction sites in boreal
and temperate climate zones.

274
275
276
277
278
279
280

Eddy covariance studies can only determine total net ecosystem exchange, which includes
autotrophic plus heterotrophic carbon fluxes from biomass and the peat surface. The observed flux
needs to be converted to soil fluxes by deducing biomass growth and harvest. Reported CO2
emissions-based eddy covariance which included changes in biomass carbon stocks wereconverted to CO2-Csoil-onsite fluxes (Equation 2.2) by applying ecosystem- and site-specific values ofbiomass growth and harvest. Eddy covariance techniques have been applied in all land-use types inboreal and temperate climate zones.

281

Subsidence method

282
283
284
285

The subsidence method measures the height loss of the peat surface using a network of subsidence
markers. Peat oxidation/decomposition are obtained by converting the volume loss to carbon via
bulk density, carbon content and the oxidized fraction of the volume lost as compared tocompaction or consolidation (Grønlund et al., 2008; Leifeld et al., 2011).

286

Quality criteria for measurements used for emission factors

287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296

For the derivation of CO2 emission factors, the following quality criteria were applied: Winteremissions can account for 10-30% of net annual emissions in boreal and northern temperateregions (Alm et al., 1999). Therefore data were used which covered at least one full year of data,
or at minimum in data-scarce climate zones, were representative for all seasons (e.g. rainy and dry
season in the tropics). Measurement frequency adequately addressed seasonal variability of CO2
fluxes. Study conditions were representative of regional management practices. Study sites weretreated as independent data if they were in different peat complexes or under different hydrologicalmanagement on the same peat complex, or under different land-use, or any combination of thesethree criteria. Studies experiencing fire in the measurement period were omitted so that theobserved CO2 emissions/removals could be fully attributed to CO2-Csoil-onsite (Equation 2.1).

2.10

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306

Only observational studies were accepted for the derivation of emission factors, which havereported CO2-Csoil-onsite flux, so that the reported CO2-Csoil-onsite flux could be directly taken. Studies
with artificial disturbance by root or litter removal or additions were accepted for deriving
parameters, such as heterotrophic/autotrophic ratios. Studies were checked for methodologicalcorrectness and transparent documentation of methodology. Many studies do not report uncertainty
associated with methodology, assumptions, measurement gaps and errors, aggregation in space andtime, etc. This uncertainty could not be assessed from the literature so that there may beconsiderable uncertainty around individual data used in the derivation of emission factors. The
confidence interval given in Table 2.1 mainly reflects the spatial and temporal variation in reported
CO2 emissions/removals.

307
308

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320

Tier 1

321
322
323

The 2003 GPG LULUCF and 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume 4, Chapter 7, Section 7.2.1.1) 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.

324
325
326
327
328

Default Tier 1 emission/removal factors for drained inland organic soils (Table 2.1) were generated using
combination of subsidence and gain-loss data found in the literature as described in Box 2.1. The fluxes emerge
predominantly from the drained, oxidized soil layer and thus reflect human-induced CO2-C fluxes from the partof the soil profile affected by drainage, which can be deeper or shallower than the default 0 to 30 cm layer
considered in the Tier 1 default methodology for mineral soils.

329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339

The CO2 emission factors presented in Table 2.1 have been calculated as annual net change of the peat carbon
plus belowground litter carbon in the different land-uses. In peat extraction sites, no vegetation is present so thatthe net change in peat carbon equals heterotrophic respiration. In drained Croplands or Grasslands where theannual biomass production stays at equilibrium the net change in peat carbon is assumed to equal heterotrophic
respiration. Countries can refine these factors if appropriate data exist to factor out these inputs. In ecosystems
where above-ground and below-ground biomass accumulates annually for several decades, such as peatlands
drained for forestry, the annual production rate of above-ground litter (mosses, ground vegetation, leaves) can
exceed the annual rate of decomposition in peat at least during the major part of the tree rotation cycle. In suchcases the integrated C stocks of soil and below-ground litter may increase, and is displayed as net removal of
CO2 from the atmosphere (see e.g. Minkkinen et al., 1999; Ojanen et al., 2010, Ojanen et al., 2012, Ojanen et al.,2013).

340
341
342
343
344

Table 2.1 presents the CO2 emission factors for Boreal and Temperate climate zones. The authors could notreach complete consensus on CO2 emission factors for drained tropical peatlands. There has been someconvergence of views between the author groups, but there still are a few outstanding issues and the group could
not finalize them for the Second Order Draft. Appendix 2a.2 provides a summary of the issues involved and theprogress made so far in the derivation of emission factors for drained tropical peatlands.

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 Grasslands are further stratified into shallow-drained (less than approximately 30 cm
below surface) and well-drained. Within each land-use category, drained inland organic soils can experience awide range of mean annual water table levels that depend upon regional climatic characteristics and specificland-use activity or intensity. For temperate Grasslands EF are given for shallow-drained (mean annual watertable depth of less than 30 cm below the surface) and well-drained (mean annual water table depth of 30 cm or
deeper below the surface). The shallow-drained and well-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 well-drained as default.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.11

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

345
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-rich

Soil Emission
Factor**(tonnes CO2-C
ha-1 yr-1)

0.390# Boreal

95% ConfidenceInterval (centred onmean)-0.0780.857

No. of sites

64

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

Forest Land, Drained
Nutrient-poor

Forest Land, Drained

Citations# Boreal

0.947

0.555

1.338

65

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

# Temperate

4.65

2.56

6.73

8

Glenn et al., 1993; Minkkinen et al.,2007b; Von Arnold et al., 2005b, cGrassland, Drained# Boreal

5.73

2.89

8.57

8

Grønlund et al., 2006; Krestapova &Maslo, 2004; Lohila et al., 2004;
Maljanen et al., 2001a, 2004; Nykanen
et al., 1995; Shurpali et al., 2009 ;Shurpali et al., 2009

Grassland, Deep Drained < -30 cm, Poor

* Temperate

6.12

4.42

7.82

5

Kuntze, 1992, Hargreaves et al., 2003,
Drösler et al., 2013

Grassland, Shallow Drained ≥ -30 cm, Poor

* Temperate

1.68-0.364

3.72

6

Drösler et al., 2013

Grassland, Deep Drained < -30 cm, Rich

* Temperate

5.90

4.84

6.97

35

Czaplak & Dembek, 2000; Drösler, et al.,2013; Elsgaard et al., 2012; Hoper,
2002; Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 1997,
Leifeld et al., 2011; Lorenz et al., 2002;
Meyer et al., 2001; Nieveen et al. 2005;
Okruszko, 1989; Schothorst, 1976,
Schrier-Uijl et al,. 2010, Weinzierl, 1997

Grassland, Shallow Drained ≥ -30 cm, Rich

* Temperate

3.21

1.22

5.20

13

Drösler et al., 2013; Lloyd, 2006;
Morrison et al., 2013a

Cropland, Drained* Boreal
Temperate

7.87

6.31

9.42

37

Drösler et al.,2013; Elsgaard et al.,2012, Gronlund et al., 2008, Kasimir-

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

&

2.12

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

Klemedtsson et al., 1997; Leifeld et al.,2011; Maljanen et al., 2001a, 2003a, b,
2004, 2007a,; Morrison et al., 2013b

Wetland in Peat Production* Boreal
Temperate

&

2.37

1.116

3.62

23

Ahlholm et al., 1990; Drösler et al.
2013; Glatzel et al., 2003; Hargreaves etal, 2003; Makiranta et al. 2007; McNeil& Waddington, 2003, Nykanen et al.,
1996; Shurpali et al., 2008; Sundh et al.,
2000; Tuittila et al., 1995; 2000, 2004;
Waddington et al., 2010

# Using FAO Climate/Vegetation Zones from 2006 Guidelines, Vol 4, Ch 4, Fig 4.1, Tab 4.1* Using IPCC Climate Zones from 2006 Guidelines, Vol 4, Ch 3, Fig 3A.5.1** Mean*** Table 2.1 presents the CO2 emission factors for Boreal and Temperate climate zones only. Authors could not reach complete consensus on CO2 emission factors for drained tropical peatlands. Appendix 2a.2
provides a brief summary of the issues involved and the progress made so far in derivation of CO2 emission factors for drained tropical peatlands.

346
347
348

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.13

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

349
350
351
352

Common tropical plantations include oil palm, sago and Acacia. Plantations for food and oil crops like sago andoil palm should be classified under agriculture, while fibre plantations like Acacia may be classified as Forest
Land. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national land-use category according to thenational forest definition.

353
354
355
356
357

Tier 2

358
359
360

Tier 2 emission factors could include the following refinements:
Integration of belowground C inputs from root mortality;

361
362



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;

363
364



Use of adjusted 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;

365
366



Derivation of EFs for boreal Forest Land by nutrition status (rich/poor) with use of appropriate andsignificantly different emission factors for organic soil CO2 loss (See Table 2.1);

367
368
369



Development of boreal and temperate Grassland EFs according to land-use intensity, for example todistinguish high-intensity (fertilized, ploughed and reseeded) Grassland from low-intensity permanent
Grassland, or moorland rough grazing on drained blanket bogs.

370
371
372

CO2 flux data, disaggregated by activity type should be used to develop more precise, locally appropriate
emission factors, correcting for carbon losses through leaching of waterborne carbon. Additional guidance on
how to derive these stock change factors is given in the Annex 2A.

373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach might use measurements or process-based models or other more elaborate approaches,
adequately validated using observation data that take into account temporal and spatial variations. This approach
involves a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2 emissions and removals on
managed organic soils, including the effect of management practices, site characteristics, peat type and depth, etc.
Tier 3 approaches could start by developing robust relationships between drainage or nutrient status and peat
heterotrophic CO2 emissions, which can be further refined by land- use category and fertilization. Establishing
relationships between land-use category and litter above- and belowground C inputs will allow the mass balancecalculation applied in the gain-loss method. Drained and managed peatlands go through a transition wherecarbon loss is rapid in the years immediately following drainage, and continues more slowly in subsequent years.
Furthermore, forested peatlands undergo a cycle repeated after one or several decades, related to rotation of thetree cohorts. Models should describe the rotational variation in water tables.

385
386
387
388
389

At harvesting the peat surface is disturbed by machinery and may be amended for regeneration. Drainage
systems may be renewed. These manipulations may affect the moisture, nutrient and temperature conditions andthereby the heterotrophic peat decomposition and emissions. Time-dependent rates capture more accurately landuse and management effects on emissions. Such models may calculate refined and stratified emission factors for
CO2.

390
391

In all cases, rigorous criteria must be applied so that any CO2 emission/removal is neither under- noroverestimated.

392

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400

Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on organic soils stratified by climate
domains, soil nutrient status, drainage class or additional criteria such as management practices, and disturbance
regimes. Total areas should be determined 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. 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.

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

2.14

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

401
402

It is good practice that the area of organic soils is constant over time unless it is demonstrated that the area oforganic soils change (e.g. as organic soil disappears).

403
404
405
406

Tier 1

407
408
409

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/).

410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421

The 2003 GPG LULUCF and 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume 4, Chapter 7, Section 7.2.1.1) 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 bogs predominate in boreal
regions, while in temperate regions, nutrient-rich fens and mires are more common. Types of peatlands can beinferred from the end-use of peat: sphagnum peat, dominant in oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) bogs, is preferred for
horticultural uses, while sedge peat, more common in minerotrophic (nutrient rich) fens, is more suitable forenergy generation. Boreal countries that do not have information on areas of nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor
peatlands should use the emission factor for nutrient-poor peatlands. Temperate countries that do not have suchdata should use the emission factor for nutrient-rich peatlands. Only one default factor is provided for tropicalregions, so disaggregating peatland area by soil fertility is not necessary in the tropical climate zone using theTier 1 method. Due to lack of data, rice fields on tropical organic soils are not disaggregated by water
management regimes.

422
423
424
425
426

The areas of shallow-drained and well-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 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).

427
428

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

429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438

Tier 2
Activity data under Tier 2 are generally derived following the methods presented in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and areas with organic soils have to be differentiated from those with mineral soils. All management
practices for land remaining in a land-use category are assumed to result in persistent emissions from soils aslong as the management system remains in place or as long as the land falls under the definition of organic soils.
Activity data should be disaggregated by drainage depth and/or nutrient status to improve the accuracy of theinventory if different land management systems use different drainage depths and/or nutrient levels, and if
appropriate emissions factors are available. In general, practices that increase C stocks in mineral soils by
increased organic material input (fertilization, liming, etc.) do not have a sequestration effect in drained organicsoils.

439
440
441

The combination of land-use databases and soil maps or spatially explicit data allow to delineate the
combinations of land-use categories, climate domains, drainage classes and management systems and theirchanges over time on organic soils.

442
443
444
445

Stratification that allows consistent reporting under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, in case the activity
Wetland Drainage and Rewetting is elected, separates drained, undrained, and rewetted organic soils over thetime series. Data and their documentation could combine information from a land-use matrix specifically madefor organic soils. Stratification needs to be consistently applied across the entire time series.

446

Information sources about drainage with adequate disaggregation may include:

447
448



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

449
450
451



National water management statistics: in most countries, the agricultural land base including Croplands is
usually surveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land-uses, crops, tillage practice andother aspects of management, often at sub-national regional level. These statistics may originate, in part,

The Tier 1 approach requires area data of managed land with organic soils for each land-use category, for boreal,temperate and tropical climate domains. Classification systems for activity data that form the basis for a Tier 1inventory are provided in the respective land-use Chapters of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.15

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

452
453

from remote sensing methods, from which additional information about wetness or periods with seasonal
flooding could be extracted.

454
455
456
457
458



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.

459



Water management plans and documentation from water management installations

460



Drainage maps

461

Maps of rewetting projects including remote sensing

462
463
464
465
466
467

Tier 3468

CALCULATION STEPS FOR TIER 1

469

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

470
471
472
473

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 area are further stratified by nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils.
Temperate nutrient-rich Grasslands are further stratified into shallow-drained and well-drained classes.

474
475

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.

476

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

477

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

478
479
480
481
482
483
484

Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in soil carbon inventories in organic soils: 1) uncertainties in land-use
and management activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in the emission/removal factors for Tier 1 or 2
approaches; and 3) model structure/parameter error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, or measurement
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 thesecategories, while accuracy is more likely to be increased through implementation of higher Tier methods thatincorporate country-specific information.

485
486
487

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

488
489
490
491
492
493
494

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 (±50%). It is good practice for the inventory
compiler to derive uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a default level of uncertainty.
Uncertainties in activity data may be reduced through a better national system, such as developing or extending aground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing to provide additional
coverage. It is good practice to design a classification that captures the majority of land-use and management
activities with a sufficient sample size to minimize uncertainty at the national scale.

495
496
497

Uncertainties in activity data and emission/removal factors need to be combined using an appropriate method,such as simple error propagation Equations. Details are given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 1, Chapter 3
and 2003 IPCC Good practice Guidance.

498
499
500

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 soil carbon. In addition,

The Tier 3 method requires more disaggregated activity data than lower Tiers. This includes disaggregationaccording to drainage classes or typology, and may take into account such variables as seasonal norms andmodifications in water table level. Seasonal variations in emissions are then aggregated to annual CO2 emissions.
Approaches outlined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines need to be taken into account and modified according to thespecific characteristics of management on organic soils.

2.16

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

501
502

it is good practice to further stratify by significant within-country differences in land-use and management
impacts, such as variation among climate domains and/or organic soil types.

503

2.2.1.2

504

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

505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512

Waterborne carbon comprises dissolved organic carbon (DOC), particulate organic carbon (POC), and dissolved
inorganic carbon (DIC) (including the dissolved gases CO2 and CH4, and the dissolved carbonate species HCO3and CO32-). Particulate inorganic carbon (PIC) losses are negligible from organic soils. Collectively, waterborne
carbon export can represent a major part of the overall carbon budget of an organic soil, and in some cases canexceed 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 in flux-based (i.e. gain-loss) approaches for soil carbon estimation,
to avoid systematic under-estimation of soil C losses. Airborne (erosional) POC loss may also be significant
where land-use leads to bare peat exposure, but few data exist to quantify this (see Appendix 2a.1)

513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522

Different forms of waterborne carbon have different sources, behaviour and ultimate fate, and different
approaches are therefore required to quantify the off-site CO2 emissions associated with each form. Gaseous CO2
and CH4 dissolved in water transported laterally from the peat matrix represent indirectly emitted components ofthe total emission of these gases from the land surface. Dissolved CO2 in excess of atmospheric pressure will
also be degassed from drainage waters. At present, a separate methodology is not presented to account for CO2
emissions from drainage waters, as specific data on CO2 degassing fluxes in relation to land-use are not currently
available. It appears that these emissions form a relatively small component of total land-atmosphere CO2
exchange; data from an undisturbed blanket bog suggest that most of the CO2 flux is emitted within the peat area
(Dinsmore et al., 2010), and may therefore already be captured in total fluxes measured using eddy covariancemethods, and thus be included in existing CO2 emission factors if this technique is used.

523
524
525
526
527
528

In most peatlands and organic 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 byland-use, in particular drainage. It is reactive within aquatic ecosystems and most or all DOC is thought to be
ultimately converted to CO2 and emitted to the atmosphere (see Appendix 2A.2 for supporting discussion).
Therefore, DOC should be accounted for in flux-based carbon estimation methods, and a Tier 1 methodology is
described below.

529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536

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 peat becomes exposed, e.g. due to erosion, peat extraction,and conversion to Cropland. Although it may be possible to estimate POC loss fluxes as a function of bare peat
exposure, high uncertainty remains regarding the reactivity and fate of POC exported from peatlands. Some POC
is likely to be converted to CO2, but POC that is simply translocated from peatlands to other stable carbon stores,
such as freshwater or marine sediments, may not lead to CO2 emissions. Due to the uncertain fate of POC export,
an estimation method is not presented at this time; current knowledge and data needs to support POC estimationin future are described in Appendix 2a.1.

537
538
539
540
541

Finally, no method is presented for DIC flux estimation. DIC fluxes from bogs (other than degassed CO2, as
discussed above) comprise only a minor part of the total waterborne carbon export. DIC fluxes from fens are
greater, but a large (and uncertain) proportion of this flux derives from mineral weathering processes in the
groundwater supplying the fen, rather than from carbon produced within the fen itself (Fiedler et al., 2008).
Therefore, it is not currently possible to account for the DIC flux specifically associated with peat carbon loss.

542

CH OIC E OF M ETHOD

543
544
545

The basic methodology for estimating annual off-site carbon loss from drained organic soils was presented in
section 2.3.3 and adapted from Equation 2.26 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines as presented in Equation
2.3:

546

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.17

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

547
548

EQUATION 2.4
ANNUAL OFF-SITE CARBON LOSS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (CO2)

CO2  C DOC   A  EFDOC

549

c ,n

550



c ,n

Where:

551

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

552

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

553
554

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

555
556

EFDOC can be calculated from Equation 2.5:

557
558
559
560

EQUATION 2.5
EMISSION FACTOR FOR ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC EXPORT FROM DRAINEDPEATLANDSEFDOC  DOCFLUXNATURAL  1  DOCDRAINAGE  FracDOCCO

561
562
563
564
565

2

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

566

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

567

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

568

Frac

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

569
570
571
572
573
574

Because of the lack of data for other components of off-site carbon losses and uncertainty about their sources andfate, off-site carbon losses are only represented by DOC losses at this stage. 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 methodological requirements for off-site emission
estimation associated with POC in Appendix 2a.1).

575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582

All peatlands export some DOC in their natural, un-drained state. However, most published studies indicate that
DOC fluxes are likely to increase following drainage (see Annex 2A.2). Following the Managed Land Proxy(MLP), and to ensure completeness of flux-based soil carbon reporting, the entire DOC export of drained
peatlands and organic soils should be included. The method presented in Equation 2.5 reflects the relative
availability of robust data suitable for the calculation of emission factors for DOC, which largely compriseaccurate DOC flux estimates for natural peatlands and paired assessments of relative DOC change in drained
versus undrained sites, whereas comparatively few reliable direct measurements of DOC fluxes from drained
sites are available (see Annex 2A.2).

583

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTOR

584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591

Tier 1
A detailed description of the derivation of default values for Tier 1 is provided in Annex 2A.2. In summary, data
indicate that the rate of DOC export from temperate and boreal raised bogs and fens is positively correlated withwater fluxes, and a simple schema for deriving values of DOCFLUX_NATURAL as a function of rainfall is provided
in Table 2.2. Single representative mean values are given for tropical peatlands. Annex 2A.2 provides details of
the derivation of parameter values. Note that a single default value for DOCDRAINAGE is currently proposed forvalue of 0.9 (± 0.1), implying near-complete conversion of
all peat/land-use types, and a default
DOC to CO2 following export from the peat.

2.18

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

592
TABLE 2.2
DEFAULT DOC EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINED PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS
Peat type

Precipitation regime(mm yr-1)

DOCFLUX_NATURAL( t C ha-1 yr-1)

Temperate/boreal
bog/fen b

Dry (< 600)Intermediate (600-1000)
Wet (> 1000)
All

0.05 (0.04-0.07)
0.16 (0.12-0.21)
0.23 (0.17-0.29)
0.57 (0.49-0.64)

TropicalDOCDRAINAGEa

0.60(0.43-0.78)

EFDOC_DRAINED(t C ha-1yr-1)
0.08 (0.05-0.12)
0.25(0.13-0.37)
0.33 (0.19-0.51)
0.82 (0.56-1.14)

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

ab

Where precipitation measurements are available, DOCFLUX_NATURAL values for boreal/temperate raised bogs and fens may also be
calculated from the empirical Equation DOCFLUX_NATURAL = (0.000317  Precipitation) – 0.075, (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001 for the studies listed inTable 2A.2), in the units shown above. Note that this Equation is not applicable to blanket bogs.

593
594
595
596
597

Tier 2598
599

Use of the Equation shown at the bottom of Table 2.2 to assign more accurate values for DOCFLUX_NATURAL
from temperate/boreal raised bogs and fens;

600
601



Use of country-level measurements from natural peatlands to obtain accurate values of DOCFLUX_NATURAL forthat country, for example by developing specific values for raised bogs versus fens, or for blanket bogs;

602
603
604
605
606
607



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

608
609
610



Use of alternative values forwhere 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.

611
612
613
614

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 Tier 2 methods if sufficient evidence can be obtained to develop the associatedemission factors.

615
616
617
618
619
620

Tier 3621

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

622
623
624
625
626

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).

Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on drained organic soils summarised bypeatland type and land-use type (specifically occurrence of drainage). Total areas should be determinedaccording to approaches laid out in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and should be consistent with thosereported under other sections of the inventory. They also need to be consistent with activity data for on-site CO2

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.19

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

627
628

emissions. For boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, additional data on annual mean rainfall may be used torefine flux estimates, as shown in Table 2.2.

629
630
631
632
633
634
635

Tier 2 & 3
For higher Tier approaches, additional activity data requirements may include specific information on the landvalue at a
use type associated with drained organic soils, and intensity of drainage. Use of a variablecountry 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
would require additional information on the timing of drainage, drain maintenance and land-management (e.g.
forest management, fertiliser application rates).

636

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

637
638
639
640
641
642
643

Uncertainties in estimates of off-site CO2 emissions from DOC are associated with the measurement of DOC
fluxes from natural peatlands; estimates of the increase in DOC flux associated with drainage based on
measurements from paired studies (including measurements or assumptions about changes in water flux fromdrained versus natural sites); and estimates of the proportion of DOC which is ultimately converted to CO2
within water bodies. Additional uncertainty is introduced by the aggregation of data into broad peat categories,
particularly at Tier 1 where default values are applied to different peat types, and drainage impacts are assumed
to be the same for different peat and land-use categories.

644
645
646
647
648
649

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 derivevalues of DOCFLUX_NATURAL in each of the peat classes used (Table 2A.2); observations of DOCDRAINAGE fromvalue of 0.8 to 1.0 as described above.
published studies (Table 2A.3); and an uncertainty range for
These uncertainty ranges may be adapted or refined under Tier 2 if further sub-classification according to landuse type or intensity is undertaken, based on additional measurement data.

650

2.2.2

651

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

652
653
654

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).

655

2.2.2.1

656

CH 4 emissions and removals from drained organic
soils

657
658
659
660
661
662

Organic soils are mostly formed due to incomplete decomposition of dead organic matter in water saturated
conditions. Management of organic soils, especially peatlands, involves drainage by ditching. 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 (Best and Jacobs,
1997; Minkkinen and Laine 2006; Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011; Hyvönen et al., 2012).

663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674

Drainage lowers the water table and exposes formerly saturated peat layers to oxidation and, as described above,
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. This also affects theactivity of methanogens and methanotrophs (Verchot et al., 2000; Blodau, 2002; Treat et al., 2007). Drainage
facilitating plant root respiration mitigates CH4 emission dramatically (Martikainen et al., 1995a; Strack et al.,2004) as the methanogenic bacteria thrive only in anaerobic conditions. Shifts in vegetation from aerenchymous(methane transporting) wetland species to other vegetation types will also reduce the transfer of methane fromthe soil profile to the atmosphere. In general, when the peatland is drained the natural production of CH4 isreduced or even can convert to limited consumption for CH4, once methanotrophs dominate the CH4 cycle. As
natural CH4 emissions are not included in the inventory, this emission reduction is not considered when natural
un-drained organic soils are being drained. However, for completeness any remaining CH4 emission from theland surface of drained organic soils needs to be included in inventories.

2.20

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683

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 peat matrix, and in-situ CH4 production within the ditches
themselves (e.g. Roulet and Moore, 1995; Van den Pol – 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 peatland when averaged over the land surface (Roulet and Moore, 1995;
Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011) and should therefore be included in estimates where possible. 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. should be dealt
with at higher Tiers.

684

CHOICE OF METHOD

685
686
687
688
689
690

Tier 1

691
692
693
694
695

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 peatlands, where ditches remain present,
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 the landscape
occupied by the drainage ditch network, Fracditch.

CH4 emissions from the land surface are estimated using a simple emission factor approach (see Eq. 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 peatlands. Different land-uses imply drainage to different
depths. The CH4 emission factors depend on gas flux measurements, either from closed chambers or from eddy
covariance (Hirano et al., 2007).

696
697
698

EQUATION 2.6
ANNUAL CH4 EMISSION FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILSCH 4  Corganic   Ac ,n , p  1  Fracditch   EFCH 4 _ land c ,n  Fracditch  EFCH 4 _ ditch c , p

699



c ,n , p

700
701

Where:

702

CH4-Corganic = Annual CH4-C loss from drained organic soils, tonnes CH4-C yr-1

703
704

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

705

EFCH 4 _ land = Emission factors for direct CH4 emissions from drained organic soils, by climate zone cand nutrient status n, tonnes CH4-C ha-1 yr-1

706
707

EFCH 4 _ ditch = Emission factors for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches, by climate zone c and peatland
type p, tonnes CH4-C ha-1 yr-1

708
709

Fracditch = Fraction of the total area of drained organic soil which is occupied by ditches

710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718

The Tier 2 approach for CH4 emissions from drained organic soils incorporates country-specific information in
Equation 2.5 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. Land-use subcategories can consider
the CH4 formation when plant residues decay in wet conditions and the role of plants as active or passive
transporters of CH4 from the soil to the atmosphere. Guidance for further stratification follows the principles
given in section 2.2.1.1.

719
720
721

Tier 2 approaches for CH4 from drainage ditches generally follow the Tier 1 approach described above, withcountry-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

Tier 2DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.21

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

722
723

may be expanded or sub-divided where appropriate to reflect the range of observed land-use on drained organicsoils.

724
725
726
727
728

Tier 3Tier 3 methods for estimating land-surface CH4 emissions involve a comprehensive understanding andrepresentation of the dynamics of CH4 emissions and removals on managed peatlands, including the effect of sitecharacteristics, peat type, peat degradation and depth, land-use intensity, drainage depth, management systems,
and the level and kinds of fresh organic matter inputs.

729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736

For CH4 from drainage ditches, development of a Tier 3 approach could take account of the influence of landmanagement activities (e.g. organic matter additions to agricultural land) on substrate supply for methane
production in ditches, of possible short-term pulses of ditch CH4 emissions associated with land-use change, andof 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 account of thepotential effects of plant or algal growth within ditches; water flow rates, transport length of water and oxygen
status; ditch maintenance activities, and the deposition of organic material removed from ditches onto adjacentland areas.

737

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

738
739

Tier 1

740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747

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 Grassland and Cropland categories, separate EFs are given for
high- and low-intensity land-use sub-categories. For Grassland, these typically correspond to fertilised, annuallyreplanted Grassland and unfertilised ‘conservation managed’ permanent Grassland respectively. For Cropland,
they correspond to intensive arable or horticultural use, and low-intensity ‘paludiculture’ activities such as reed
production. 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.

748
749
750
751

Tier 2Tier 2 emission factors are based on country- or region-specific emission factors for CH4 emissions from thesurface of drained organic soils. These allow a further stratification of land-use categories by drainage class,nutrient status or vegetation characteristics.

752
753
754
755
756
757
758

Methane emissions from ditches will vary according to peat type, land-use type, drainage intensity, and (foragriculturally managed areas) land-use intensity. For example labile organic matter and nutrient supply fromterrestrial areas are likely to increase CH4 production in ditches (Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011). The Tier 1 emission
factors provided are based on measurements from ditches located within the peat layer; where ditches are cut into
underlying mineral soil, emissions may be lower (Hyvönen et al., 2012). Tier 2 emission factors (i.e. values for)should therefore be developed for all significant combinations of these factors at a country level, wherever
possible.

759
760

Currently, the literature is sparse, so countries are encouraged to share comparable data, when environmental
conditions and extraction practices are similar.

Default emission factors for the Tier 1 method are provided in Tables 2.3 and 2.4.

761

2.22

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

762
763
764
765
766

Tier 3

767
768
769
770

CH4 emissions from ditches can be based on relations between drainage ditch characteristics and maintenanceand CH4 emissions, for example taking account of the potential effects of plant or algal growth within ditches;water flow rates, transport length of water and oxygen status; ditch maintenance activities, and the deposition oforganic material removed from ditches onto adjacent land areas.

771
772
773

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-ditch
vegetation
that
might
enhanceor
reduceemissionrates.

Tier 3 emission factors or relations are based on country-specific emission data that account for sitecharacteristics, peat type and depth, and management factors such as drainage intensity; crop, livestock or forest
type; fertiliser or organic matter additions; peat extraction technology and the phases of peat extraction or otherrelevant factors for CH4 emissions.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.23

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
TABLE 2.3
TIER 1 CH4 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES
Land-Use Category

Nutrientrich

Climate /Vegetation
Zones# Boreal

Soil CH4 Emission
Factor*** (tonnes CH4-C
ha‐1 yr-1)

0.0052

95% Confidence Interval(centred on mean)

0.00220.0083

No. of Sites

47

Komulainen et al., 1998; Lohila et al., 2011,
Maljanen et al., 2006a; Martikainen et al., 1992,
1995a; Minkkinen & Laine, 2006; Minkkinen et al.,2007a; Nykanen et al., 1998; Ojanen et al., 2010,2011, 2013

ForestLand,
DrainedNutrientpoor

Forest Land,
DrainedCitations/Comment# Boreal

0.0015-0.00120.004185

Huttunen et al., 2003a; Komulainen et al, 1998;
Laine et al., 1996; Makiranta et al., 2007; Maljanen
et al., 2001b, 2003a, b, 2006a, 2010; Martikainen etal. 1992, 1995a, b; Minkkinen & Laine, 2006;
Minkkinen et al., 2007a; Nykanen et al., 1998;
Ojanen et al., 2010, 2013; Saari et al., 2009;
Huttunen et al., 2003a; Komulainen et al., 1998;
Laine et al., 1996;, Makiranta et al., 2007;
Maljanen et al., 2001b, 2003a, b, 2006a, 2010;
Martikainen et al., 1992, 1995a, b; Minkkinen &Laine, 2006; Minkkinen et al., 2007a; Nykanen etal., 1998; Ojanen et al., 2010, 2013; Saari et al.,2009

# Temperate

0.0018-0.00090.0044

14

Glenn et al., 1993; Moore & Knowles, 1990;
Sikstrom et al., 2009; Von Arnold et al., 2005b, c;
Weslien et al., 2009

Forest. Drained

0.004

0.002**

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

0.002

0.000**

Jauhiainen et al., 2008

Forest, Burned

Tropical/
Subtropical

Grassland, Drained# Boreal

0.0014-0.0008

0.003613

Grønlund et al., 2006; Hyvonen et al., 2009;
Maljanen et al., 2001a, 2003a, b, 2004, 2009a, b,
Nykanen et al., 1995; Regina et al., 2007

Grassland, Deep

* Temperate

0.00130.00050.0021

5

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

2.24

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

Drained < -30 cm,
Poor
Grassland, Shallow
Drained ≥ -30 cm,
Poor* Temperate

0.0125-0.0055

0.0305

6

Drösler et al., 2013

Grassland, Deep
Drained < -30 cm,
Rich* Temperate

0.01810.00410.032035Best & Jacobs, 1997, Drösler et al., 2013; Flessa etal., 1998; Meyer et al., 2001; Petersen et al., 2012;
Schrier-Uijl et al., 2010; Teh et al., 2011; Van den
Pol-van Dasselaar, 1998; Van den Pol-van Dasselaar
et al., 1999c

Grassland, Shallow
Drained ≥ -30 cm,
Rich* Temperate

0.1053-0.03880.249412Drösler et al. 2013,

Tropical/
Subtropical

0.005

0.005**

Same emission factor as Tropical Cropland

0.005

0.005**

Same emission factor as Tropical Cropland

Grassland
Shrubland
Cropland, Drained* Boreal &Temperate

Cropland
Rice
Plantation: Oil palm

Tropical/
Subtropical

Plantation: Sago
Palm
Wetland in Peat
Production

0.0010-0.0007

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

34

0.005

0.005**

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

0.108

0.060**

Furukawa et al., 2005; Hadi et al., 2001; Inubushi
et al., 2003 (with 10 cm to -10 cm water table)

0

0

0.020
* Boreal &Temperate

0.0027

Augustin et al., 1998; Drösler et al., 2013; Flessa etal., 1998; Glenn et al., 1993; Maljanen et al., 2003a,b, 2003, 2004, 2007a; Petersen et al., 2012; Regina
et al., 2007; Taft et al., 2013

0.0342Melling et al. 2005 (50-70 cm drainage)
Watanabe et al., 2009; Melling et al., 2005;
Inubushi et al. , 1998 (0-40 cm drainage)

0.014**‐0.0285

0.096816

Drösler et al., 2013; Hyvonen et al., 2009; Nykanen
et al., 1996; Sundh et al., 2000; Tuittila et al.,.
1995, 2000; Waddington & Day 2007

2.25

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

Same emission factor as CroplandSettlements

All climate
zones

Other LandAll climate
zones

774

Other Land remaining Other Land: 0
Land Converted to Other Land: Maintain emission factor of previous land-use category# Using FAO Climate/Vegetation Zones from 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4, Chapter 4, Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1* Using IPCC Climate Zones from 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4, Chapter 3, Figure 3A.5.1**Standard error*** Mean

2.26

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

775
776
777

Plantations can be defined as Forest Land or Cropland, according to national definitions. The attribution to
Cropland made in this table is not binding. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national
land-use category according to the national forest definition.

778
779

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

780
781
782
783
784

Tier 1

785
786
787
788
789
790
791

Activity data required to estimate ditch CH4 emissions at Tier 1 consist of areas of managed organic soils
disaggregated by peat type and 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, however it is good practice to derive country-specific values wherever possible, to reflect
local land-use practices. Often the fractional ditch area depends more on the topographic situation and peat
properties rather than on the land-use so that at Tier 1 the same fractional ditch area is used for all land-use
categories.

792
793
794
795

Fractional ditch area can be calculated from spatially explicit information about ditch and canal networks. Fromthese the length and width of ditches can be derived, or alternatively, ditch spacing and ditch width on organicsoils, which gives the ditch area on organic soils. This geometrical information is converted to fractional ditch
area by dividing the ditch area on organic soils through the area of drained organic soils.

796
797
798
799
800

Tier 2

801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808

Activity data for Tier 2 methods may consist of areas of organic soils managed for different forest types, peat
extraction, paddy systems, horticulture and plantation disaggregated according to nutrient status of the organic
soil if relevant, and annual peat production data. 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 cycle, 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 to refine CH4
emission estimates for Grassland and Cropland, as higher emissions are likely under more intensive management
systems with high substrate supply for methanogenesis.

809
810
811
812
813

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

814
815
816
817
818
819

Tier 3820

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

821

Uncertainty ranges are provided in Table 2.4 for values of EFCH 4 _ ditch for each peat/land-use category. The

822
823
824
825

major source of uncertainty in these values is simply the small number of studies on which many estimates are
based, and the high degree of heterogeneity in measured fluxes between different studies undertaken within someclasses. 95% confidence intervals have been calculated for all classes other than the drained tropical peat class,for which only one study (Jauhianen et al., 2012) is available, providing estimates of ditch CH4 emissions fromThe same activity data should be used for estimating CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions from managed organic soils.
Information on obtaining these data is provided in Section 2.2.1 above. For countries in boreal and temperateregions using the Tier 1 method, if the available information does not allow stratification by peat fertility,
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.

Tier 3 activity data for ditch CH4 emissions could incorporate additional information on water table level, 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) and on hydrological parameters.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.27

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

826
827
828
829
830
831

areas of drained, deforested and abandoned peatland, and pulpwood plantation. For this category, the uncertainty
range is provided by the lower (abandoned) and higher (pulpwood plantation) emission values recorded. Notethat the final calculation of CH4-Corganic is also sensitive to uncertainties in the activity data used to estimate theproportion of the land area which is occupied by drainage ditches, Fracditch. Uncertainty assessments should
therefore also take account of this source of uncertainty in calculating total CH4 emissions from drained organicsoils.

832
833

Uncertainty ranges in Table 2.3 are expressed as 95% confidence intervals or as standard errors, depending on
the number of studies available.

834

2.28

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

TABLE 2.4
DEFAULT CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINAGE DITCHES
Climatezone

Land-use

EFCH4_ditch(t CH4C ha-1 yr-1)

Drained forest
Drained wetlanda

Boreal/temperate

Low-intensity
Grassland

High-intensity
Grassland
Croplandb

Tropical

0.163

0.345

0.832

Uncertainty
range(t CH4-C ha-1
yr-1)

References

0.031 – 0.294

8 sites: Cooper & Evans, 2013;
Glagolev et al., 2008; Minkinnen &Laine, 2006 (two study areas); Roulet& Moore, 1995 (three study areas);
Sirin et al., 2012 (three study areas);
von Arnold et al., 2005.

0.187 – 0.503

5 sites: Best & Jacobs, 1997; Hendricks
et al., 2007, 2010; Van den Pol-Van
Dasselaar et al.,1999; Vermaat et al.,2011 (two study areas).

0.299 – 1.364

7 sites: Best & Jacobs, 1997; Chistotin
et al., 2006 ; McNamara, 2013;
Schrier-Uijl et al. 2009, 2011; Sirin etal., 2012; Teh et al., 2011; Vermaat etal., 2011.

Peat extraction

0.435

0.128 – 0.743

6 sites: Chistotin et al., 2006; Nykänen
et al., 1995; Sirin et al., 2012; Sundh etal., 2000; Waddington & Day, 2007
(two study areas)

All land-use
involving drainage

1.694

0.449 – 2.939c

2 sites from Jauhianen & Silvennoinen,
2012 (drained and abandoned, andpulpwood plantation)

Values shown in parentheses represent 95% confidence intervals unless otherwise statedaDitch CH4 fluxes 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 fluxes from Croplands 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.

835
836

2.2.2.2

N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS

837
838
839
840
841

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

842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853

Drained organic soils emit significant amounts of N2O whereas N2O emissions from wet organic soils are close
to zero (Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 1997; Flessa et al., 1998). A main reason for increased N2O emissions is thenitrogen mineralization which goes along with carbon losses from drained organic soils (Höper, 2002). In welldrained organic soils nitrogen mineralization from degrading peat or organic matter exceed by far the nitrogen
uptake by vegetation. The mineralized nitrogen from organic soils is one out of several anthropogenic sources ofnitrogen (nitrogen fertilizer, crop residues, organic amendments, mineralized soil nitrogen from humus loss inmineral soils) for direct N2O emissions in Chapter 11 of Volume 4 the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and in all earlier
guidance. These nitrogen sources have been conceptually separated for the Tier 1 methodology for N2Oemissions although they cannot be readily separated by field observations. N2O emissions from drained organicsoils are entirely attributed to the mineralization of peat or organic matter. This supplement maintains this wellestablished IPCC concept for N2O sources although there is a certain risk of double-counting on highly fertilizedorganic soils.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.29

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

854
855
856
857
858

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. However, new publisheddata are used to derive separate N2O emission factors for Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland, and peatland underpeat extraction in boreal and temperate zones in order to update Table 7.6 in Volume 4, Chapter 7 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

859
860

There are still limited data available for tropical peatlands; however the studies that have been published over the
past decade allow us to estimate appropriate Tier 1 emissions factors for the first time.

861

CHOICE OF METHOD

862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870

Tier 1This section presents the methods and Equation for estimating total anthropogenic emissions of N2O (direct andindirect) from managed organic soils. The revisions presented here are applicable to Equation 11.1 presented inVolume 4, Chapter 11 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This Equation can be used to estimate N2O within specificland-use categories; there are inadequate data available to develop coefficients to modify EFs by conditionspecific variables (e.g., levels of N additions or variations of drainage depths). The Equations 11.1 and 11.2 canbe modified to suit boreal conditions as well by adding terms FOS, CG Bor NR, FOS, CG, Bor NP, FOS, F, Bor, NR, and FOS, F Bor
NP (the subscripts CG, F, Bor, NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest Land, Boreal, Nutrient-Rich,
and Nutrient-Poor, respectively) and their respective emissions factors.

871
872
873
874

Direct N2O emissions from managed soils are estimated using Equation 11.1 in Volume 4, Chapter 11 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, update provided for the second
segment focuses on organic soils as follows:

875
876
877

EQUATION 2.7
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC SOILSFOS ,CG,Temp  EF2GC,Temp   FOS ,CG,Trop  EF2GC,Trop  
N 2O  NOS  FOS ,F ,Temp,NR  EF2 F ,Temp, NR  F OS ,F ,Temp,NP  EF2 F ,Temp, NP   FOS ,F ,Trop  EF2 F ,Trop  

878

879

Where:

880

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

881
882
883

FOS

884
885
886
887

EF2 = Emission factor for N2O emissions from drained/managed organic soils, kg N2O–N ha-1 yr-1;(Table 11.1, Volume 4, Chapter 11 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) 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.

888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895

Tier 2

896
897
898
899
900

Tier 3= 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 2 estimates are to be based on the Tier 1 Equation, but should use country–or region–specific EFs. Thesecan be further stratified by drainage class, nutrient status of organic soils or other criteria used for stratifying
organic soils for on-site CO2 emissions. The corresponding emission factors are country or region specific andtake into account the land management systems. The nitrogen sources conceptually separated for the Tier 1
methodology for N2O emissions cannot be readily separated by field observations. N2O emissions from drainedorganic soils should be entirely attributed to the mineralization of peat or organic matter unless N2O can beproven to be attributable to other nitrogen sources.
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; Dechow & Freibauer, 2011). These models can be used at larger scales
where measurements are impractical. Models should only be used after validation against representative

2.30

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

901
902
903

measurements that capture the variability of land-use, management practices and climate present in the inventory(IPCC, 2010). Tier 3 approaches can be used to attribute N2O emissions from organic soils to various
anthropogenic sources such as peat mineralization, nitrogen fertilization or crop residues.

904

Calculation steps

905

See Volume 4, Chapter 11 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

906

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

907

Tier 1

908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915

Emission factors for boreal and temperate organic soils
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provided emission factors that were partly disaggregated for land-use types or
climatic zones. An increased availability of scientific data allows for an improved choice of default emission
factors. Nutrient poor and rich peatlands drained for forestry have different N2O emissions. Croplands andgrasslands are established on nutrient-rich peat or are amended for better nutrient availability, and are consideredhere as rich. Peat extraction occurs both on ombrotrophic (bogs) and minerotrophic (fens) peatlands. In all cases
the residual bottom peat layers consist of minerogenous but recalcitrant fen peat. There is not enough data
available to disaggregate for the peat types in peat extraction areas.

916

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.31

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

917
TABLE 2.5
TIER 1 N2O EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES
Land-Use Category

ForestLand,
DrainedNutrientrich

Climate /Vegetation Zone

# Boreal

Soil N2O
Emission
Factor*** (kg‐1‐1
N2O-N ha yr )0.218

95 % confidence
interval (centred
on mean)No. of
Sites

0.153

43

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

0.284

Citations/Comment# Boreal

3.03

1.77

4.29

76

Huttunen et al., 2003a; Laurila et al., 2007; Makiranta et al., 2007; Maljanen
et al., 2001b,2003a, b, 2006a, 2010; Martikainen et al., 1993, 1995a,
Minkkinen et al., 2007a; Ojanen et al., 2010, 2013; Pihlatie et al., 2004,
Regina et al., 1996, 1998; Saari et al., 2009

Forest Land, Drained# Temperate

3.10

0.084

6.28

13

Sikstrom et al., 2009; Struwe & Kjoller, 1994; Von Arnold et al., 2005b, c;
Weslien et al. 2009

Forest Land

Tropical/
Subtropical

1.9

Grassland, Drained# Boreal

9.73

4.88

14.6

16

Grønlund et al., 2006; Guomundsson & Oskarsson, 2008; Hyvonen et al.,2009; Jaakola, 1985; Maljanen, et al., 2001a, 2004, 2009a, b; Nykanen et al.,
1995; Regina et al., 1996, 2004

Grassland, Deep
Drained < -30 cm, Poor

* Temperate

3.86

0.292

8.02

5

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

Grassland, Shallow
Drained ≥ -30 cm, Poor

* Temperate

2.34

0.106

4.78

6

Drösler et al., 2013

Nutrientpoor

0.3**

Furukawa et al., 2005; Takakai et al., 2006

Grassland, Deep
Drained < -30 cm, Rich

* Temperate

8.00

3.34

12.7

29

Drösler et al., 2013; Flessa et al., 1998; Meyer et al., 2001; Petersen et al.,2012; Teh et al, 2011; Van Beek et al., 2010

Grassland, Shallow
Drained ≥ -30 cm, Rich

* Temperate

1.27

0.470

2.07

12

Drösler et al., 2013

2.32

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Second Order Draft

Grassland

Tropical/
Subtropical

2.0

1.2**

Same emission factor as Tropical CroplandShrubland

Tropical/
Subtropical

2.0

1.2**

Same emission factor as Tropical Cropland* Boreal &Temperate

13.0

Cropland, Drained
Cropland except rice
Rice
Plantation: Oil palm

Tropical/
Subtropical

Plantation: Sago palm
Wetland in Peat
Production
Peatlands drained forextraction

0.4

0.5**

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

1.2

Melling et al., 2007

3.3

Melling et al., 2007

3.6

All climate zones

Augustin et al., 1998; Drösler et al., 2013; Flessa et al., 1998; Maljanen et al.,2003a, b, 2003, 2004, 2007a; Petersen et al, 2012; Regina et al., 2004, 2007;
Taft et al., 2013
Furukawa et al., 2005

Tropical/
Subtropical

Other Lands

33

1.2**

1.63

All climate zones

18.2

2.0

* Boreal &Temperate

Settlements

7.77

0.816

4.09

0.2 to 5.0***

6

Drösler et al., 2013; Hyvonen et al., 2009; Makiranta et al., 2007; Nykanen etal., 1996; Regina et al., 1996
Same as in 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Same emission factor as Cropland

Other Land remaining Other Land: 0
Land Converted to Other Land: Maintain emission factor of previous land-use category# Using FAO Climate/Vegetation Zones from 2006 Guidelines, Volume 4, Chapter 4, Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1* Using IPCC Climate Zones from 2006 Guidelines, Vol ume 4, Chapter 3, Figure 3A.5.1** Standard error*** Mean

918

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.33

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
919
920
921

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.

922
923
924
925
926
927
928

Emission factors for tropical organic soils
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, 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 in tropical soils
suggests that net mineralization is not a useful predictor of N2O flux and that net nitrification or the nitrate
portion of the inorganic-N pool are better predictors (Verchot et al., 1999, 2005; Ishizuka et al., 2005). It also
needs to be highlighted that all measurements on of N2O emissions on tropical organic soils to date are fromSoutheast Asia. Nonetheless these EFs should be used for all tropics until better data become available.

929

Tier 2

930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938

Emission factors for boreal and temperate organic soils
In the boreal zone more than 50 % of N2O emissions from organic nutrient-rich soils can occur during the winter(Maljanen et al., 2010). When national data are used, it is good practice to only use N2O data measured in allseasons and representative of the seasonal average. There is increasing evidence that N2O emissions are very low
in drained nutrient-poor peatlands where C:N ratio in boreal soils is high (e.g. Klemedtsson et al., 2005), butthere is strong potential for high emissions with low (< 25) C:N ratios. In addition to nutrient (nitrogen) level inpeat, other more dynamic factors such as drainage status (Maljanen et al., 2010), may control the rates ofnitrification or denitrification and suppress high N2O emissions even at low C:N ratios. Therefore the uncertainty
of annual N2O emission rates increases in nutrient rich peatlands compared to those in nutrient poor peatlands.

939

Emission factors for tropical organic soils

940
941
942

The EFs presented for Tier 1 represent agronomic practices in the early to mid-2000s. The inventory compiler
should assess whether agronomic practices have changed significantly and whether disaggregated factors arenecessary in place of aggregated factors and if so use a Tier 2 approach.

943

Tier 3944

See Vo lu me 4 , Chap ter 11 of the 2006 I P CC Guid elines .

945

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

946
947
948
949
950
951
952

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 underother sections of the inventory. The assessment of changes in soil carbon will be greatly facilitated if thisinformation can be used in conjunction with national soils and climate data, vegetation inventories, and otherbiophysical data. Stratification of land-use categories according to climate regions, based on default or countryspecific classifications can be accomplished with overlays of land-use on suitable climate and soil maps.

953
954
955

Tier 1

956
957
958
959
960
961

Tier 2In tropical peatlands there are several significant distinctions for land-use. Inventory compilers can increase theaccuracy of inventories by making distinctions between different forest types. Several countries have datasets
available in national forest statistics that allow for this type of disaggregation. Further improvements to Tier 2
estimation can be made with targeted measurements to provide data for other widespread practices, like Acacia
plantation forestry.

962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969

Likewise, particularly in Southeast Asia, there are large areas of organic soils that are cultivated using specificpractices. Inventory compilers can also increase the accuracy by disaggregating specific Grasslands andCropland types like oil palm cultivation, rice and sago palm. Sago palm, for example, is cultivated with arelatively high water table level, which maintains conditions that promote denitrification (Melling et al., 2007).
Rice is also cultivated with a high water table level in peatlands and is generally fertilized. Oil palm, on theother hand usually is produced with deep drainage >60 cm and has high fertilizer application rates near the trees
during the establishment phase of the crop. All other types of agriculture have to be aggregated at the moment
because of the paucity of data.

Activity data for non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions should be consistent with activity data for CO2 and CH4
emissions from soils. Guidance for activity data is given in the respective sections in this Chapter.

2.34

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
970
971
972

Similarly under temperate and boreal conditions, the accuracy of the inventories can be enhanced once
information about different forest types and crop types as well as grassland management practices (intensities)
are available and different country specific EF for these classes can be used.

973
974

Tier 3975

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

976
977
978
979

Uncertainties in estimates of direct N2O emissions from managed soils are caused by uncertainties related to theemission factors (see Table 2.5 for uncertainty ranges), inter-annual variability associated with temperature andrainfall, activity data, lack of coverage of measurements, spatial aggregation, and lack of information on specificon-farm practices.

980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987

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, thereliability of activity data will be higher than that of the emission factors. Further uncertainties may be caused by
missing information on observance of laws and regulations related to handling and application of fertiliser andmanure, and changing management practices in farming. Generally, it is difficult to obtain information on theactual observance of laws and possible emission reductions achieved as well as information on farming practices.
For more detailed guidance on uncertainty assessment refer to Volume 1, Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

988

2.2.2.3

See Volume 4, Chapter 11 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

989

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

990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002

Peat 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. In peatland ecosystems,
fires comprise both surface fires that consume vegetation, litter and duff, and deep peat fires which burn into andbelow the surface consuming the peat itself as a fuel source. Deep peat fires are smouldering fires that may
persist for long periods of time, burn repeatedly in response to changing soil moisture and surface hydrology, andpenetrate to different depths. This section deals with deep peat fires. In any ecosystem, fire activity is strongly
influenced by three factors, namely weather/climate, fuel availability, and ignition agents, including humanactivities (Johnson, 1992; Swetnam, 1993). In ecosystems with organic soils, site conditions such as peatmoisture, vegetation composition and peat surface micro-topography (e.g. Benscoter et al., 2003) along with firecharacteristics, such as intensity, frequency and duration (Kasischke et al., 1995) influence the quantity oforganic matter consumed and hence the emissions of greenhouse gases (Kuhry 1994; Kasischke et al., 1995;
Kasischke and Bruhwiler, 2003).

1003
1004
1005

2006 IPCC Guidelines covered emissions from burning of above-ground carbon stocks (biomass and deadorganic material) 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.

1006

This Chapter updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by:

1007
1008



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

1009



Providing generic guidance for higher Tier methods to estimate these fluxes

1010
1011
1012
1013
1014

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 dealt with in the following sections.
These deal specifically with fire-driven soil (i.e. below-ground biomass) as opposed to vegetation and litter(above-ground biomass) losses (the latter are included in the estimation of C stock changes in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines).

1015

CHOICE OF METHOD

1016
1017
1018
1019
1020

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. historical fire suppression and

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.35

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026

past forest harvest activities) or a combination of all three causes, the effects of which cannot be readily
separated. This variability is also true for emissions from peatland fires which critically depend on the depth ofthe organic soils, the fuel moisture, and the resulting depth of the consumed organics, all of which are affectedby ecosystem type, 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 ofdifferentiation between ecosystem, land-use and fire types.

1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032

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 peat fires are much higher because peat can burn repeatedly
and to different depths. Furthermore, the type and density of peat combined with the combustion efficiency will
determine the nature of the gases and other compounds emitted.

1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041

The mass of fuel per unit area that can potentially burn in a fire event on organic soils will be determined bydepth of burn, soil bulk density and carbon content; the former is controlled by soil moisture content (withposition of water table a reasonable proxy) while the latter variables are ideally measured in the field. Whiledefault values can be used for Tier 1 reporting, for higher Tiers data on the depth of burn need to be determined.
The combustion factor describes how much of the biomass available 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
are calculated from the product of area burnt and the corresponding biomass loading, combustion factor, andemission factor.

1042
1043

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

1044

L fire  A  M B  C f  Gef  1031045

Where:

1046

Lfire = amount of CO2 or non-CO2 emissions from fire, tonnes

1047

A = total area burned annually, ha

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

1048

B

1049

Table 1)1050

Cf = combustion factor, dimensionless1051

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

1052
1053
1054
1055

Note: Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (theproduct of MB and Cf) can be used under Tier 1 methodology (Table 2.6). The value 10-3 is a conversion of theemission factor units to per tonnes.

1056
1057

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

1058
1059
1060
1061

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 soils burnt, depth of organic soil, depth of burn and/or depth of water table/soil moisture content
values and peat bulk density) are incorporated.

1062
1063

Figures 1 and 2 present a decision tree that guides the selection of the appropriate Tier level to report CO2 andnon-CO2 emissions from the burning of organic soils.

1064

2.36

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft

1065
1066
1067

Figure 2.1

Generic decision tree for identification of the appropriate tier to estimate
greenhouse gas emissions from fire in a land-use for land remaining in thesame land-use category

1068
Start

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

Yes

Use the detailed data for fires on organic soils
for Tier 3 methods

Box 3: Tier 3

No

Are country specific activity and emission factors
available?

Yes

Use country specific activity data and emission
factors for the Tier 2 method

Box 2: Tier 2No

Is prescribed, agricultural or wildfire a key category?

Are aggregate data on fires available?
No

No
Yes
Yes

Gather data on burning
Collect data for Tier 3 or Tier 2 method

Use aggregate data and default emission factors forTier 1 method

Box 1: Tier 1

1069
1070

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.37

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

1071
1072
1073

Figure 2.2

Decision tree for identification of appropriate tier to estimate carbon stocks
and non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions for wild (uncontrolled) and managed(prescribed and agricultural) fires in managed wetlands with organic soils

1074
Start

Are detailed data on fire location, burnt area, fuelconsumption and emission factors available to estimatechanges in C stocks and non-CO2 emissions using
dynamic models or allometric equations?

Yes

Use the detailed data for Tier 3 methods

Box 3: Tier 3

No

Are country specific burnt area, land cover/condition
and fuel consumption data available?

Yes

Estimate country-specific uncontrolled andmanaged fire emission factors and changes in C
stock and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
for Tier 2 methods

Box 2: Tier 2
No

Are country estimates and default values of burnt area,
land cover and fuel consumption available for managed
wetlands?

Yes

Use aggregate data and default emission factors forTier 1 method

Box 1: Tier 1

1075
1076

2.38

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft

1077
1078
1079

BOX 2.2
SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPING CO2 AND NON-CO2 EMISSION FACTORS FOR EMISSIONS FROMBURNING OF ORGANIC SOILS FROM SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IN TABLE 2.6 AND TABLE 2.7

1080
1081
1082

CO2 emission factors for fires on 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 massof available fuel and emissions factors.

1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095

The data in Table 2.6 have been obtained using a variety of different approaches in order tocalculate the mass of fuel combusted. It should be noted that there are only a limited number ofpublications providing ground- or laboratory-based data on the depth (i.e. volume) of peat
consumed during peatland fires. Quantitative estimation of depth of burn as well as peatcharacteristics (i.e. bulk density and carbon content) are not easy to determine in the field, thus
information on these key parameters is often based on theoretical assumptions or limited spatiallyscattered ground measurements. This knowledge gap contributes considerably to the overall
uncertainties related to emissions from peatland fires (French et al., 2004, Kasischke et al., 2005,
Soja et al., 2004) because it is difficult to accurately assess the amount of fuel that is consumed.
Field data of depth of burn are available from a number of studies of fires on organic soils innorthern forests and peatlands in North America, Europe and Asia (e.g. Zoltai 1998; Turetsky &Wieder 2001; Benscoter & Wieder 2003; Turetsky et al., 2011a, 2011b), while in other cases, data
have been extrapolated from previous studies.

1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101

Obtaining accurate field data on the depth of peat combustion is problematic since there is usuallya lack of reference data. Turetsky et al. (2001) developed a method for field assessment thatconsidered the rooting depth of trees, while other studies have used comparison of adjacentunburned sites to quantify combustion depth (e.g. Kasischke et al., 2000; Page et al., 2002;
Turetsky et al., 2011a). The use of remote sensing (LiDAR) has also been applied in one study(Ballhorn et al., 2009).

1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129

Nearly all the data presented in Table 2.6 for the boreal/temperate zones are actually for the boreal
zone, with only one study in the temperate zone (Poulter et al., 2006). Most studies are of wildfires(i.e. unwanted and unplanned fires ignited other than by prescription (e.g. by lightning or as aresult of human activities, including escaped prescribed fires as well as those started throughnegligence or by arson) (US Federal Fire Management Policy 2008)) and are for fires on undrained
peatlands. Only Turetsky et al. (2011b) provides depth of burn data for a wildfire on a drained
boreal peatland. In addition, there are no data for organic soil losses associated with prescribedfires in the boreal/temperate zone. Most prescribed (i.e. managed) fires on the vegetation oforganic soils probably result in either no or only minimal ignition loss of soil carbon. 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 andexperience of the fire manager. In some parts of the temperate zone, prescribed rotational burningof vegetation on organic soils is a long-established land management practice. In the UK it iscarried 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 forlivestock grazing and cover for game birds (Worrall et al. 2010). In North America, prescribedburning 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; US Federal Fire Management Policy, 1995, 2001).
The typical timing for prescribed burning is in the spring and autumn months when fuel moisture ishigh enough to prevent peat combustion but low enough to carry a surface fire which reduces therisk of organic soil ignition. Shifts in climate have narrowed the window of opportunity forprescribed burning and changes in weather patterns have resulted in unexpected drying ofpeatlands during on-going prescription burns. Some local fire managers have recognised this shift,
but unfortunately this is a minimally studied area and little information exists on the scale ofemissions arising from the combustion of organic soils during prescription burns. At Tier 1, it isassumed that there is either no or very little combustive loss of soil organic matter during
prescribed fires on organic soils.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.39

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144

For tropical organic soils, the average depth of burn has not been explored in a consistent way that
representatively covers the different geographical regions nor the different fire types (i.e. wild vs.
agricultural fires). There have only been a limited number of field measurements of depth of burnand estimates of peat combustion losses. These have used either direct field measurements (e.g.
Page et al., 2002) or a combination of field measurements and LiDAR data (e.g. Ballhorn et al.,2009). There are only two studies of wildfires on drained peatlands and none in undrained
peatlands, although studies have demonstrated that in an intact condition tropical peat swamp
forest is at very low risk of fire (e.g. Page et al., 2002). There have been a limited number ofstudies investigating depth of burn on drained peatlands under agricultural management (e.g.
Saharjo & Munoz, 2005). Agricultural burning is undertaken in order to improve soil fertility or to
remove forest or crop residues during land preparation activities. For example, traditional ‘sonor’
rice cultivation on shallow peat involves regular burning of crop residues along with the surface
peat to enhance soil fertility. Fire is also used on both a small and large scale to dispose of forest
debris and invasive vegetation during land preparation and of crop residues at the end of a planting
cycle (e.g. Saharjo & Munoz, 2005).

1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158

In addition to field measurements, there have been limited laboratory-based burn tests aimed at
establishing the environmental controls on depth of peat combustion (e.g. Benscoter et al., 2011).
While more field and laboratory experiments to determine fuel consumption during peat fires areneeded (French et al., 2004) there is also a need for improved remote sensing methods to aid burnseverity mapping in peatlands (defined as the magnitude of ecological changes between pre- andpost-fire conditions) which can provide an indication of the likely depth of burn. Burn severity is
not easy to either investigate or quantify but there have been a number of studies using spectral
indices to discriminate different levels of burn severity in boreal and temperate forests (e.g. van
Wagtendonk et al., 2004; Epting et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2008) but only one study to date intropical peatland (Hoscilo et al., 2013). Even regionally developed consumption models can havelarge uncertainties with respect to organic soils consumption (e.g. Larkin et al., 2013). The
development of robust methodologies to assess burn severity and total organic soil consumption
peat-covered landscapes would enable more accurate quantification of carbon emissions from bothabove and below-ground fires for reporting at Tier 3 level.

1159
1160

Accurate assessment of the volume of peat 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.

1161
1162
1163
1164
1165

Tier 1

1166
1167
1168

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.

1169
1170
1171
1172
1173

Tier 21174



Knowledge of the amount of soil organic matter consumed;

1175



The position of the water table in a peatland relative to the surface;

1176
1177



Improved information on land-use/management and their effects on peatland condition, in particularpeatland hydrological status; and

1178
1179
1180



Improved data on area burnt estimated using remotely sensed data of adequate spatial and temporal
resolutions analysed according to a robust sampling design at suitable periodicity to take account of themonthly variations of area burnt.

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.

Tier 2 refines the Tier 1 method by incorporating more disaggregated area estimates (per peatland 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:

2.40

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
1181
1182
1183

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

1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196

Tier 3
The Tier 3 method is based on models with algorithms to generate regional scale maps of area burnt using
satellite data of multiple sources and of moderate spatial resolution. For Tier 3, model results should be validated,for example, by using high spatial resolution data augmented by field observations, and refined based on thevalidation results and feedback from operational users whenever possible. A sampling approach can be designed
to generate estimates of area burnt. The Tier 3 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. Reporting at this level should differentiate fires burning at different intensities andwith 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 peat-covered landscapes
would enable more accurate quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from below-ground fires for reporting at
Tier 3 level.

1197

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

1198
1199
1200

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

1201
1202
1203

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

1204
1205

For all peat fires, the default combustion factor is 1.0, since the assumption is that smouldering combustion
accounts for all fuel consumption in burning organic soils (Yokelson et al., 1997).

1206

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.41

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

1207
TABLE 2.6
PEAT FUEL CONSUMPTION VALUES (TONNES DRY MATTER HA-1) FOR FIRES IN A RANGE OF PEATLAND TYPES(TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EQUATION 2.7, TO ESTIMATE THE PRODUCT OF QUANTITIES MB AND CF, I.E. AN
ABSOLUTE AMOUNT)
Peatland type
Boreal/temperate

TropicalSub-category

Mean

SE

References

Wildfire (undrained
peat)

66.4

9.8

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 et al.
1999; Cahoon et al., 1994; Turetsky etal., 2011a; Turetsky et al., 2011b;
Poulter et al., 2006; de Groot &Alexander, 1986; Kuhry, 1994

Wildfire(drained peat)

336.0

4.0

Turetsky et al., 2011bPrescribed fire (landmanagement)0

1.0

No literature found; informed opinion

Wildfire (undrained
peat)

66.4

9.7

No literature found; same value asboreal/temperate

Wildfire(drained peat)

438.7

51.8

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

Agricultural/landclearance fires

146.6

32.6

Saharjo & Munoz, 2005; Saharjo &Nurhayati , 2005; Usop et al., 2004

Note: Where fuel consumption values have been reported as t C ha-1, default values for peat 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 Tier levels,
country or ecosystem specific values for both these variables are used.
*The value for surface peat 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 peat carbon density is an average derived from the typical average for eutrophic peat of 48% and the typical averagefor oligotrophic peat of 52% (after Lucas (1982), Immirzi et al. (1992) as reported in Charman (2002)).

1208
1209

2.42

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft

1210
TABLE 2.7
EMISSION FACTORS (G KG-1 DRY MATTER BURNED) FOR PEAT FIRES. VALUES ARE MEANS ± SD. (TO BE USED AS
QUANTITY GEF IN EQUATION 2.7)
Peatland type

CO2

CO

CH4

References

Boreal/temperate

1328 ± 179

207 ± 979±6Ward & Hardy, 1984; Yokelson et al.,1997;
Yokelson et al. (2013)

1703

210

21

Christian et al., 2003

Tropical
1.

2.

These values have been derived from a very limited number of studies. Surface (flaming) and deep (smouldering) peat
fires produce a complex mixture of gases and fine particles, the nature of which will reflect vegetation type, fire
behaviour, peat physical and chemical characteristics as well as the combustion conditions (in particular combustion
efficiency) (Itkonen and Jantunen, 1983; 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) andpolycyclic 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). There is no evidence of N2O emissions from fires,
although it can be produced in canisters during sample storage (Yokelson pers. comm.).
The composition of peat fire emissions differs substantially from forest fires; in part this is a function of the fact that peat
fires, particularly deep peat fires, are dominated by smouldering rather than flaming combustion owing to the moist andoften oxygen-limiting substrate conditions. Fire temperatures also differ: the typical peak temperature of smoldering peat
fires is in the range 500-700 ⁰C, while for flaming fires it can be 1000-1500 ⁰C (Usop et al., 2004; Rein, 2008). The
lower temperatures and smoldering combustion associated with deep peat fires makes them harder to detect by satellites
and leads to the emission of high amounts of CO relative to CO2 as well as large amounts of fine particulate matter(PM2.5 ); tropical peat fires, for example, emit as much as 3 to 6 times more particulate matter 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 smoldering fires (Cofer et al., 1989, 1990; Christian et al.,2007, Yokelson et al., 2007).

1211
1212
1213
1214
1215

Tier 2

1216
1217



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

1218
1219
1220



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).
Stratification by different fire types (wild vs. prescribed or. agricultural fires).

1221
1222
1223



Stratification by peatland type taking into account general hydrology (e.g. bog vs. fen); vegetation structure(open, shrubby, forested); and peatland condition (particularly relevant for tropical peatlands) wheneverpossible.

1224



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

1225
1226
1227



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.

1228
1229
1230
1231

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 andcountries are encouraged to share data when peat quality, environmental conditions and land-use practices are
similar.

1232
1233
1234
1235
1236

Tier 3

The Tier 2 approach for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from fires on organic soils incorporates countryspecific information in Equation 1. When deriving Tier 2 emission factors country-specific combustion factors
need to be developed. Regional factors for stratification could include:

A Tier 3 approach might use process-based models, adequately validated using observation data that take into
account temporal and spatial variations in the differences between fires on different peatland types andconditions 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,

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.43

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242

vegetation cover, peat type, depth, management practices, depth of water table and soil moisture among others.
Tier 3 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 peat chemical and physical characteristics (Yefremova & Yefremov, 1996; Zoltai et al.,
1998; Milner et al., submitted) as well as the rate and nature of post-fire vegetation recovery, and thus can alter
total net ecosystem productivity.

1243

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251

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 be consistent with those reported under othersections of the inventory. The assessment of fire-driven changes in soil carbon will be greatly facilitated if thisinformation can be used in conjunction with national soils and climate data, vegetation inventories, maps ofburned area and other biophysical data. Stratification of land-use categories according to climate zones, based on
default or country-specific classifications can be accomplished with overlays of land-use on suitable climate andsoil maps.

1252
1253
1254
1255
1256

Tier 1
Tier 1 methods require data on burned area of organic soils stratified by climate domain and fire type (wild vs.
prescribed or agricultural). Data on burned area are often obtained from a time series of images from remotesensors and, in inaccessible locations, this may be the only method available to assess area burned. Box 2.3
provides more details on the remote-sensing platforms currently used for obtaining burnt area data.

1257
1258

BOX 2.3
RECENT ADVANCES IN SATELLITES DERIVED FIRE PRODUCTS

1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270

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 SPOT satellites, and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite(GOES) have all enabled the derivation of burned area data in near real-time and thereby enhanced
the ability to estimate the areal extent of regional and global wildland fires and hence the scale ofemissions (e.g. Gregoire et al., 2003; Simon et al., 2004; Tansey et al., 2008; Giglio et al.,2009; Kasischke et al., 2011). The uncertainties and particular challenges associated withcommission and omission errors in remote sensing approaches to peat fire detection, however,need to be recognized and acknowledged. In particular, during their extended smouldering phases,
fires in organic soils may be particularly difficult to pick up by radiance measurements.

1271
1272
1273

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/).

1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279

Tier 2

1280

Tier 3

1281
1282
1283
1284
1285

The Tier 3 method requires more disaggregated activity data than lower Tiers. This includes disaggregationaccording to drainage classes, and may take into account such variables as seasonal norms and modifications inwater table level due to seasonal weather patterns etc. Seasonal variations in fire-driven emissions are thenaggregated to annual emissions. Also the annual average water table level as a robust proxy for depth of burnincludes seasonal water table level differences.

1286
1287
1288
1289

The accuracy of emission estimates will be further improved if information is also available on land-use and its
effect on peatland condition, since fire extent and severity and hence quantity of emissions increase according to
the scale of disturbance (e.g. disturbance of vegetation cover, and the presence of drainage structures associatedwith agriculture, forestry, peat harvesting, oil and gas extraction, roads etc. (e.g. Turetsky et al., 2011)). Remote

Activity data for Tier 2 consist of areas with organic soils stratified by peat type and condition; vegetation typeand condition; drainage depth; land management status; and depth of burn to improve the accuracy of theinventory. Data on depth of burn (obtained from in situ field or remote sensing (e.g. LiDAR) measurements),
along with country-specific data on peat bulk density and carbon content will also greatly improve knowledge ofthe mass of fuel consumed and the scale of carbon emissions.

2.44

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
1290
1291
1292

sensing techniques (e.g., Kasischke et al., 2009) can also be used to provide an indication of the likely fire risk
by estimating soil moisture conditions and providing an accurate proxy measure of peat surface moisture levels
and hence likely depth of burn at a landscape scale.

1293

CALCULATION STEPS FOR TIER 1

1294
1295

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:

1296
1297
1298

Step 1: Using guidance in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, stratify areas with drained organic soils ofland remaining in that land-use category for each land-use category according to climate domain and fire type.
Obtain estimates of A (area burnt) from global database or from national sources.

1299
1300

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

1301
1302

Step 3: Estimate the CO2 or non-CO2 emissions by multiplying burnt area with the appropriate fuel load (MB)and emission factor (Gef) from Table 1 using Equation 1.

1303

Step 4: Repeat steps 1-4 for each greenhouse gas.

1304

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317

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 biome scale. Other major causes of uncertainty are the accuracy ofthe estimates of area burnt, proportion of the available fuel oxidized, and the biomass fuel available.
Uncertainties of estimates of areas burnt can vary markedly depending on the methodology employed – forexample, where very 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).

1318
1319

2.3 LAND CONVERTED TO A NEW LAND-USE
CATEGORY

1320

2.3.1

1321

CO 2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils

1322
1323
1324

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 newly converted lands are calculated using Equations 2.1 and 2.2.

1325
1326
1327
1328

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 aboveground and belowground biomass and dead organic matter onlands converted to new land-use categories provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

1329
1330
1331
1332

Land-use change can indirectly affect carbon gains and losses because of altered growth of woody biomass andaltered respiration and peat 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 aboveground andbelowground biomass and dead organic matter and updated emission factors in Table 2.1 of section 2.2.1.1.

1333
1334

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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.45

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

1335

2.3.1.1

1336

ON - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS / REMOVALS FROM DRAINEDINLAND ORGANIC SOILS (CO 2 -C S O I L - O N S I T E )1337

CHOICE OF METHOD

1338
1339
1340
1341
1342

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 the new land-use
category. CO2 emissions/removals for the newly converted lands are calculated using Equation 2.3 if the soils are
drained. Specific guidance by new land-use categories is given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Chapters 5, 6, 8
and 9.

1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348

At Tier 1, there is no transition period for CO2 emissions from organic soils because the land immediately
switches to the methodologies of the new land-use category. Accelerated carbon loss from organic soil has been
observed directly after converting tropical peat swamp forests to other land-uses (Jauhiainen et al., 2008;
Hooijer et al., 2012). This transitional high-emission phase is likely to occur in other land-use conversions aswell but is not captured by the Tier 1 methodology. The transitional high-emission phase should be addressed byhigher tier methods. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.1.1.

1349

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1350
1351
1352

CO2 emissions/removal factors for the newly converted lands are the same as for land remaining in the new landuse 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.

1353

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1354

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

1355

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1356

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

1357

2.3.1.2

1358

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

1359

CHOICE OF METHOD

1360

TIER 1

1361
1362
1363
1364

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 the newland-use category. Guidance is given in Section 2.2.1.2 for DOC. CO2 emissions/removals for the newly
converted lands are calculated using Equations 2.4 and 2.5.

1365

TIER 2

1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375

The 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 in general be developed following the same principles as for land remaining in the newland-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 the new land-use category. Tier 2
approaches for land-use changes can be further stratified according to the time since land-use change. Specifictransition periods can be 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 long time.
Alternatively, the default transition period applicable to the new land-use category in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
can be applied.

2.46

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
1376

TIER 3

1377
1378
1379
1380
1381

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 the new land-use category.
Tier 3 methods should further differentiate transition effects of increased or reduced waterborne carbon losses
after land-use change and the time since land-use change.

1382

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

1383

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1384
1385
1386

CO2 emissions/removal factors for the newly converted lands are the same as for land remaining in the new landuse 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.

1387

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1388

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

1389

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1390

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

1391

2.3.2

1392

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

1393

2.3.2.1

CH 4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS

1394

C HOICE OF METHOD

1395
1396
1397
1398

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 the new land-use
category. CH4 emissions/removals for the newly converted lands are calculated using Equation 2.5. Additional
guidance on the Tiers 1, 2 and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.2.1.

1399

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1400
1401
1402

CH4 emissions/removal factors for the newly converted lands are the same as for land remaining in the new landuse 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.

1403

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1404

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

1405

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1406

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

1407

2.3.2.2

1408

CHOICE OF METHOD

1409
1410
1411
1412

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 the new land-use category. N2Oemissions for the newly converted lands are calculated using Equation 2.7. Additional guidance on the Tiers 1, 2
and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.2.2.

1413

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1414
1415
1416

N2O emission factors for the newly converted lands are the same as for land remaining in the new 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.

N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILSDRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.47

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1417

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1418

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

1419

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1420

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

1421

2.3.2.3

1422

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

1423
1424
1425

Non-CO2 emission factors for the converted lands are the same as for land remaining in a land-use 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.

1426

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

1427

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

1428

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

1429

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

1430

2.48

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft

1431

Annex 2A.1

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors

1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439

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 peat/land-use type, and are not
evenly distributed across different peatland types (for example, most of the data for high-intensity and lowintensity Grasslands on drained organic soils are obtained from studies in the Netherlands). There are currently
few data on CH4 emissions from ditches in tropical peats 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.

1440
1441
1442
1443

Note that the table includes all measurements that were identified, including (for completeness) a small numberof values from re-wetted sites. These were not used to derive EFs for Chapter 2, but could be used to account for
ditch CH4 emissions in re-wetted peatlands (see Chapter 3), where ditches remain a feature within the peatland
landscape.
TABLE 2A.1
COLLATED DATA ON DITCH CH4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED AND RE-WETTED PEAT SOILS
Peat/land-use typeCountry

Reference

EFCH 4 _ ditch

Fracditch(t CH4-C ha-1 yr-1 )High-intensity
Grassland

Netherlands

Schrier-Uijl et al., 2010, 2011

0.435

0.21

High-intensity
Grassland

Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.592

0.25

High-intensity
Grassland

Netherlands

Best & Jacobs, 1997

0.072

0.06

High-intensity
Grassland

UK

McNamara, 2013

0.580

0.04

High-intensity
Grassland

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.450

0.04

High-intensity
Grassland

RussiaChistotin et al., 2006

1.989

0.04

High-intensity
GrasslandUSA

Teh et al., 2011

1.704

0.05

Low-intensity
Grassland

Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.592

0.25

Low-intensity
Grassland (restored)

Netherlands

Best & Jacobs, 1997

0.345

0.06

Low-intensity
Grassland (restored)

Netherlands

Van den Pol-Van Dasselaar etal., 1999

0.085

0.25

Low-intensity
Grassland (restored)

Netherlands

Hendriks et al. (2007, 2010)

0.375

0.10

Conservation-managed

Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.329

0.25

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

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.49

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
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., 2005

0.013

0.02

Drained afforested bog

Finland

Minkinnen & Laine, 2006

0.053

0.03

Peat-mining site

Finland

Nykanen et al., 1995

0.133

0.02

Peat-mining site

SwedenSundh et al., 2000

0.356

0.03

Peat-mining site

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

1.022

0.04

Peat-mining site

RussiaChistotin et al., 2006

0.797

0.04

Cutover bog

CanadaWaddington & Day, 2007

0.110

0.05

Restored cutover bog

CanadaWaddington & Day, 2007

0.195

0.05

Drained blanket bog

UK

Cooper & Evans, 2013

0.070

0.03

Re-wetted blanket bog

UK

Cooper & Evans, 2013

0.619

0.06

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

1444

2.50

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft

1445

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of DOC emission factors

1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456

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 around 5 to 90 g C m-2 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 peatland (as an ‘off-site’ emission). This section describes the methodology that has been used to derive
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 2.3B.

1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463

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

1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473

Default values for DOCFLUX_NATURAL were derived from 26 published studies reporting DOC fluxes from natural
boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, temperate blanket bogs, and tropical peat swamp forests. Most data
were derived from catchment-scale studies with natural drainage channels, for which accurate hydrological flux
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). For boreal and temperate raised bogs
and fens, a significant (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001) linear relationship was observed between DOCFLUX_NATURAL andannual mean precipitation (see Table 2A.2). Tier 1 default fluxes were therefore assigned based on three borad
rainfall classes, with blanket bogs (for which few flux data are available) included in the calculation of fluxes
from the high-rainfall class. A single default value was assigned for tropical peat swamps, had by far the highest
DOC losses. The data used in this assessment are listed in Table 2A.2.

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 2.4.

1474

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.51

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 2A.2
ANNUAL DOC FLUX ESTIMATES FROM NATURAL OR SEMINATURAL PEATLANDS USED TO DERIVEDEFAULT VALUES FOR DOCFLUX_NATURAL
DOC flux(t C ha-1 yr1)Peat typeCountry

Study

Rainfall(mm yr-1)

Subarctic fen

CanadaKoprivnjak & Moore, 1992

302

0.05

Boreal fen

Finland

Juutinen et al. (in prep)

395

0.04

Boreal fen

Finland

Jager et al., 2009

476

0.08

Boreal fen

CanadaMoore, 2003

536

0.04

Boreal bog

CanadaMoore, 2003

536

0.06

Boreal fen

CanadaStrack et al., 2008

590

0.05

Boreal mire

SwedenAgren et al., 2007

600

0.10

a

620

0.16

Boreal mire

Finland

Kortelainen et al., 2006

Boreal mire

Finland

Kortelainen et al., 2006

620

0.06

Boreal bog/fen

Finland

Rantakari et al., 2010

640

0.12

Boreal bog

CanadaMoore et al., 2003

678

0.29

Boreal fen

SwedenNilsson et al., 2008

680

0.13

Boreal bog

USA

Urban et al.,1989

780

0.21

Boreal bog/fen

USA

Kolka et al., 1999

780

0.24

Boreal bog

CanadaRoulet et al., 2007

943

0.16

Temperate bog

CanadaClair et al., 2002

1400

0.36

Blanket bog

UK

Dawson et al., 2004

1130

0.19

Blanket bog

UK

Dinsmore et al., 2010

1155

0.26

Blanket bog

UK

Billett et al., 2010

1980

0.23

Blanket bog

UK

Billett et al., 2010

2200

0.19

Blanket bog

Ireland

Koehler et al., 2009,2011

2570

0.14

Blanket bog

Australia

di Folco & Kirkpatrick, 2011

2900

0.13

Tropical swamp
forestIndonesia

Baum et al., 2008 a

2316

0.47

Tropical swamp
forestIndonesia

Alkhatib et al., 2007

2500

0.55

Tropical swamp
forestMalaysia

Yule & Gomez, 2009,
Zulkifli, 2002

2300

0.63

Tropical swamp
forestIndonesia

Moore et al., 2013

2800

0.62

a

DOC flux for natural peatland derived by linear regression of DOC flux vs % peat area for mixed subcatchments

1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482

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 was

2.52

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499

insufficient 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 from 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. However for fens, which are fed byexternal groundwater or surface water inputs rather than solely by rainfall, 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 drained bogs (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 adrained fen is unchanged from the natural flux (i.e. that DOCDRAINAGE is equal to zero, and the the DOC export
is thus equal to DOCFLUX_NATURAL). At Tier 2 it may be possible to develop specific estimates of DOCDRAINAGE
based on paired comparisons between reliable DOC flux measurements for undrained and drained fens, either ona 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.

1500
1501
1502
1503
1504

Overall, the available data support a Tier 1 default DOCDRAINAGE value of 0.60 for all bogs and tropical peats.
Given difficulties of quantifying the water budget of drained fens, there is greater uncertainty about theapplicable value for DOCDRAINAGE for this peat type. Therefore, countries may choose to apply the same Tier 1
default value as in other peat 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.

1505

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.53

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

TABLE 2A.3
DOC CONCENTRATION (ABOVE) OR FLUX (BELOW) COMPARISONS BETWEEN DRAINED AND UNDRAINED PEATS, USED TO DERIVEDEFAULT VALUE FOR DOCDRAINAGE
Peat typeLand-use

Country

DOC

Study

Undrained

DrainedDOCDRAINAGE(%)

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

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

CanadaGlatzel et al., 2003

60

110

83%

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
Urbanova et al., 201170

Temperate bog

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

36

53.9

51%

Temperate fen

Drainage

Czech Republic

Urbanova et al., 2011

17

37.5

118%

Blanket bog

Drainage

UK

Wallage et al., 2006

28

42.9

55%

Temperate bog
Temperate bog-2-1

Flux-based studies (DOC g m yr )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%

1506
1507

Estimation of

1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526

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 Frac
sets the proportion of DOC exported from peats that is
ultimately converted to CO2.While considerable 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). The highly coloured
DOC typically exported by peatlands is susceptible to photo-degradation, which may lead to rapid conversion
rates in water exposed to sunlight in rivers, lakes or coastal waters (e.g. Opsahl and Benner, 1998). Dawson et al.
(2001) estimated that 12-18% of DOC was removed within a 2 km peat stream reach, and Jonsson et al. (2007)
estimated that around 50% of all terrestrially-derived organic carbon was mineralised within a lake catchment(not including subsequent mineralization downstream or in the sea). Wickland et al. (2007) measured 6% to 15%
conversion of pore-water DOC to CO2, and 10% to 90% conversion of the vegetation-derived DOC, during onemonth dark incubations. Experiments undertaken on light-exposed samples (Köhler et al., 2002; Worrall et al.,2013; Jones et al. , 2013) show far more rapid and extensive DOC loss, with averages ranging from 33% to 75%
over periods of up to 10 days. Since much of 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. Terrestrially-derived DOC which
does reach the sea largely appears to be microbially processed in the marine system, mostly within years to
decades (Bianchi, 2011; Opsahl and Benner, 1997).

1527
1528
1529
1530
1531

On the basis that a high proportion of peat-derived DOC may be mineralized rapidly in headwaters; that thisprocessing continues at a relatively high rate through rivers and lakes; and that any peat-derived DOC that does
reach the sea will nevertheless largely be mineralized in the marine ecosystem, a Fracis likely to be high.
Given the remaining uncertainty regarding DOC fate, and the possibility that some may be precipitated out inlake or marine sediments, a Tier 1 default value of 0.9 is proposed, with an uncertainty range of 0.8-1.0%.

1532
1533
1534
1535
1536

There is some evidence that controlled burning (for moorland management) also increases DOC losses (e.g.
Yallop et al., 2010; Di Falco et al. and Kirkpatrick, 2011), although other experimental studies have shown noeffect (e.g. Ward et al., 2007; Worrall et al., 2007b). A precautionary estimate is that managed burning may
increase mean DOC loss by 20-50%. Grazing levels on semi-natural vegetation have not been shown to affect
DOC loss (Ward et al., 2007; Worrall et al., 2007b), and data on the effects of more intensive agricultural

2.54

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
1537
1538

(Grassland and Cropland) management on DOC loss are currently insufficient to estimate an emissions factor.
Therefore, generic values for the effects of drainage may be used.

1539

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.55

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft

1542

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

1543

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

1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549

Particulate organic carbon (POC) is generally a negligible component of the carbon balance of natural peatlands.
However, disturbance of peatlands through land-use change, including drainage (which can include the dredging
of peat from drains and canals), burning (managed burning and wildfire), conversion to arable 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 of soil carbon
loss (e.g. Pawson et al., 2008; Worrall et al., 2011).

1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560

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 Croplands,
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 peat types, land-use types and climate regimes (in particular whether it is dependent on rainfall amount or
intensity). At present there are few data on which to base an estimate of airborne POC loss, and further work is
required to quantify this loss term, which may be large in peat extraction and Cropland sites.

1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569

Finally, there is limited information currently available from which to derive a value for the proportion of POC
ultimately converted to CO2, Frac
. Unlike DOC, a substantial proportion of POC is mobilized from peatsthrough 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 islikely that a significant proportion of waterborne POC loss from organic soils may simply be transferred to lakeor coastal sediments, re-deposited on floodplains, or transported to other land areas via aeolian transport, rather
than converted to CO2. Further research is therefore needed to establish realistic ranges for Fracindifferent systems.

1570
1571
1572

EQUATION 2A.1
CALCULATION OF POC EXPORT FROM DRAINED PEATLANDS

1573

EFPOC  POCFLUX _ BAREPEAT  PEATBARE  FracPOC

1540
1541

1574
1575

Where:

1576

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

1577

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

1578

PEATBARE = Proportion of the ground surface occupied by exposed peat

1579

Frac

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

1580

2.56

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft

1582

Appendix 2a.2 CO2 emission factors for drained tropicalpeatlands: Basis for future methodological development

1583
1584
1585

This appendix is provisionally proposed due to the lack of complete consensus among the authors on CO2emission factors for drained tropical peatlands. There has been convergence of views between the author groups,
but that there are still a few outstanding issues and the group ran out of time for the second order draft.

1586
1587
1588
1589
1590

There is consensus among the authors that drained tropical peatlands are a source of CO2. However, the available
scientific basis is smaller than for the temperate and boreal climate zones. While the authors agree that the samemeasurement methods can be applied to drained tropical peatlands as in drained boreal and temperate peatlands,
authors have not reached consensus on some methodological issues in deriving CO2 emissions from the literatureand the procedure to derive the IPCC emission factors.

1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610

Gain-loss method

1581

1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634

The gain-loss method uses chamber techniques in combination with measurements of carbon fluxes in otherpools to determine net emissions and removals. Total soil respiration (Rt) measurements in tropical studies are
based on dark chambers that determine the total CO2 flux from the peat surface. None of the studies on drained
tropical peatlands has fully measured soil on-site C gains and losses and calculated a balance. There is noconsensus among authors in the method for calculating the emission factors. These can be computed using either
an aggregated approach taking into account the average C components of the gain-loss balance per land use
category or a disaggregated one averaging site-by-site estimated balances. Measured total respiration (Rt ) data
have to be combined with data for the ratio of heterotrophic to total respiration and litter input from literature toderive CO2 emissions. Few studies have directly measured soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh) and there is also nocomplete consensus on the ratios of Rh:Rt to be applied to land-use categories for which no Rh:Rt ratios areavailable in the literature. Furthermore, aboveground litter and fine root turnover can significantly contribute to
the measured Rh. There is a lack of complete agreement on the magnitude of the contribution of aboveground
litter input and root mortality to the observed Rt in the measurement chambers and whether these chambers are
representative of mean ecosystem level litter and fine root input. If the chambers are representative, mean
ecosystem level litterfall and root mortality data must be subtracted from the Rh flux to give CO2 emissions.
Otherwise, subtracting mean ecosystem level litterfall and root mortality from the Rh flux would produce anunderestimate of CO2 emissions. As none of the studies on drained tropical peatlands has measured litter androot mortality, these data have to be derived from literature. There is no consensus whether root mortality datafrom mineral soils can be transferred to organic soils.

Subsidence method
The subsidence method is unique to peatland ecosystems and measures the height loss of the peat surface using a
network of subsidence markers inserted firmly into the mineral substrate beneath the peat deposit. Peat
oxidation/decomposition CO2 emission estimates are obtained by converting the volume loss to carbon via bulk
density, carbon content and estimates of the oxidized fraction of the volume lost as compared to compaction.
DOC and erosion losses need to be subtracted from the C loss estimates. Measured data have to be combinedwith data from the literature to derive site-based CO2 emissions. Measured data comprise subsidence rates andfinal bulk density. Each study had calculated a site-specific oxidation fraction, which accounts for compaction
above the water table. None of the studies on drained tropical peatlands have directly measured soil carbon
content or change in bulk density. Authors agreed to use the equation of Warren et al. (2012) for calculating peatcarbon content from peat bulk density. Authors agreed to use final bulk density and assume no change over themeasurement period. Authors could not reach a consensus on some of the underlying methodologicalassumptions involved in the subsidence method, e.g. whether or not consolidation below the water table played arole in the studied sites. If peat consolidation below the water table had a significant influence on the results, themeasured subsidence rates give overestimated site based CO2 emissions from soil. While peat consolidation
below the water table was ruled out by some authors based on soil mechanical principles and models, otherauthors argue that the process persisted beyond a period of initial consolidation.

Deriving IPCC emission factors
Study sites were treated as independent observations if they were in different peat complexes; or under differenthydrological management on the same peat complex; or under different land-use; or any combination of thesethree criteria. Authors have not achieved complete consensus about what constitutes a study site in subsidence
studies, which partly cover many km² and catchments on a peat complex. While one author group favours togroup the observations by catchment and/or peat depth and drainage level, the other author group favours to treat
the entire study area as one study site with replicated observations. There is disagreement whether a site-by-site

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.57

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1635
1636

aggregation of CO2 emission values or a generic calculation of a mean typical land-use category is to be pursued
for deriving the IPCC emission factor.

1637
1638

Table 2a.1 shows the second order draft status of discussions among authors and presents two alternative
preliminary values for emission factors as orientation.

1639
TABLE 2A.1
TWO PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES FOR EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINED TROPICAL PEATLANDS, BASED ON TWO
ALTERNATIVE PREFERRED WAYS OF AUTHOR GROUPS TO CALCULATE AND INTEGRATE THE UNDERLYING DATA.
Land-Use
Category

Climate /Vegetation
Zone

Soil Emission
Factor (tonnes-1 -1
CO2-C ha a )(Mean)

Forestland,
DrainedTropical

Alternative 1: 6
or95%
ConfidenceInterval(centred on
mean)

Citations

4

8

or

or

1

7

Alternative 1: 22

20

25

or

or

or

Alternative 2: 19

15

23

Alternative 1: 14

11

17

or

or

or

Alternative 2: 11

5

17

Comeau et al., 2013; Dariah et al. submitted; DID
and LAWOO 1996; Hooijer and Couwenberg
submitted; Lamade et al. 2005; Marwanto andAgus submitted; Melling et al., 2005; Melling etal., 2007; Warren et al., 2012; Wösten et al., 1997

Alternative 1: 3

0

5Melling et al., 2005; Watanabe et al., 2009

or

or

or

Alternative 2: -2-5

1

Alternative 1: 21

16

26

or

or

or

Alternative 2: 16

5

27

Alternative 2: 4

AcaciaPlantation

Oil palm
Plantation

Sago
Plantation

Cropland,DrainedTropicalTropicalTropicalTropicalAli et al., 2006; Brady 1997; Chimner and Ewel
2005; Chimner and Ewel 2004; Comeau et al.,2013; Darung et al., 2005; Furukawa et al., 2005;
Hadi et al., 2005; Harisson et al., 2007; Hatano etal., 2010; Hergoualc'h and Verchot 2011; Hirano etal., 2009; Hirano et al., 2012; Inubushi et al., 2003;
Ishida et al., 2001; Jauhiainen et al., 2008; Melling
et al., 2005; Rahaoje et al., 2000; Shimamura andMomose 2005; Sundari et al., 2012; Warren et al.,
2012
Basuki et al., 2012; Hooijer et al., 2012; Jauhiainen
et al., 2012; Nouvellon et al., 2012; Warren et al.,2012

Ali et al., 2006; Darung et al., 2005; Furukawa etal., 2005; Hairiah et al., 1999; Hatano et al., 2010;
Hirano et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2000;
Stephens et al., 1984; Stephens and Speir 1969;
Warren et al., 2012

1640
1641
1642
1643

2.58

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft

1644

References

1645
1646
1647

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].

1648
1649
1650

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.

1651
1652

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.

1653
1654

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.

1655
1656
1657

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.

1658
1659
1660

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.

1661
1662
1663

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.

1664
1665

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

1666
1667
1668

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

1669
1670

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.

1671
1672

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.

1673
1674

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.

1675
1676

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.

1677
1678

Bellisario LM, Moore TR, Bubier JL (1998) Net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland, northern
Manitoba. Ecoscience, 5(4), 534-541.

1679
1680

Benscoter, B. W. and R. K. Wieder (2003). "Variability in organic matter lost by combustion in a boreal bog
during the 2001 Chisholm fire " Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 2509-2513.

1681
1682
1683

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 ofthick organic soils." International Journal of Wildland Fire 20: 418-429.

1684
1685
1686
1687

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.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.

1688
1689
1690

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.

1691
1692
1693

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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.59

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1694
1695

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

1696
1697

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

1698

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

1699
1700
1701

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.

1702

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

1703
1704

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.

1705
1706

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

1707
1708

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.

1709
1710

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.

1711
1712
1713
1714

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.

1715
1716
1717
1718

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
emitted by smoldering logs and dung from deforestation and pasture fires in Brazil." Journal of GeophysicalResearch 112: D18308, doi:18310.11029/12006JD008147.

1719
1720
1721

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.

1722

Cleaver, N., C. Ashton, P. Pironi and J. L. Torero (2008). Catena 74: 304-309.

1723
1724

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

1725
1726

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

1727
1728
1729

Cofer, W. R., III, J. S. 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.

1730
1731
1732

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

1733
1734
1735

Comeau, L.-P., Hergoualc´h, K., Smith, J., Verchot, L.V., (2013) Intact peat swamp forest conversion into oilpalm plantation: the effect on soil CO2 fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra. Forests and Environment Programme,
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, p. 12.

1736
1737

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.

1738
1739
1740
1741

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.

1742
1743

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

2.60

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
1744
1745

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

1746
1747

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, pp. 112-119.

1748
1749
1750

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.

1751
1752

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.

1753
1754

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.

1755
1756
1757

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.

1758
1759

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

1760
1761

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.

1762
1763

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.

1764
1765
1766

DID & LAWOO, 1996. Department of Irrigation and Drainage and Land and Water Research Group. Western
Jahore integrated Agricultural Development Project. Peat Soil Management Study. Final report, Wageningen,
The Netherlands.

1767
1768
1769
1770
1771

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: 27502762.DID, LAWOO, 1996. Department of Irrigation and Drainage and Land and Water Research Group.
Western Jahore integrated Agricultural Development Project. Peat Soil Management Study. Final report,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.

1772
1773
1774

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.

1775
1776
1777

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

1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783

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

1784
1785
1786
1787

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,

1788
1789

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.

1790
1791

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

1792
1793
1794

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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.61

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1795
1796

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

1797
1798
1799

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.

1800
1801

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

1802
1803
1804

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.

1805
1806

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.

1807
1808

French, N. H. F., P. Goovaerts and E. S. Kasischke (2004). "Uncertainty in estimating carbon emissions fromboreal forest fires." Journal of Geophysical Research 109.

1809
1810

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.

1811
1812
1813

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.

1814
1815
1816

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.

1817
1818

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.

1819
1820
1821

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.

1822
1823

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

1824
1825

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.

1826
1827

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

1828
1829

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

1830
1831

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

1832
1833
1834
1835
1836

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.

1837
1838

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.

1839
1840

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.

1841
1842
1843

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.

2.62

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
1844
1845

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

1846
1847

Hadi A, Inubushi K, Purnomo E, Razie F, Yamakawa K, Tsuruta H 2000. Effect of land-use change on nitrous
oxide (N2O) emission from tropical peatlands. Chemosphere-Global Change Sci., 2, 347–358.

1848
1849

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.

1850
1851
1852

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.

1853
1854

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

1855
1856

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.

1857
1858
1859

Hatano, R., Inoue, T., Darung, U., Limin, S.H., Morishita, T., Takaki, F., Toma, Y., Yamada, H., (2010) Carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions associated with tropical peatland degradation, 19th World Congress ofSoil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Published on DVD ed, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 1-13.

1860
1861

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.

1862
1863
1864

Heil, A., B. Langmann and E. Aldrian (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.

1865
1866

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

1867
1868

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.

1869
1870

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.

1871
1872

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.

1873
1874

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.

1875
1876

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

1877
1878

Hirano, T., Jauhiainen, J., Inoue, T., Takahashi, H. (2009) Controls on the Carbon Balance of Tropical Peatlands.
Ecosystems 12, 873-887.

1879
1880

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.

1881
1882
1883
1884

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.

1885
1886

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.

1887
1888
1889

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.

1890
1891

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.

1892
1893

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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.63

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1894
1895
1896

Hyvönen, N. P., Huttunen, J. T., Shurpali, N. J., Lind, S.E., Marushchak, M.E., Heitto, L., and Martikainen, P. J.
2012. The role of drainage ditches in greenhouse gas emissions and surfave leaching losses from a cutaway
peatland cultivated with a perennial bioenergy crop, Boreal Env. Res. 18.

1897
1898
1899

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.

1900
1901

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.

1902
1903
1904

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.

1905
1906
1907

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.

1908
1909
1910
1911

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

1912
1913
1914

Ishizuk,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.

1915
1916

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

1917
1918
1919

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).

1920
1921
1922

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.

1923
1924

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

1925
1926

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

1927
1928

Jauhiainen, J., Limin, S., Silvennoinen, H., Vasander, H. (2008) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in drained
tropical peat before and after hydrological restoration. Ecology 89, 3503-3514.

1929
1930

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

1931
1932
1933

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.

1934
1935

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

1936
1937
1938
1939

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.

1940
1941

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

1942
1943

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 and

2.64

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
1944
1945

emissions of pollutants by advanced very high resolution radiometer satellite data." Journal of GeophysicalResearch 107.

1946
1947
1948

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.

1949
1950

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.

1951
1952

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.

1953
1954

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.

1955
1956

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

1957
1958
1959

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

1960
1961
1962

Kasischke, E. S., L. L. Bourgeau-Chavez, A. R. Rober, K. H. Wyatt, J. M. Waddington and M. R. Turetsky(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.

1963
1964

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

1965
1966
1967

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

1968
1969

Keeney DR, Fillery IR, Marx GP 1979. Effect of temperature on the gaseous nitrogen products of denitrification
in a silty loam soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 43, 1124–1128.

1970
1971

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

1972
1973

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.

1974
1975

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.

1976
1977

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

1978
1979

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.

1980
1981
1982

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.

1983
1984

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

1985
1986

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.

1987
1988

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.

1989
1990

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.

1991
1992

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

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.65

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
1993
1994

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

1995
1996
1997
1998

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.

1999
2000

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.

2001
2002
2003

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.

2004
2005

Lapina, K., R. E. Honrath, R. C. Owen, A. Richter, F. Wittrock, D. Helmig, E. J. Hyer and J. P. Burrows (2009).
"Observing boreal wildfire impacts on HCHO and NO2 from space." Journal of Geophysical Research.

2006
2007
2008

Lapina, K., R. E. Honrath, R. C. Owen, M. Val Martin, E. J. Hyer and P. Fialho (2008). "Late-summer changes
in burning 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.

2009
2010

Larkin, N. K., S. T.M., S. M. Raffuse and R. Russell (2013 IN REVIEW). "Wildland fire emissions, carbon, andclimate: fire emissions inventories." Forest Ecology and Management.

2011
2012
2013
2014

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.

2015
2016

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.

2017
2018
2019

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.

2020
2021

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.

2022
2023
2024

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.

2025
2026

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.

2027
2028

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

2029
2030
2031

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.

2032
2033

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.

2034
2035
2036

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.

2037
2038

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.

2039
2040

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.

2041
2042
2043

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.

2.66

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
2044
2045
2046

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.

2047
2048

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.

2049
2050

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.

2051
2052

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.

2053
2054

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.

2055
2056
2057
2058

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/.

2059

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

2060
2061

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.

2062
2063

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.

2064
2065

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.

2066
2067
2068
2069

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.

2070
2071
2072

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? Submited to Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change.

2073
2074
2075

Maswar, 2011. Kajian Cadangan Karbon Pada Lahan Gambut Tropika yang Didrainase untuk Tanaman
Tahunan (Carbon stock study on drained tropical peat land for perennial crops). Ph D. Dissertation, Bogor
Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia.

2076
2077
2078
2079

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.

2080
2081

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

2082
2083
2084

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.

2085
2086

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

2087
2088
2089

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.

2090
2091

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

2092
2093

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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.67

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2094
2095

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.

2096
2097

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.

2098
2099

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.

2100
2101

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.

2102
2103
2104

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 (in press).

2105
2106

Moore, T.R. and Clarkson, B.R. 2007. Dissolved organic carbon in New Zealand peatlands. New Zealand J.
Marine Freshwater Res. 41: 137-141.

2107
2108

Moore, T.R., Matos, L., Roulet, N.T. 1993. Dynamics and chemistry of dissolved organic carbon in Precambrian
Shield catchments and an impounded wetland. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 612–623.

2109
2110

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.

2111
2112

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

2113
2114

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

2115
2116
2117

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.

2118
2119

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

2120
2121

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.

2122
2123
2124

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.

2125
2126

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.

2127
2128
2129

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.

2130
2131
2132
2133

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.

2134
2135

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.

2136
2137

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

2138
2139
2140

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.

2141
2142

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

2.68

Pose

HealthConcerns

inCravenCounty."DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
2143
2144

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

2145
2146

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

2147
2148

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.

2149
2150

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.

2151
2152

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.

2153
2154
2155

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.

2156
2157
2158

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.

2159
2160

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.

2161

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

2162
2163
2164

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.

2165
2166

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.

2167
2168
2169

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.

2170
2171
2172

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.

2173
2174

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.

2175
2176

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

2177
2178

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.

2179
2180

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.

2181
2182
2183

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.

2184
2185

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

2186
2187
2188

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.

2189
2190

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

2191

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

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.69

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2192
2193
2194

Saari, P., Saarnio, S., Kukkonen, J. V. K., Akkanen, J., Heinonen, J., Saari, V. and Alm, J. 2009. DOC and N2O
dynamics in upland and peatland forest soils after clear-cutting and soil preparation, Biogeochemistry, 94,
217–231, doi:10.1007/s10533-009-9320-1.

2195
2196

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

2197
2198

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

2199
2200

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

2201
2202

Schothorst C.J. 1976. Subsidence of low moor peat soils in the Western Netherlands. Proc of 5th Int Peat
Congress, Poznan, volume 1: 206–217.

2203
2204
2205

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. 2010. Agricultural peat lands; towards a greenhouse gas sink – asynthesis.

2206
2207
2208

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. 2010, Flushing meadows - The influence of management alternatives on
the greenhouse gas balance of fen meadow areas, Academic Thesis, Wageningen University

2209
2210
2211

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 Soil(2010) 329: 509-520. DOI 10.1007/s11104-009-0180-1.

2212
2213

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.

2214
2215

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.

2216
2217
2218

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.

2219
2220
2221

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.

2222
2223
2224
2225

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).

2226
2227

Silvola, J., Alm, J., Ahlholm, U., Nykänen, H. and Martikainen, P.J. 1996. The contribution of plant roots to
CO2 fluxes from organic soils, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 23, 126-131.

2228
2229
2230

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.

2231
2232
2233

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.

2234
2235

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.

2236
2237
2238

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.

2239
2240
2241

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.

2.70

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
2242
2243
2244

Strack, M., Waddington, J.M., Bourbonniere, R.A., Buckton, L., Shaw, K. Whittington, P., Price, J.S., Effect ofwater table drawdown on peatland dissolved organic carbon export and dynamics. Hydrol. Process. 22: 33733385

2245
2246

Struwe, S. & Kjøller, A. 1994. Potential for N2O production from beech (Fagus silvaticus) forest soils withvarying pH, Soil Biololy and Biochemistry 26, 1003–1009.

2247
2248

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.

2249
2250

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.

2251
2252

Swetnam,T.
W.
(1993).
"Fire
sequoia groves." Science 262: 885-889.

2253
2254
2255
2256

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.

2257
2258
2259

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.

2260
2261
2262

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

2263
2264

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.

2265
2266

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.

2267
2268

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.

2269
2270
2271

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

2272
2273

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

2274
2275

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.

2276
2277

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.

2278
2279

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.

2280
2281

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.

2282
2283
2284
2285

Val Martin, M., R. E. Honrath, R. C. Owen, G. Pfister, P. Fialho and F. Barata (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.

2286
2287
2288

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.

2289
2290
2291

van den Pol-van Dasselaar A., van Beusichem M.L and Oenema 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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

history

andclimatechange

in

giant

2.71

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Second Order Draft
2292
2293

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

2294
2295

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.

2296
2297

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.

2298
2299

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.

2300
2301

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.

2302
2303
2304

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.

2305
2306

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: 41-56.

2307
2308

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.

2309
2310
2311

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.

2312
2313
2314

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

2315
2316

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.

2317
2318

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

2319
2320
2321

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.

2322
2323

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.

2324
2325

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.

2326
2327

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.

2328
2329
2330

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.

2331
2332
2333

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.

2334
2335

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

2336
2337
2338

Weslien, P., Kasimir Klemedtsson, Å , Börjesson, G. and Klemedsson, L. 2009. Strong pH influence on N2O
and CH4 fluxes from forested organic soils, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 60, 311–320, doi:10.1111/j.13652389.2009.01123.x.

2339
2340

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.

2.72

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Second Order Draft
2341
2342

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.

2343
2344

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

2345
2346
2347
2348
2349

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.

2350
2351
2352

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.

2353
2354
2355
2356

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.

2357
2358
2359

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.

2360
2361
2362
2363
2364

Yokelson, R. J., I. R. Burling, J. B. Gilman, C. Warneke, C. E. Stockwell, J. de Gouw, S. J. Akagi, S. P.
Urbanski, P. Veres, J. M. Roberts, W. C. Kuster, J. Reardon, D. W. T. Griffith, D. T. Johnson, S. Hosseini, J.
W. Miller, D. R. Cocker III, D. Jung and D. R. Weise (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.

2365
2366
2367

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.

2368
2369

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

2370
2371

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

2372
2373
2374
2375

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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.73