Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

1

CHAPTER 2

2

6

CROSS-CUTTING GUIDANCE ON
GREEN-HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANDREMOVALS FROM ORGANIC SOILS IN
ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES

7

Contents

892 Cross-cutting guidance on Greenhouse gas emissions and removals from organic soils in all land-use
categories .................................................................................................................................................................3

3
4
5

10

2.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................3

11

2.2

Land Remaining in a Land Use Category ...............................................................................................3

12

2.2.1

Loss of carbon in organic soils due to drainage and management .....................................................3

13

2.2.2

Non-CO2 emissions .........................................................................................................................13

14

2.3

Land converted to a new land-use category ..........................................................................................24

15

2.3.1

CO2 emissions in organic soils ........................................................................................................24

16

2.3.2

Non-CO2 emissions .........................................................................................................................25

17

Annex 2A.1

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors .....................................................................................26

18

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of DOC emission factors ............................................................................................28

19
20

Appendix
2a.1 Estimation for Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) loss from peatlands and organic soils: Basisfor future methodological development .................................................................................................................32

21

References ..............................................................................................................................................................39

22

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.1

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft

23

Equations24
25

Equation 2.1 Annual carbon loss from drained and managed organic soils .............................................................426

Equation 2.2 Annual on-site carbon loss from drained organic soils (CO2).............................................................527

Equation 2.3A Annual off-site carbon loss from drained organic soils (CO2) .......................................................1028

Equation 2.3B Emission factor for annual co2 emissions due to doc export from drained peatlands ....................1129

Equation 2.4 Annual CH4 emission from drained organic soils .............................................................................1430

Equation 2.5 Emission factors for annual CH4 emissions from drainage ditches ...................................................14

31

Equation 2.6 N2O emissions from organic soils .....................................................................................................2032

Equation 2a.1 Calculation of POC export from drained peatlands.........................................................................32

33

34

Tables35

Table 2.1 Tier 1 CO2 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories***** .............6

36

Table 2.2 Default DOC emission factors for drained peatlands and organic soils .................................................1237

Table 2.3 Tier 1 CH4 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories**** .............16

38

Table 2.4 Default CH4 emission factors for drainage ditches ................................................................................19

39

Table 2.5 Tier 1 N2O emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories***** ...........2140

Table 2A.1 Collated data on ditch CH4 emissions from drained and re-wetted peat soils .....................................26

41
42

Table 2A.2 DOC flux estimates from natural or seminatural peatlands used to derive default values for
DOCflux_natural...........................................................................................................................................................29

43
44

Table 2A.3 DOC concentration (above) or flux (below) comparisons between drained and undrained peats, used
To derive default value for DOCDRAINAGE ...........................................................................................................31

45
46

Table 2a.1 Method and data sources for calculation of C fluxes into and out of the soil for different land-use
categories on tropical peatlands. ............................................................................................................................36

47

Table 2a.2 Inputs to the SOC pool in tropical peat soils for different land-use categories (Mg ha-1 y-1). ..............37

48

Table 2a.3 Outputs from the SOC pool in tropical peat soils for different land-use categories (Mg ha-1 y-1) ........38

49

Table 2a.4 Tier 1 emission factors and uncertainty estimates ................................................................................38

50
51

2.2

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

55

2 CROSS-CUTTING GUIDANCE ON
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANDREMOVALS FROM ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL
LAND-USE CATEGORIES

56

2.1

57
58

This chapter provides supplementary guidance on estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals fromdrained organic soils in all land-use categories.

59
60
61
62

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 which have been, or are newly, drained. Within each land-use category water level ismanipulated to varying degrees depending on land use purpose, e.g. for cereals, rice, or aquaculture, which canbe reflected by different drainage classes.

63
64
65
66
67

This chapter clarifies the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 by summarizing all emission factors and harmonizing
the methods for organic soils in all land use types. On the basis of recent advances in scientific information, thischapter updates, improves, and completes methodologies and emission factors for greenhouse gas emissions andremovals of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and fills gaps where new scientific knowledge now allows
implementation of robust methodologies and emission factors at Tier 1 level.

68
69
70

This chapter improves and extends methodologies and updates and refines emission factors by including
drainage classes where possible and considering a wider geographical or temporal coverage, thus improving theregional suitability of the Tier 1 factors coverage, for:

71
72



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

73



CH4 emissions from organic soils (referring to 2006IPCC Guidelines Volume 4, Chapter 7);74



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

75

This chapter fills the gaps in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by:

76
77



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

78
79
80



providing methodologies and emission factors for indirect 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);

81
82
83



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).

84

2.2

LAND REMAINING IN A LAND USE
CATEGORY

2.2.1

87

Loss of carbon in organic soils due to drainage andmanagement

88
89
90
91
92

This section deals with the impacts of drainage and management onCO2 emissions from organic soils, primarily
by influencing carbon outputs from the soil and thus soil carbon storage, by affecting heterotrophic respiration(peat decomposition), erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and loss of dissolved organic carbon indrainage waters (DOC). There are also some changes in inputs, often associated with slash left on the ground in
the case of forests and changes in root, litter and deadwood inputs in all systems. General information and

52
53
54

85

86

INTRODUCTION

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.3

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
93
94
95
96
97
98

guidance for estimating changes in soil C stocks are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in Chapter 2, Section
2.3.3 (including equations), and this section needs to be read before proceeding with a consideration of specificguidelines dealing with organic soil C stocks. The main difference between mineral soils and organic soils is thatin mineral soils we assume that carbon reaches a constant stock level in managed systems following changes inmanagement and that eventually emissions become negligible. . In organic soils, once the soils are drained, we
assume that emissions persist until drainage is reversed.

99
100
101

The total change in soil C stocks in organic soils for land remaining in a land use category is estimated using
Equation 2.1, which combines the direct emissions from soil organic matter decomposition and indirectemissions from POC and DOC.

102
103

EQUATION 2.1
ANNUAL CARBON LOSS FROM DRAINED AND MANAGED ORGANIC SOILS

LOrganicCO2C  LOrganicCO2C (onsite) + LOrganicCO2C (onsite)

104
105

Where:

106

LOrganic-CO2-C = Annual carbon loss from drained and managed organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

107

Lorganic-CO2-C(on-site0t = On-site CO2-C emissions from drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

108

Lorganic-CO2-C(off-site0t = Off-site CO2 emissions from waterborne carbon losses, tonnes C yr-1

109
110

2.2.1.1

ON - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS

111
112
113
114
115
116

This chapter gives supplementary guidance for CO2 emissions from drained organic soils in all land-use
categories as defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 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 in this
supplementary guidance. Coastal Wetlands are considered in Chapter 4 of this Supplement. The activity rewetting and restoration of managed peatlands and organic soils is considered in Chapter 3 of this supplement.

117
118
119
120

Guidance is given for CO2 emissions from the soil carbon pool in drained organic soils in line with 2006 IPCC
Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2.3.3. Guidance for changes in the carbon pools in aboveground and belowgroundbiomass, dead organic matter, and litter on these lands is provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and remains
unchanged.

121

CHOICE OF METHOD

122
123
124

For Tier 1 methods, if the typical range of mean annual water table of drained organic soils for each land-use
category is unknown, it is assumed that the organic soil is deeply drained because dry conditions are the mostwidespread and suitable for a wide range of land use types and intensities.

125
126
127
128
129

The magnitude of annual CO2 emissions is roughly proportional to the distance between the mean annual watertable and the soil surface in unfertilized systems, in the absence of fire. Within each land-use category, drainedorganic soils can experience a wide range of mean annual water tables that depend upon regional climaticcharacteristics and specific land-use activity or intensity. Higher Tier methods could differentiate the drainage
intensity within land-use categories if there are significant areas which are wetter than the default dry conditions.

130
131

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

132
133
134

Tier 1The basic methodology for estimating annual carbon loss from drained organic soils was presented in section
2.3.3 and equation 2.26 in Vol. 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.:

2.4

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

135
136

EQUATION 2.2
ANNUAL ON-SITE CARBON LOSS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (CO2)

LOrganicCO2C ( onsite)   Ac,n  EFc,n 
c ,n

137
138

Where:

139

LOrganic-CO2-C(on-site) = Annual on-site CO2-C loss from drained organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

140

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

141

EF = Emission factors for drained organic soils, by climate type c and nutrient status n, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149

Tier 2

150
151
152
153
154
155

It is a good practice to derive country-specific emission factors is if experimental data are available. Guidance onchoosing the appropriate measurement techniques is given in the Annex 2A.1. Moreover, it is good practice to
use a finer classification for climate and management systems, in particular drainage classes, if there are
significant differences in measured carbon loss rates among the proposed classes. Note that any derivation mustbe accompanied with sufficient land-use/management activity and environmental data to represent the proposed
climate regions and management systems at the national scale.

156

The general considerations of 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2.3.3 also apply here.

157
158
159
160
161
162

Tier 3

The Tier 2 approach for CO2 emissions from drained 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. Potential improvements to the Tier 1 approach may include: 1) a derivation of country-specificemission factors; 2) specification of climate regions considered more suitable for the country; 3) a finer, moredetailed classification of management systems with a differentiation of land use intensity classes; 4) adifferentiation by drainage classes; or 5) a finer, more detailed classification of nutrient status in Forest Land orother land-use categories.

CO2 emissions from drained organic soils can be estimated with a model or measurement based approach.
Dynamic, mechanistic-based models will typically be used to simulate underlying processes, while capturing theinfluence of land use and management, particularly the effect of variable levels of drainage on decomposition.
The general considerations for mineral and organic soils in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2.3.3
also apply here.

163
164

CHOICE OF E MISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS

165
166
167

Tier 1
Default Tier 1 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils are found in Table 2.1.

168

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.5

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft

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

Land-use category

Climate zone

Emissionfactor(tonnes C
ha-1 yr-1)

Uncertainty(tonnes C ha-1 yr1)

References/
comments

Chapter inVolume 4of 2006
IPCC
Guidelines

Forest Land

Forest Land
EFCO2OrgForestBoreal

Forest Land
EFCO2OrgForestBorealPoor

BorealAll organic
soils

Nutrient-poor-0.609*-1.44*-0.872 , -0.346**-2.77 , -0.108**

23 sites, Laurila et al.
2007; Lindroth et al.
2007; Lohila et al.
2007; Minkkinen &Laine 1998; Minkkinen
et al. 1999; Von Arnold
et al. 2005d
7 sites, Laurila et al.
2007; Lindroth et al.
2007; Lohila et al.
2007; Minkkinen &Laine 1998; Minkkinen
et al. 1999; Von Arnold
et al. 2005d
16 sites, Laurila et al.
2007; Lindroth et al.
2007; Lohila et al.
2007; Minkkinen &Laine 1998; Minkkinen
et al. 1999; Von Arnold
et al. 2005d

Chapter 4
Table 4.6

Chapter 4
Table 4.6

Chapter 4
Table 4.6

Forest Land
EFCO2OrgForestBorealRich

Nutrient-rich-0.246*-0.377 , -0.115**

Forest Land
EFCO2OrgForestTemp

Temperate

0.68

0.41 to 1.91****2.31

2.76***

Chapter 4
Table 4.6

11.67

4.74***

Chapter 4
Table 4.6

Forest Land
EFCO2OrgForestTrop
Plantation, e.g. Acacia
EFCO2OrgForest-PlantTrop
CroplandEFCO2CropBoreal

2006 IPCC Guidelines
Volume 4

Tropical/
SubtropicalBorealChapter 4
Table 4.6

2.88 , 9.43**

16 sites, Hillebrand
1993; Maljanen et al.
2003a, 2003b, 2004,
2007a; Nykanen et al.
1995

Chapter 5
Table 5.6

5.88

2.95 , 8.80**

18 sites, Eggelsmann &Bartel 1975; Hoper
2002; KasimirKlemedtsson et al.
1997; Mundel 1976;
Okruszko 1989; Schuch
1977

Chapter 5
Table 5.6

9.11

2.47***

Chapter 5
Table 5.6

8.56

3.32***

Chapter 5
Table 5.6

5.24

2.99***

Chapter 5
Table 5.6

6.15

CroplandCroplandEFCO2CropTemp

Temperate

CroplandEFCO2CropTrop
Rice
EFCO2Crop-RiceTrop
Oil palm Plantation
EFCO2OrgCrop-OilpalmTrop

2.6

Tropical/
Subtropical

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

Grasslands
13 sites, Gronlund et al.
2006; Krestapova &Maslov 2004; Lohila etal. 2004; Maljanen etal. 2001a, 2004;
Nykanen et al. 1995;
Shurpali et al. 200948 sites, Czaplak &Dembek 2000;
Hargreaves et al. 2003;
Hoper 2002; KasimirKlemedtsson et al.
1997; Lorenz et al.
2002; Meyer et al.
2001; Okruszko 1989;
Schothorst 1976;
Weinzierl 1997

Grassland
EFCO2GrassBoreal

Boreal4.41

1.75 , 7.08**

Chapter 6
Table 6.3

Grassland
EFCO2GrassTemp

Temperate

3.19

2.26 , 4.11**

Grassland
EFCO2GrassTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

9.11

2.47***

Same emission factor as
Tropical Cropland

Chapter 6
Table 6.3

Shrubland
EFCO2GrassBoreal

Boreal4.41

1.75 , 7.08**

Same emission factor as
Boreal Grassland

Chapter 6
Table 6.3

Shrubland
EFCO2GrassTemp

Temperate

3.19

2.26 , 4.11**

Same emission factor as
Temperate Grassland

Chapter 6
Table 6.3

Shrubland
EFCO2GrassTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

9.11

2.47***

Same emission factor as
Tropical Cropland

Chapter 6
Table 6.3

Chapter 7
Table 7.4

Chapter 6
Table 6.3

Wetlands

Peatlands drained forextraction
EFCO2PeatBoreal

Boreal1.470.801 , 2.14**

21 sites, Ahlholm et al.
1990; Alm et al. 2007;
Glatzel et al. 2003;
Nykanen et al. 1996;
Shurpali et al. 2008;
Sundh et al. 2000;
Tuittila et al. 1995,
2004; Waddington et al.
2010

Peatlands drained forextraction
EFCO2PeatTemp

Temperate

0.732-.036 , 1.50**

6 sites, Hargreaves etal. 2003; Sottocornola& Kiely 2005

Chapter 7
Table 7.4

Peatlands drained forextraction
EFCO2PeatTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

2.0

0.06 to 7.0**

Same as in 2006 IPCC
Guidelines

Chapter 7
Table 7.4

Settlements

All climate
zones

Other LandAll climate
zones

Same emission factor as Cropland
Chapter 8
Other Land remaining Other Land: 0
Land converted to Other Land: Maintain emission factor ofprevious land-use category

Chapter 9* including litter and coarse woody debris** 95% confidence interval*** standard error**** range*****Positive and negative values indicate net CO2 emissions and removals respectively.

169

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.7

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
170
171

Tier 2172173

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;

174
175



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;

176
177



stratification of boreal forestland by nutrition status (rich/poor) with use of appropriate and significantly
different emission factors for organic soil CO2 loss (See Table 2.1).

178
179
180



stratification of boreal and temperate grassland categories 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.

Tier 2 emission factors could include the following refinements:

181
182
183
184

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.1

185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach might use process models that take into account temporal and spatial variations in water table
depth on a drained wetland involving a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2
emissions and removals on managed organic soils, including the effect of site characteristics, peat type and depth,
etc. Drained and managed peatlands go through a transition where subsidence is rapid in the years immediately
following drainage, and continues more slowly in subsequent years. Time-dependent rates capture moreaccurately land-use and management effects on emissions. Such models may calculate refined and stratified
emission factors for CO2. No specific guidance is provided on Tier 3 methods to account for CO2 emission
factors with respect to drainage classes.

194
195

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA

196
197
198
199
200
201
202

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.

203
204
205
206
207
208

Disaggregation of activity data by drainage depth should be done only if appropriate emissions factors areavailable. In many instances standard drainage depths are used in forestry production systems and thus,
disaggregation is not useful in improving the accuracy of the inventory. Where significant variation in drainage
depth exists for an activity data category, and where appropriate emissions factors exist, the accuracy of an
inventory can be improved by separating out drainage classes.

209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216

Tier 1

217
218
219

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/). The Center for International
Forestry Research will publish a map of carbon in wetlands for the tropics in 2012 (www.cifor.cgiar.org). A

For Tier 1 approach, requires information on managed land areas in each land use category on organic soils In
general, practices that are known to increase C input to mineral soils and thus soil organic C stocks, (fertilization,liming, etc.) do not have this effect in organic soils. All management practices for land remaining in a land use
category are assumed to result in persistent emissions from soils as long as the management system remains inplace. Classification systems for activity data that form the basis for a Tier 1 inventory are generally provided in
the respective land-use chapters of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2.8

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

220
221

global consortium has been formed to make a new digital soil map of the world at fine resolution.
(http://www.globalsoilmap.net/).

222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229

Tier 2

230
231
232
233
234
235

Tier 3

236

CALCULATION STEPS FO R TIER 1

237

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

238
239
240

Step 1: Determine areas with drained organic soils under each land use category for lands remaining in that land
use category, disaggregated according to climate zone and other appropriate factors as outlined above. In Forest
Land areas may further be stratified by nutrient-rich and nutrient poor organic soils.

241
242

Step 2: Assign the appropriate emission factor (EF) for annual losses of CO2 based on climatic temperature
regime (from Tables 2.1, 2,2 or 2.3).

243

Step 3: Multiply each area with the appropriate emission factor by using Equations 2.2.

Activity data under Tier 2 generally follows the methods presented for each land use in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and areas with organic soils should be differentiated from those with mineral soils. Activity data may
further be stratified based on drainage class, nutrient status of the organic soil (poor or rich), if nationally or
regionally appropriate emissions factors exist. In many instances standard drainage depths are used in forestry
production systems and thus, disaggregation by drainage depth is not useful in improving the accuracy of theinventory. Where significant variations in drainage depth exist, the accuracy of an inventory can be improvedby stratifying by drainage classes.
Tier 3 methods require activity data that are more disaggregated than lower Tiers. This includes disaggregationaccording to drainage classes, and may take into account such variables as seasonal norms and modifications inwater table due to biomass growth (e.g. the often occurring drop in water table due to increased
evapotranspiration as grasses grow). Approaches outlined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines need to be taken into
account and modified according to the specific characteristics of management on organic soils.

244
245

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT

246
247
248
249
250
251
252

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 bias (i.e., improve accuracy) is more likely to be reduced through implementation of higher tiermethods that incorporate country-specific information.

253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261

For Tier 1, A default uncertainty level of ±90% (expressed as 2x standard deviations as per cent of the mean) are
assumed for emissions/removal factors for each soil-climate types. If using aggregate land-use area statistics for
activity data (e.g., FAO data), the inventory agency may have to apply a default level of uncertainty for the landarea estimates (±50%). However, it is good practice for the inventory compiler to derive uncertainties fromcountry-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 a ground-based survey withadditional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing to provide additional coverage. It is goodpractice to design a classification that captures the majority of land-use and management activities with asufficient sample size to minimize uncertainty at the national scale.

262
263

Uncertainties in activity data and emission/removal factors need to be combined using an appropriate method,such as simple error propagation equations.

264
265
266
267
268
269
270

Bias is considered more problematic for reporting emissions because it is not necessarily captured in theuncertainty range (i.e., the true stock change may be outside of the reported uncertainty range if there issignificant bias in the factors). Bias can be reduced by deriving country-specific factors using a Tier 2 method orby 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, it is good practice to further minimize bias by estimation for significant within-country
differences in land-use and management impacts, such as variation among climate regions and/or soil types.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.9

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
271

2.2.1.2 O FF - SITE CO2 EMISSIONS FROM WATERBORNE CARBONLOSSES

272
273
274
275
276
277
278

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-). Collectively, waterborne carbon export can represent a major part of the overall carbon budget of anorganic soil, and in some cases can exceed the net land-atmosphere CO2 exchange (e.g. Billett et al., 2004;
Rowson et al., 2010). It is therefore important that waterborne carbon is included in flux-based approaches forsoil carbon estimation, to avoid systematic under-estimation of soil C losses.

279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287

Different forms of waterborne carbon have different sources, behaviour and ultimate fate, and different
approaches are therefore required. Gaseous CO2 and CH4 dissolved in water transported laterally from the peatmatrix represent indirectly emitted components of the total emission of these gases from the land surface.
Dissolved CO2 in excess of atmospheric pressure will also be degassed from drainage waters. At present, aseparate 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; most of the CO2 flux is emitted within thepeat area (Dinsmore et al., 2011), and may therefore already be captured in total fluxes measured using eddy
covariance methods, and thus be included in existing CO2 emission factors if this technique is used.

288
289
290
291
292
293

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., 2011). 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 A.X for supporting discussion).
Therefore, DOC should be accounted for in flux-based carbon estimation methods, and a Tier 1 methodology is
described below.

294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301

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 emission. 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.

302
303
304
305
306

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 (e.g. Fiedler et al., 2008).
Therefore, it is not currently possible to account for the DIC flux specifically associated with peat carbon loss.

307

CH OIC E OF M ETHOD

308
309

The basic methodology for estimating annual indirect carbon loss from drained organic soils was presented in
section 2.3.3 and equation 2.26 in Vol. 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines as presented in Equation 2.2:

310
311
312

EQUATION 2.3A
ANNUAL OFF-SITE CARBON LOSS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (CO2)

LOrganic CO2C ( off  site)   Ac ,n  EFDOC c,n

314



c ,n

313
Where:

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

315
316
317
318
319
320

Ac, n = Land area of drained organic soils in a land-use category in climate type c and nutrient status n, ha
EFDOCc,n = Emission factors for annual CO2 emissions due to DOC export from drained organic soils, by
climate type c and nutrient status n, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

2.10

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

321

EFDOC can be calculated from Equation 2.3B:

322
323
324
325

EQUATION 2.3B
EMISSION FACTOR FOR ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC EXPORT FROM DRAINEDPEATLANDSEFDOC  DOCFLUX  NATURAL  100  DOCDRAINAGE  / 100  FDOC CO2

326
327
328
329
330

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

331

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

332

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

333

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

334
335
336
337
338
339

Because of the lack of data for other components of off-site carbon losses, and uncertainty about their sources
and fate, waterborne carbon losses are only represented by DOC losses at this stage. However, if in the futureadequate data become available or if adequate data are available for higher Tiers, inventory compilers can
expand Equation 2.3 to include POC and/or DIC (See section on methodological requirements for off-site
emission estimation associated with POC in Appendix 2a.1).

340
341
342
343
344

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. Following the Managed Land Proxy (MLP), and to ensurecompleteness of flux-based soil carbon reporting, the entire DOC export of drained peatlands should be included
in methods developed for drained lands

345

CHOICE OF EMISSION FAC TOR

346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353

Tier 1
A detailed description of the derivation of these values is provided in Annex 2A.1. In summary, data indicate thatthe rate of DOC export from temperate and boreal raised bogs and fens is positively correlated with water 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 blanket bogs and tropical peatlands. Annex 2A.1 provides detailsof the derivation of parameter values. Note that a single default value for DOCDRAINAGE is currently proposed
for all peat/land-use types, and a default FDOC-CO2 value of 0.9 (± 0.1), implying near-complete conversion of
DOC to CO2 following export from the peat.

354

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.11

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
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)
0.05 (0.04-0.08)
0.12 (0.08-0.15)
0.18 (0.15-0.21)
0.24 (0.21-0.36)

Blanket bog< 500
500-700
700-900> 900
All

TropicalAll0.60 (0.47-0.69)

Temperate/boreal
raised bog/fen ba0.21 (0.13-0.28)

DOCDRAINAGEa

50%(17-112%)EFDOC_DRAINED(t C ha-1yr-1)
0.07 (0.04-0.18)
0.16 (0.08-0.31)
0.24 (0.14-0.45)
0.33 (0.20-0.76)
0.28 (0.12-0.59)

0.78 (0.44-1.46)

Due to the limited number of available studies, a single value for DOCDRAINAGE is applied to all peatland types

DOCFLUX_NATURAL values for boreal/temperate raised bogs and fens are calculated from the equation DOCFLUX_NATURAL = (0.000317 Precipitation) – 0.075, (r2 = 0.67, p < 0.001) in the units shown above, using representative mid-range values of 400, 600, 800 and 1000
mm for each of the classes shown. This equation may be used to calculate site-specific estimates where actual precipitation values are
known.
b

355
356
357
358

Tier 2359
360



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

361
362
363



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
under different precipitation levels;

364
365
366
367
368



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

369
370
371
372

At the present time, guidance is not presented for the effects of other land-use impacts other than drainage on
DOC loss from peatlands and organic soils, for example the effects of managed burning or intensity ofagricultural use. However, these may be included in Tier 2 methods if sufficient evidence can be obtained todevelop the associated emission factors.

373
374
375
376
377
378

Tier 3

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. Refinements could include:

No specific guidance is provided on Tier 3 methods for DOC flux estimation. A Tier 3 approach might include
the use of process models that describe DOC release as a function of vegetation composition, nutrient levels,
water table height and hydrology, as well as temporal variability in DOC release in the years following land-use
change (e.g. initial drainage) and on-going management activity (e.g. drain maintenance, forest management)(see Annex 3A.2, Chapter 3).

379
380

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA

381
382
383
384
385
386
387

Tier 1

388
389
390
391

Tier 2 & 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
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.
For higher tier approaches, additional activity data requirements may include specific information on the landuse type associated with drained organic soils, and intensity of drainage. Use of a variable F DOC_CO2 value at acountry level, or within a country, would require information on the characteristics of downstream river networks

2.12

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

392
393
394

(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).

395
396

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT

397
398
399
400
401
402

Ranges are provided for DOC emission factors in Table 2.4. These ranges are calculated from literature data in
Annex A.2 based on the range of observed DOC fluxes from natural peatlands used to derive values of
DOCFLUX_NATURAL in each of the classes used (Table 2A.2); minimum and maximum observed values for
DOCDRAINAGE from published studies (Table 2A.3); and an uncertainty range for FDOC-CO2 value of 0.8 to 1.0 as
described above. These uncertainty ranges may be adapted or refined under Tier 2 if further sub-classificationaccording to land-use type or intensity is undertaken, based on additional measurement data.

403

404

2.2.2

Non-CO2 emissions

405
406
407

In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, CH4 emissions were assumed to be negligible from all drained organic soils. We
provide here new estimates for soil CH4 emissions from drained organic soils and drainage ditches (section
2.2.2.1).

408

2.2.2.1

409
410
411
412
413

Organic soils are mostly formed due to incomplete decomposition of dead organic matter in water saturated
conditions and 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 emission can occur from the drained land surface, and also from the ditch
networks constructed during drainage. Each of these emission pathways is considered here.

414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424

Drainage lowers the water table and exposes formerly water saturated peat layers to oxidation and, as describedabove, increases CO2 emissions from the land surface. Drainage alters environmental factors such as temperature,
reduction–oxidation potential, and the amount of easily decomposable organic matter. This also affects theactivity of methanogens and CH4 oxidizers (Blodau, 2002; Treat et al., 2007; Murdiyarso et al. 2010). Drainage
facilitating plant root respiration mitigates CH4 emission dramatically (Martikainen et al., 1995; 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 water table to the surface. In general, when the peatland is drained the natural production of CH4 is reduced.
As natural CH4 emissions are not included in the inventory, this emission reduction is not considered whennatural un-drained organic soils are being drained. However, for completeness any remaining CH4 emission fromthe land surface of drained organic soils needs to be included in inventories.

425
426
427
428
429
430
431

Ditch networks provide a further source of CH4 emission 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., 1999; Sundh et al, 2000;
Minkkinen and Laine, 2006; Teh et al., 2011; Vermaat et al., 2011). This emission may approach, or evenexceed, the CH4 flux from an undrained peatland (Roulet and Moore, 1995; Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011) and should
therefore be included in estimation methods where possible. Emission factors for ditch CH4 emissions werecompiled from published literature (See Annex 2A.2).

CH 4 emissions from drained organic soil s

432

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.13

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
433

CHOICE OF METHOD

434
435
436
437
438
439

Tier 1

440
441
442
443
444

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,
see Chapter 3). Estimation of ditch CH4 emissions requires information on the land-use class, and on thecharacteristics of the drainage ditches. At Tier 1, default values are assigned, which may be replaced by specificemission factors and data on ditch configuration at higher tiers.

CH4 emission from the land surface is estimated using a simple emission factor (see Eq. 2.4). It depends on
climate and type of land use. The default methodology considers boreal, temperate and tropical organic soils
both under the nutrient-rich and nutrient poor peatlands. Different land uses imply drainage to different depths.
The CH4 emission factors almost entirely depend on gas flux measurements, either from closed chambers orfrom eddy covariance (Hirano et al. 2007).

445
446
447

EQUATION 2.4
ANNUAL CH4 EMISSION FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILSLOrganicCH4C   Ac ,n, p  EFCH 4 _ land c,n  EFCH 4 _ ditch _ landscapec , p

c ,n , p

448
449
450

Where:
LOrganic CH4-C = Annual CH4-C loss from drained organic soils, tonnes CH4-C yr-1

451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462

Ac,n,p

EFCH4_land = Emission factors for direct CH4 emissions from drained organic soils, by climate type c andnutrient status n, tonnes CH4-C ha-1 yr-1
EFCH4_ditch_landscape = Emission factors for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches, by climate type c andpeatland type p, scaled according to the area of the landscape occupied by ditches inEquation 2.5, tonnes CH4-C ha-1 yr-1

463
464

EQUATION 2.5
EMISSION FACTORS FOR ANNUAL CH4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINAGE DITCHESEFCH4 _ ditch _ landscape  EFDCH4 _ ditch  Ditch _ width / Ditch _ width  Ditch _ spacing 

465
466
467
468
469
470

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

Where:
EFCH4_ditch_landscape = CH4 emission factor per unit area of peatland/organic soil which is derived fromdrainage ditches, tonnes CH4 ha-1 yr-1

471

EFCH4_ditch = CH4 emission factor per unit surface area of ditch, tonnes CH4 ha-1 yr-1

472

Ditch width = Width of ditch (including open water and any surrounding saturated area), m

473

Ditch spacing = Average distance between drainage ditches, m

474
475
476
477
478
479

Tier 2
Under Tier 2, the emission factors for CH4 from the surface of drained organic soils are differentiated bydrainage depth and time since the peat land is cleared as this relates to the input of energy for methanogens. The
corresponding emission factors are country specific and take into account the management systems such as thelevel of fertilization.

2.14

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

480
481
482
483
484

Countries wishing to apply Tier 2 methods for CH4 from drainage ditches should follow the Tier 1 approachdescribed above, with country-specific measurements of annual mean ditch CH4 emissions, and national orregional estimates of ditch width and spacing that reflect local drainage practices. The land-use sub-categories inTable 2.4 may be expanded or sub-divided where appropriate to reflect the range of observed land-use on
drained peatlands and organic soils.

485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493

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 maturity and depth, land use intensity, drainage depth the management systems
and the level and kinds of fresh organic matter inputs. For CH4 from drainage ditches the development of a Tier
3 approach could take account of the influence of land-management activities (e.g. organic matter additions toagricultural land) on substrate supply for methane production in ditches, of possible short-term pulses of ditch
CH4 emission associated with land-use change, and of the legacy effects of past land-use (e.g. nutrient-enrichedsoils).

494
495

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

496
497

Tier 1

498
499
500
501
502
503

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, grassland, cropland and wetland used for peat extraction) in boreal andtemperate regions (Table 2.4). For grassland and cropland categories, separate EFs are given for low- and highintensity land use sub-categories. For tropical peats, few data on ditch CH4 emissions are currently available, anda single Tier 1 EF is therefore provided for all drained land-use classes on this peat type. Higher tier reporting fordrained tropical peats would be improved by additional measurement data from these areas.

504
505
506
507
508
509
510

Tiers 2 and 3

511
512
513
514
515

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). Tier 2 Emission
factors (i.e. values for EFCH4_ditch) should therefore be developed for all significant combinations of these factors
at a country level, wherever possible.

516
517
518

A Tier 3 approach to estimating ditch CH4 emission 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 enhance or reduce emission rates.

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

Countries applying Tier 2 methods develop country-specific emission factors, which may be able to differentiate
land-surface CH4 emission rates under the natural peat vegetation and managed systems. Tiers 2 and 3 require
country-specific emission data that account for site characteristics, peat type and depth, management system,
peat extraction technology, the phases of peat extraction or other relevant factor. Currently, the literature issparse, perhaps because of the low CH4 emission of managed peatlands. Countries are encouraged to sharecomparable data, when environmental conditions and extraction practices are similar.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.15

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft

TABLE 2.3
TIER 1 CH4 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES****

Land-use category

Climate zone

Emission factor(t C ha-1
yr-1)

Uncertainty(t C ha-1 yr-1)

References/
comments

Forest Land

Forest Land
EFCH4OrgForestBoreal

Forest Land
EFCH4OrgForestBorealPoor

BorealAll organic
soils

BorealNutrientpoor

3.57

12.4

2.73 , 4.40**

73 sites, Huttunen et al. 2003a; Komulainen etal. 1998, 1999; Laine et al. 1996; Makiranta
et al. 2007; Maljanen et al. 2001b, 2003a,
2003b, 2006a, 2010; Martikainen et al. 1992,
1995a, 1995b; Minkkinen & Laine 2006;
Minkkinen et al. 2007a; Nykanen et al. 1998;
Saari et al. 2009; Silvola et al. 1996; Von
Arnold et al. 2005d6.41 , 18.3**

19 sites, Huttunen et al. 2003a; Komulainen etal. 1998, 1999; Laine et al. 1996; Makiranta
et al. 2007; Maljanen et al. 2001b, 2003a,
2003b, 2006a, 2010; Martikainen et al. 1992,
1995a, 1995b; Minkkinen & Laine 2006;
Minkkinen et al. 2007a; Nykanen et al. 1998;
Saari et al. 2009; Silvola et al. 1996; Von
Arnold et al. 2005d

Forest Land
EFCH4OrgForestBorealRich

BorealNutrient-rich

0.471

0.342 ,
0.600**

54 sites, Huttunen et al. 2003a; Komulainen etal. 1998, 1999; Laine et al. 1996; Makiranta
et al. 2007; Maljanen et al. 2001b, 2003a,
2003b, 2006a, 2010; Martikainen et al. 1992,
1995a, 1995b; Minkkinen & Laine 2006;
Minkkinen et al. 2007a; Nykanen et al. 1998;
Saari et al. 2009; Silvola et al. 1996; Von
Arnold et al. 2005d

Forest Land
EFCH4OrgForestTemp

Temperate

1.69

0.791 , 2.60**

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

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 - drained
EFCH4OrgForestTrop
Forest - burned
EFCH4OrgForestTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

CroplandCropland
EFCH4CropBoreal

Boreal-1.09-2.00 , 0.178**

8 sites, Lohila et al. 2004; Maljanen et al.
2001a, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Regina et al.
2007

Cropland
EFCH4CropTemp

Temperate

2.68

1.55 , 3.81**

24 sites, Flessa et al. 1998; Glenn et al. 1993;
Kasimir et al. 2009

Cropland
EFCH4CropTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

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

Rice
EFCH4Crop-RiceTrop

2.16

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

Plantation: Oil palm
EFCH4Crop-OilpalmTrop00Melling et al. 2005; 50-70 cm drainage

Plantation:Sago
Palm

0.020

0.014***

Watanabe et al. 2009; Melling et al. 2005;
Inubushi et al., 1998 0-40 cm drainage

0.582 ,
2.17**

14 sites, Gronlund et al. 2006; Hyvonen et al.
2009; Maljanen et al. 2003a, 2003b, 2004,
2009a, 2009b; Nykanen et al. 1995; Regina et
al 2007

Grasslands

Grassland
EFCH4GrassBoreal

Boreal1.38

Grassland
EFCH4GrassTemp

Temperate

0

Grassland
EFCH4GrassTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

0.005

0.005***

Same emission factor as Tropical CroplandShrubland
EFCH4ShrubBoreal

Boreal1.38

0.582 ,
2.17**

Same emission factor as Boreal Grassland

Shrubland
EFCH4ShrubTemp

Temperate0

Shrubland
EFCH4ShrubTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

0.005

0.005***

Same emission factor as Tropical Cropland

Peatlands drainedfor extraction
EFCH4PeatBoreal

Boreal3.19

1.05 , 5.34**

11 sites, Hyvonen et al. 2009; Nykanen et al.
1996; Tuittila et al. 2000; Waddington & Day
2007

Peatlands drainedfor extraction
EFCH4PeatTemp

Temperate382-92.2 ,
856**

Peatlands drainedfor extraction
EFCH4PeatTrop

Tropical/SubtropicalSettlements

All climate
zones

Same emission factor as Cropland

Other LandAll climate
zones

Other Land remaining Other Land: 0
Land converted to Other Land: Maintain emission factor of previous landuse category

Same emission factor as Temperate Grassland

Wetlands

5 sites, BMBF Report 2006-10; Clymo &Reddaway 1971** 95% confidence interval*** standard error*** * Positive and negative values indicate net CH4 emissions and removals respectively.

519
520

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.17

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
521

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA

522
523
524
525
526

Tier 1

527
528
529

Activity data required to estimate ditch CH4 emissions at Tier 1 consists of areas of managed organic soils
disaggregated by peat type and land-use category (forest, grassland, cropland, wetlands used for peat extraction)
as shown in Table 2.4.

530
531
532
533
534
535

To estimate ditch CH4 emissions, additional activity data are required on ditch width and ditch spacing withineach land category. Default estimates are provided in Table 2.4, however it is good practice to replace thesevalues with country-specific values wherever possible, to reflect local land-use practices. Higher tier methods
could incorporate additional information on water depth, 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.

536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544

Tiers 2 and 3

545
546
547
548

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.

549
550

A Tier 3 approach to ditch emission estimation would require activity data on the nature and timing ofagricultural activities (such as organic matter additions) and on hydrological parameters such as ditch depth.

The same activity data should be used for estimating CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions from managed organic soils
and peatlands. Information on obtaining these data is provided in Section 2.2.1 above. For countries in boreal andtemperate regions using the Tier 1 method, if the available information does not allow stratification by peat
fertility, countries may rely on expert judgment.

Activity data for Tier 2 and 3 methods may consist of areas of organic soils managed for peat extraction, paddy
systems, horticulture and plantation disaggregated according to nutrient status if relevant, and annual peat
production data. More sophisticated estimation methodologies will require the determination of areas in each of
the three phases of the peat extraction cycle, including abandoned areas on which drainage or the effects offormer peat extraction are still present; and if warranted, areas characterized by different peat extraction
technology, peat types and extraction depths. Land-use intensity, particularly fertilizer and organic matter
addition, may be used to refine CH4 emission estimates for grassland and cropland, as higher emissions arelikely under more intensive management systems with high substrate supply for methanogenesis.

551
552

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

553
554
555
556
557
558
559

Ranges are provided in Table 2.4 for values of EFCH4_ditch for each peat/land-use category. The major source of
uncertainty in these values is simply the small number of studies on which many estimates are based, and thehigh degree of heterogeneity in measured fluxes between different studies undertaken within some classes. As
the number of studies is insufficient to estimate 2.5th and 97.5th percentile values, maximum and minimum
reported values have been used. These upper and lower estimates should be used, along with country-level
information on ditch widths and spacings (again with ranges where available) to calculate upper and lower
ranges on EFCH4_ditch_landscape..

560

2.18

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

TABLE 2.4
DEFAULT CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINAGE DITCHES
LanduseForestLand-usesubcategory

Temperature
regimeCommercial
forestry

Boreal/temperate

Peat type

Raised bog/fen

Blanket bog

GrasslandLowintensity

Boreal/temperate

Raised bog/fen

Blanket bog

CroplandWetlandHigh
intensity

Boreal/temperate

Raised bog/fen

Low
intensity

Boreal/temperate

Raised bog/fen

Highintensity

Boreal/temperate

Raised bog/fen

Peat
extraction

Boreal/temperate

Raised bog/fen

Drained tropical peat (all land-use classes)

EFCH4_ditch(t CH4-C
ha-1 yr-1)

Ditch
width
(m)a

Ditch
spacing(m)aEFCH4_ditch_

0.173(0.0150.353)
0.053c(0.0150.105)

0.5

30

0.003

0.5

15

0.002

0.345b(0.1800.503)
0.053(0.0150.105)
0.833(0.2931.815)
0.345 e(0.1800.503)
0.833 d(0.2931.815)
0.488(0.1200.930)
214 (62366)

0.5

30

0.006

0.5

15

0.002

2

30

0.041

0.5

30

0.006

2

30

0.041

1

20

0.019

7

500

1.605
(0.4652.745)

landscape(t CH4–C
ha-1 yr-1)

aDitch widths and spacings shown are indicative, based on published studies. Country-specific estimates should be used in preference
wherever possible.
b

Low-intensity grazing on semi-natural vegetationc

Assumed equal to drained blanket bog under extensive grazingdAssumed equal to high-intensity grassland.
eAssumed equal to low-intensity grassland.

561

2.2.2.2

N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM DRAI NED ORGANIC SOILS

562
563
564
565
566
567
568

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is one of the most important radiatively active trace gases in the atmosphere. Over the lasttwo decades there has been a nearly linear increase of 0.26% in the concentration of N2O due to anthropogenic
emissions. N2O emissions from soils are biologically produced by the microbiological processes of nitrificationand denitrification (to N2O or N2) (Davidson 1991; Firestone and Davidson 1989). These processes arecontrolled by several factors, including water-filled pore space (Aulakh et al.1984; 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).

569
570
571
572

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 emissions factors in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. However, newpublished data are used to derive separate N2O emission factors for forest land, cropland, grassland, and wetland
under peat extraction in boreal and temperate zones in order to update Table 7.6 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

573
574

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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.19

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
575

CHOICE OF METHOD

576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583

Tier 1

584
585
586
587

Direct N2O emissions from managed soils are estimated using Equation 11.1 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Thisequation has three segments: one for emissions associated with N inputs, one for organic soils, and one for urine
and dung inputs during grazing. In this section, we provide updates for the second segment that focuses onorganic soils as follows:This 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 in
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This equation can be used to estimate N2O within specific land-use categories; there
are inadequate data available to develop coefficients to modify EFs by condition-specific variables (e.g., levelsof N additions or variations of drainage depths). The equations 11.1 and 11.2 can be 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 and their respective
emissions factors.

588
589
590

EQUATION 2.6
N2O EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC SOILSFOS ,CG,Temp  EF2GC ,Temp   FOS ,CG,Trop  EF2GC ,Trop   N 2O  N OS  FOS , F ,Temp , NR  EF2 F ,Temp , NR  F OS , F ,Temp , NP  EF2 F ,Temp , NP   FOS , F ,Trop  EF2 F ,Trop  

591

592

Where:

593

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

594
595
596

FOS

597
598
599

EF2 = Emission factor for N2O emissions from drained/managed organic soils, kg N2O–N ha-1 yr-1; (Table
11.1, 2006 GL) 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.

600
601
602
603

Tier 2

604
605
606
607
608
609

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 determined by drainage class, amount of N fertilizer applied, and land use. The corresponding emission
factors are country or region specific and take into account the land management systems.
Tier 3 methods are based on modeling 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. These models can be used at larger scales where measurements are impractical. Models should only
be used after validation against representative measurements that capture the variability of land use, management
practices and climate present in the inventory.

610
611

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

612

Tier 1

613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620

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 (poor bogs) and minerotrophic (rich fens) peatlands. In
all cases the residual bottom peat layers consist of minerogenous but recalcitrant fen peat. There is not enoughdata available to disaggregate for the peat types in peat extraction areas.

2.20

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

TABLE 2.5
TIER 1 N2O EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES*****

Land-use category

Climate zone

Emissionfactor(kg N ha-1 yr-1)

Uncertainty(kg N ha-1 yr-1 )References, comments

Chapter inVolume 4of 2006
IPCC
Guidelines

Forestland

Forest Land
EFN2O-OrgForestBoreal

Forest Land
EFN2OOrgForestBorealPoor

Forest Land
EFN2OOrgForestBorealRich

BorealAll organic
soils

4.26

3.07 , 5.44**

BorealNutrientpoor

0.069-0.003 , 0.141**

BorealNutrientrich

4.80

3.38 , 6.23**

52 sites, Huttunen et al.
2003a; Laurila et al.
2007; Makiranta et al.
2007; Maljanen et al.
2001b, 2003a, 2003b,
2006a, 2010; Martikainen
et al. 1992, 1993, 1995a;
Minkkinen et al. 2007a;
Pihlatie et al. 2004;
Regina et al. 1996, 1998;
Saari et al. 2009; Von
Arnold et al 2005d
6 sites, Huttunen et al.
2003a; Laurila et al.
2007; Makiranta et al.
2007; Maljanen et al.
2001b, 2003a, 2003b,
2006a, 2010; Martikainen
et al. 1992, 1993, 1995a;
Minkkinen et al. 2007a;
Pihlatie et al. 2004;
Regina et al. 1996, 1998;
Saari et al. 2009; Von
Arnold et al 2005d
46 sites, Huttunen et al.
2003a; Laurila et al.
2007; Makiranta et al.
2007; Maljanen et al.
2001b, 2003a, 2003b,
2006a, 2010; Martikainen
et al. 1992, 1993, 1995a;
Minkkinen et al. 2007a;
Pihlatie et al. 2004;
Regina et al. 1996, 1998;
Saari et al. 2009; Von
Arnold et al 2005d et al.
2005d
15 sites, Sikstrom et al.
2009; Struwe & Kjoller
1994; Von Arnold et al.
2005b, 2005c; Weslien etal. 2009

Chapter 11

Chapter 11

Chapter 11

Chapter 11

Forest Land
EFN2O-OrgForestTemp

Temperate

3.03

1.35 , 4.72**

Forest Land
EFN2O-OrgForestTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

0.3***

Furukawa et al. 2005;
Takakai et al. 2006

Chapter 11

1.9

Chapter 11

3.91 , 9.13**

19 sites, Jaakola 1985;
Maljanen et al. 2003a,
2003b, 2004; Regina et al.
2004

CroplandCroplandEFN2OCropBoreal

BorealDRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

6.16

2.21

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
Chapter 11
CroplandEFN2OCropTemp

10.5

5.58 , 15.4**

20 sites, Flessa et al.
1998; Kasimir et al. 2009

Cropland except
rice
EFN2OOrgCropTrop

2.0

1.2***

Furukawa et al. 2005

Rice
EFN2OOrgCrop-RiceTrop

0.4

0.5***

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

Plantation: Oil palm
EFN2OOrgCrop-

Temperate

Chapter 11

Tropical/
Subtropical

Chapter 11

Chapter 11
1.2

Melling et al. 2007

OilpalmTrop

Plantation: Sago
palm
EFN2OOrgCrop-

Chapter 11
3.3

Melling et al. 2007

9.44

4.59 , 14.3**

17 sites, Gronlund et al.
2006; Hyvonen et al.
2009; Jaakola 1985;
Maljanen et al. 2003a,
2003b, 2004, 2009a,
2009b; Nykanen et al.
1995; Regina et al 1996,
2004

SagopalmTrop

Grasslands

Grassland
EFN2OGrassBoreal

BorealChapter 11

Chapter 11

Grassland
EFN2OGrassTemp

Temperate

5.47

3.93 , 7.01**

51 sites, Flessa et al.
1998; Kasimir et al. 2009;
Langeveld et al. 1997;
Meyer et al. 2001; Van
Beek et al. 2010

Grassland
EFN2OGrassTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

1.2***

Same emission factor as
Tropical Cropland

Chapter 11

2.0

Shrubland
EFN2OGrassBoreal

9.44

4.59 , 14.3**

Same emission factor as
Boreal Grassland

Chapter 11

BorealShrubland
EFN2OGrassTrop

5.47

3.93 , 7.01*

Same emission factor as
Temperate Grassland

Chapter 11

Temperate

Shrubland
EFN2OGrassTrop

Tropical/
Subtropical

2.0

1.2***

Same emission factor as
Tropical Cropland

Chapter 110.104 , 2.65**

7 sites, Alm et al. 2007;
Hyvonen et al. 2009;
Nykanen et al. 1996;
Regina et al. 1996

Chapter 7
Table 7.6

-2.60 , 6.11**

3 sites, BMBF Report
2006-100.2 to 5.0****Same as in 2006 IPCC
Guidelines

Wetlands
Peatlands drainedfor extraction
EFN2OPeatBoreal

BorealPeatlands drainedfor extraction
EFN2OPeatTemp

Temperate

Peatlands drainedfor extraction
EFN2OPeatTrop

Tropical/Subtr
opicalSettlements

All climate
zones

2.22

1.38

1.75

3.6

Chapter 7
Table 7.6

Chapter 7
Table 7.6

Same emission factor as Cropland
Chapter 8

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

Other Lands

All climate
zones

Other Land remaining Other Land: 0
Land converted to Other Land: Maintain emission factor ofprevious land-use category

Chapter 9** 95% confidence interval*** standard error**** range*****Positive and negative values indicate net N2O emissions and removals respectively.

621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630

Emission factors for tropical organic soils

631

Tier 2

632
633
634
635
636
637

Emission factors for boreal and temperate organic soils

638
639
640
641

Emission factors for tropical organic soils

642

Tier 3643

S ee 2006 I PCC Gu id e lin es Ch ap ter 11 .

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). With thecurrent dataset, it is impossible to disaggregate the effects of drainage depth and fertilizer application. It also
needs to be highlighted that all measurements on of N2O emissions on tropical organic soils to date are fromSoutheast Asia.

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. There is increasing evidence that N2O emissions are very low in drained nutrient poor peatlands where
C:Nratio in boreal soils is high (e.g. Klemetdsson et al. 2005), but both low and high emissions can occur withlow (< 25) C:Nratios.
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.

644
645

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DA TA

646
647
648

Tier 1

649
650
651
652
653
654

Tier 2

655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662

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 and croplandtypes like oil palm cultivation, rice and sago palm. Sago palm, for example, is cultivated with a relatively highwater table, which maintains conditions that promote denitrification (Melling et al., 2007). Rice is also
cultivated with a high water table in peatlands and is generally fertilized. Oil palm, on the other hand usually is
produced with deep drainage >60 cm and has high fertilizer application rates near the trees during theestablishment 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 GHGs 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.
In tropical peatlands there are several significant distinctions for land use. Inventory compilers can increase theaccuracy of inventories by making distinctions between e.g. forests affected by drainage and secondary forests.
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 otherwidespread practices, like Acacia plantation forestry.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.23

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
663
664

Tier 3
See 2006 IPCC Guidelines Chapter 11.

665
666

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT

667
668
669
670

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.

671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678

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.

679

Calculation steps

680

See 2006 IPCC Guidelines Chapter 11.

681

2.2.2.3

N ON -CO2 EMISSIONS FROM BURNI NG ON ORGANIC SOILS

682
683

(NOT FINISHED.TO BE COMPLETED IN THE SECOND ORDER DRAFT.)

2.3

LAND CONVERTED TO A NEW LAND-USE
CATEGORY

684

685

2.3.1

686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698

This section deals with the impacts of land use change, drainage and management onCO2 emissions in organicsoils, by influencing C inputs and outputs from the soil and thus soil C storage. Changes in losses include
heterotrophic respiration (peat decomposition) erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and loss of
dissolved organic carbon in drainage waters (DOC). Changes in inputs are associated with slash left on the
ground in the case of forests and changes in root, litter and deadwood inputs in all systems. General informationand guidance for estimating changes in soil C stocks are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in Chapter 2,
Section 2.3.3 (including equations), and this section needs to be read before proceeding with a consideration of
specific guidelines dealing with organic soil C stocks. The main difference between mineral soils and organicsoils is that in mineral soils we assume that carbon reaches a constant stock level in managed systems followingchanges in management and that eventually emissions become negligible. At Tier 1 in mineral soils, we assume
that emissions persist for up to 20 years after which carbon stocks attain a new equilibrium and do not produce
any further emissions. In organic soils, once the soils are managed and drained, we assume that emissions persist
until drainage is reversed.

699
700
701

The total change in soil C stocks in organic soils for land converted to a new land use category is estimated using
Equation 2.1, which combines the on-site emissions from soil organic matter decomposition and off-site
emissions from POC and DOC.

702

2.3.1.1

703

TIER 1 & 2

704
705
706

CO2 emissions and removals in organic soils are dominated by water table and current land use and management.
The legacy effect of land-use changes cannot be separated from the effect of the new land use at Tier 1 and Tier
2 level.

2.24

CO2 emissions in organic soils

ON - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM DRAIN ED ORGANIC SOILSDRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

707
708
709

On land converted to a new land- use category (e.g. Forest land converted to Cropland) the emissions andremovals of CO2 in organic soils are calculated as in land remaining in the new land-use category (e.g. Croplandremaining Cropland). Guidance is given in Section 2.2.1.1.

710

TIER 3711
712

Tier 3 methods could further differentiate transition effects of increased or reduced CO2 emissions or removals
after land use change.

713

2.3.1.2

714

OFF - SITE CO 2
LOSSESEMISSIONSFROMWATER BORNE

CARBON715

TIER 1 & 2

716
717
718

Waterborne carbon losses in organic soils are dominated by water table and current land use and management.
The legacy effect of land-use changes cannot be separated from the effect of the new land use at Tier 1 and Tier
2 level.

719
720
721

On land converted to a new land- use category (e.g. Forest land converted to Cropland) the emissions andremovals of CO2 in organic soils are immediately calculated as in land remaining in the new land-use category(e.g. Cropland remaining Cropland). Guidance is given in Section 2.2.1.2.

722

TIER 3723
724

Tier 3 methods could further differentiate transition effects of increased or reduced waterborne carbon losses
after land use change.

725

2.3.2

Non-CO2 emissions726

2.3.2.1

CH 4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAIN ED ORGANIC SOILS

727
728
729

On land converted to a new land- use category (e.g. Forest land converted to Cropland) the CH4 emissions fromorganic soils are calculated as in land remaining in the new land-use category (e.g. Cropland remaining
Cropland). Guidance is given in Section 2.2.2.1.

730
731
732

On land converted to a new land- use category (e.g. Forest land converted to Cropland) CH4 emissions fromorganic soils are calculated as in land remaining in the new land-use category (e.g. Cropland remaining
Cropland). Guidance is given in Section 2.2.2.2.

733

2.3.2.2

734
735
736

On land converted to a new land- use category (e.g. Forest land converted to Cropland) N2O emissions fromorganic soils are calculated as in land remaining in the new land-use category (e.g. Cropland remaining
Cropland). Guidance is given in Section 2.2.2.3.

737

2.3.2.3

738

N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM DRAIN ED ORGANIC SOILSN ON -CO2 EMISSIONS FROM BURNI NG ON ORGANIC SOILS(NOT FINISHED.TO BE COMPLETED IN THE SECOND ORDER DRAFT.)

739

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.25

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
740

Annex 2A.1

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors

741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748

The Tier 1 default EFs presented in Table 2A.1 were derived from the published studies listed in Table 2A.1.
The number of studies available remains relatively small, although some include a substantial number ofindividual measurement sites. Measured fluxes are generally quite variable within each peat/land-use type, andare not evenly distributed across different peatland types (for example, most of the data for intensive andextensive 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.

749
750
751
752

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.

Peat/land-use typeCountry

Ditch flux
(g CH4 m-2 yr-1 )Ditch proportion oflandscape (%)

Ditch flux scaled to total
area (g CH4 m-2 yr-1)

TABLE 2A.1
COLLATED DATA ON DITCH CH4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED AND RE-WETTED PEAT SOILS

Intensive grassland

Netherlands

Schrier-Uijl et al. (2009, 2011)

58

21%

12.3

Intensive grassland

Netherlands

Vermaat et al (2011)

79

25%

19.3

Intensive grassland

Netherlands

Best & Jacobs (1997)

10

6%

0.6

Intensive grassland

UK

McNamara et al (2012)

77

4%

3.1

Intensive grassland

RussiaSirin et al (2012)

60

4%

2.2

Intensive grassland

RussiaChistotin et al (2006)

265

4%

9.6

Intensive grassland

USA

Teh et al (2011)

227

5%

11.4

Extensive grassland

Netherlands

Vermaat et al (2011)

79

25%

19.3

Extensive grassland(restored)

Netherlands

Best & Jacobs (1997)

46

6%

2.7

Extensive grassland(restored)

Netherlands

Van den Pol-Van Dasselaar et al. (1999)

11

25%

2.8

Extensive grassland(restored)

Netherlands

Hendricks et al (2007, 2010)

50

10%

5.0

Conservation-managed

Netherlands

Vermaat et al (2011)

44

25%

10.7

Drained treed bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore (1995)

15

3%

0.5

Drained treed fen

Finland

Minkinnen & Laine (2006)

104

3%

2.9

Drained afforested fen

RussiaSirin et al (2012)

19

2%

0.4

Drained afforested fen

RussiaGlagolev et al (2008)

12

4%

0.4

Drained treed bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore (1995)

4

3%

0.1

Drained afforested bog

RussiaSirin et al (2012)

40

1%

0.4

2.26

Reference

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

Drained afforested bog

RussiaSirin et al (2012)

1

1%

0.02

Drained afforested bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore (1995)

26

3%

0.8

Drained afforested bog

Sweden

Von Arnold et al (2005)

2

2%

0.04

Drained afforested bog

Finland

Minkinnen & Laine (2006)

7

3%

0.2

Peat-mining site

Finland

Nykanen et al (1995)

18

2%

0.3

Peat-mining site

SwedenSundh et al (2000)

48

3%

1.2

Peat-mining site

RussiaSirin et al. (2012)

136

4%

4.9

Peat-mining site

RussiaChistotin et al. (2006)

106

4%

3.8

Cutover bog

CanadaWaddington & Day (2007)

15

5%

0.7

Restored cutover bog

CanadaWaddington & Day (2007)

26

5%

1.3

Drained blanket bog

UK

Cooper et al (2012)

7

3%

0.2

Re-wetted blanket bog

UK

Cooper et al (2012)

83

6%

5.2

Drained tropical peat(abandoned)Indonesia

Jauhiainen et al (2012)

62

2%

0.9

Drained tropical peat
(pulpwood plantation)

Indonesia

Jauhiainen et al (2012)

366

2%

5.5

753
754

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.27

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft

755

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of DOC emission factors

756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765

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 be sufficient to determine whether thesite is a new carbon sink or carbon source (e.g. Billett et al., 2004; Rowson et al., 2010). This section describes
the methodology that has been used to derive emission factors for DOC losses from drained peatlands andorganic soils. At present, it is not considered possible to set reliable emission factor estimates for other forms ofwaterborne carbon loss, or for the effects of specific land-use and land-use changes (other than drainage) on
DOC loss. Methodological requirements to develop these emission factors in future are described in Appendix
2a.1. The approach is based on Equation 2.3B.

766
767
768
769
770
771
772

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

773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782

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, 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 within the ditch
network. For boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, a significant (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001) linear relationshipwas observed between DOCFLUX_NATURAL and annual mean precipitation (see Table 2A.2) which was used to
calculate default values for different precipitation regimes. Blanket bogs and tropical peat swamps are generally
characterised by higher precipitation, and few data were available, so single default values were assigned foreach class. Note that by far the highest DOC losses are observed from tropical peat swamps. The data used inthis assessment are listed in Table 2A.2.

Most of the available published studies of drainage impacts on DOC loss report on concentration changes
relative to undrained comparison sites, rather than direct (robust) flux measurements. On the other hand, a larger
number of studies 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 2.3B.

783

2.28

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

TABLE 2A.2
DOC FLUX ESTIMATES FROM NATURAL OR SEMINATURAL PEATLANDS USED TO DERIVE DEFAULTVALUES FOR DOCFLUX_NATURAL

Peat typeCountry

Study

Rainfall(mm yr-1)

DOC flux(g c m-2 yr-1)

Subarctic fen

CanadaKoprivnjak & Moore (1992)

302

5

Boreal fen

Finland

Juutinen et al (in prep)

395

4

Boreal fen

Finland

Jager et al (2009)476

8

Boreal fen

CanadaMoore (2003)

536

4

Boreal bog

CanadaMoore (2003)

536

6

Boreal fen

CanadaStrack et al (2008)

590

5

Boreal mire

SwedenAgren et al (2007)

600

10

Boreal mire

Finland

Kortelainen et al (2006)a

620

16

Boreal mire

Finland

Kortelainen et al (2006)

620

6

Boreal bog/fen

Finland

Rantakari et al (2010)

640

12

Boreal bog

CanadaMoore et al (2003)

678

29

Boreal fen

SwedenNilsson et al (2008)

680

13

Boreal bog

USA

Urban et al (1989)

780

21

Boreal bog/fen

USA

Kolka et al (1999)

780

24

Boreal bog

CanadaRoulet et al (2007)

943

16

Temperate bog

CanadaClair et al (2002)

1400

36

Blanket bog

UK

Dawson et al (2004)

1130

19

Blanket bog

UK

Dinsmore et al (2011)

1155

26

Blanket bog

UK

Billett et al (2010)

1980

23

Blanket bog

UK

Billett et al (2010)

2200

19

Blanket bog

Ireland

Koehler et al (2009,2011)

2570

14

Blanket bog

Australia

Di Folco & Kirkpatrick(2011)

2900

13

Tropical swamp
forestIndonesia

Baum et al (2008) a

2316

47

Tropical swamp
forestIndonesia

Alkhatib et al (2007)

2500

55

Tropical swamp
forestMalaysia

Yule et al (2009), Zulkifli(2002)

2300

63

Tropical swamp
forestIndonesia

Moore et al (2011)

2700

67

a

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

784
785
786
787
788
789

Estimation of DOC D R A I N A G E
A total of ten 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 2A2.3). These included
some 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. The use of concentration data to estimate

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.29

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
790
791
792
793
794

DOCDRAINAGE assumes no corresponding change in total water flux from this site. This assumption adds someuncertainty, although this should be relatively small for high-precipitation boreal/temperate sites, as a largechange in water flux could only occur if there is a correspondingly large change in evapotranspiration. For dryersites, drainage might be expected to increase water fluxes, therefore amplifying the observed concentrationdifferences between drained and undrained sites.

795
796
797
798
799

Despite these uncertainties, there is a reasonable degree of consistency among the studies included; all show anincrease in DOC following drainage, with an overall range of 15 to 118%. Most of the published studies suggest
a DOC increase close to the median (across all studies) of 53%, and there was no clear evidence to support theuse of different DOCDRAINAGE values for different peat types, climate regimes, drainage type or drainage
intensity. Therefore, an initial Tier 1 default DOCDRAINAGE is proposed for all forms of peatland drainage.

800

2.30

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

TABLE 2A.3
DOC CONCENTRATION (ABOVE) OR FLUX (BELOW) COMPARISONS BETWEEN DRAINED AND UNDRAINED PEATS, USED TO DERIVEDEFAULT VALUE FOR DOCDRAINAGE
DOC (mg/l)

Peat typeLand-use

Undrained

DrainedDOCDRAINAGE(%)

Boreal bog

CanadaGlatzel et al (2003)

60

110

83%

Boreal fen

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

CanadaStrack et al (2008)

16

24.29

53%

Boreal fen

Drainage

USA

Kane et al (2010)

56

71.7

29%

Boreal fen

Finland

Heikkinen (1990)

17

20

15%

New Zealand

Moore et al (2007)

70

108

54%

Temperate bog

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

Czech Republic

Urbanova et al (2011)

36

53.9

51%

Temperate fen

Drainage

Czech Republic

Urbanova et al (2011)

17

37.5

118%

28

42.9

55%

Temperate bog

Country

Study

Blanket bog

Drainage

UK

Wallage et al (2006)

Peat typeLand-use

Country

Study

Tropical peat
Tropical peat

Drainage(sago palm)
Drainage(agriculture)

DOC (g C m-2 yr-1)

DOCDRAINAGE

Undrained

Drained(%)

Malaysia

Inubushi et al (1998)

33

63

91%

Indonesia

Moore et al (2012)

67

93

39%

801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820

Estimation of F D O C - C O 2

821
822
823
824
825

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 FDOC-CO2 is 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 90% is proposed, with an uncertainty range of 80-100%.

826
827
828
829
830
831
832

There is some evidence that controlled burning (for moorland management) also increases DOC losses (e.g.
Yallop et al., 2010; Di Falco et al., 2011), although other experimental studies have shown no effect (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 (grassland and cropland)
management on DOC loss are currently insufficient to estimate an emissions factor. Therefore, generic values forthe effects of drainage may be used.

The significance of DOC export in terms of GHG estimation depends on its ultimate fate, i.e. whether it isreturned 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 includedin estimation. The parameter FDOC-CO2 sets the proportion of DOC exported from peats which 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 of this isconverted 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 inwater 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) observed measured
6-15% conversion of pore-water DOC to CO2, and 10-90% conversion of the vegetation-derived DOC, during
one-month dark incubations, while Worrall et al. (2012) observed much higher (80 to near-100%) degradation ofpeat-derived DOC in light-exposed samples within 48 hours, which would be sufficient to convert most peatderived 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 andBenner, 1997).

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.31

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft

835

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

836

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

837
838
839
840
841

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, burning (managed burning andwildfire), 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).

842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850

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 following
burning. For croplands, some estimation of the annual average proportion of the organic soil surface exposedover the full crop rotation would be required. Data from eroding UK blanket bogs suggest that POC exports canbe reasonably well predicted based on a value of POCFLUX_BAREPEAT of around 4 g C m-2 yr-1 per 1% bare peat
(Evans et al., 2012). Further work is required to establish whether different values would be applicable to otherpeat types, land-use types and climate regimes (in particular whether it is dependent on rainfall amount or
intensity).

851
852
853
854
855
856
857

Finally, there is little information current available from which to derive a value for FPOC-CO2. Unlike DOC, a
substantial proportion of POC is mobilized from peats through physical erosion processes, and may not bereactive in fluvial systems; a significant proportion may simply be transferred to lake or coastal sediments, redeposited on floodplains, or transported to other land areas via aeolian transport, rather than converted to CO2.
However, it does appear that at least a proportion of POC transported in aquatic systems may be actively
biologically cycled, whilst material re-deposited on floodplains may be subject to rapid mineralization (Pawson
et al., 2008). Further research is needed to establish realistic ranges for FPOC-CO2 in different systems.

858
859
860

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

861

EFPOC  POC FLUX _ BAREPEAT  PEAT BARE / 100  FPOC CO2

833
834

862
863

Where:

864

EFPOC = POC Emission factor, g C m-2 yr-1

865

POCFLUX_BAREPEAT = Flux of POC per 1% of the total peat area comprising bare peat, g C m-2 yr-1

866

PEATBARE = Percentage of the ground surface occupied by exposed peat

867

FPOC-CO2 = Conversion factor for amount of DOC converted to CO2 following export from site

868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878

Developing emissions factors from the scientific literature

879
880
881
882

The second approach is the Gain-Loss Method requires carbon losses to be subtracted from carbon gains (2006
IPCC Guidelines Equation 2.4). Gains can be attributed to transfers of carbon from live biomass pools anddecomposition of dead wood and litter. Losses can be attributed to transfers out of the SOC pools throughheterotrophic respiration and losses to surface waters in the forms of dissolved and particulate organic C. ThisThe IPCC Guidelines provide two methods for assessing emissions from a given carbon pool. Stock-Difference
Method requires carbon stock inventories for a given land area, at two points in time (2006 IPCC Guidelines
Equation 2.5). Annual stock change is calculated as the difference between the stock at time t2 and time t1,
divided by the number of years between the inventories. Estimating emissions from wetland soils was notincluded in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but a method was presented for mineral soils. To calculate the stocks forTier 1, a reference SOC value was given for a geographic region and soil type based on the presence or absenceof high activity clays. This value was then modified by different factors estimation for land use, management
regime and organic matter inputs. This approach is the basis for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods for mineral soils,
and default values for calculation of increment and losses were provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2.32

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

883
884

method has not previously been applied to soils, but makes sense in the context of organic soils for a number ofreasons:

885
886



Changes in carbon stocks in organic soils are not limited to the surface 30 cm of soil (Hergoualc’h andVerchot, 2011).

887
888



Estimating the volume of an organic soil with any certainty is difficult because of non-systematic spatial
variability of the thickness of the peat formation (Verwer and van der Meer, 2010; Kool et al., 2006)

889
890
891



Bulk density of organic soils varies non-systematically in three dimensions (Kool et al., 2006). In addition,
small errors due to compaction during sampling make for large errors when scaled up to the hectare level.
Thus, this property is difficult to measure with any precision (Murdiyarso et al., 2010).

892
893



In the case of forest derived peats (e.g. pocosins, tropical peat swamps), the organic soil is heterogeneousand may contain intact wood and wood in varying stages of decomposition (Kool et al., 2006).

894
895
896
897
898
899
900

The scientific literature rarely reports changes in carbon stocks associated with land-use change or managementin peatlands. Most studies that attempt to estimate emissions combine estimates of different fluxes of inputs andoutputs to the soil organic matter pool. Several studies report emission estimates based on total annual soil
respiration and fail to account for either inputs (root turnover, litter fall and woody debris), dissolved or
particulate outputs, or for the autotrophic component of soil respiration (e.g. Hooijer et al., 2010; Hadi et al.,2005). Despite the incomplete measurements in these studies there is still much useful information that can beused to calculate emissions factors for these ecosystems.

901
902
903
904

In this chapter we have adopted the Gain-Loss Method and we use different studies to calculate reasonableestimates of the net change of SOC stocks for different land management systems. We use average values fromavailable studies to estimate all inputs and outputs to the soil organic C pool. We then combine these inputs andoutputs for major land-use systems to derive emissions factors.

905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912

Data availability in the scientific literature

913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921

Eddy covariance techniques measure the exchange of CO2 across the boundary between the atmosphere and theplant canopy by measuring the covariance between vertical wind velocity and CO2 mixing ratios (Baldocchi
2003). This method can be used to quantify how CO2 exchange rates respond to environmental changes at thescale of the whole ecosystem at a variety of scales ranging from hours to years. When the method is applied topaired systems, it can be used to address management questions. However, because the eddy covarianceapproach provides measurements at the scale of the ecosystem, it is difficult to apply numbers derived from thistechnique to the IPCC methods, which focus on quantifying changes in 5 carbon pools. To do this, eddy
covariance methods require additional measurements of different important components of the ecosystem carbon
budget to provide estimates useful for IPCC default factors.

922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929

Eddy covariance measures net ecosystem exchange (NEE), which is the difference between gross primary
production and respiration. To be useful for this exercise it is important to separate these two ﬂux components.
Two approaches are generally used in ecological studies: (1) Night-time respiration measurements can beextrapolated to estimate daytime rates; or (2) light–response curves can be derived from daytime NEE
measurements and respiration can then be estimated from the intercept of the ordinate (Lasslop et al., 2010).
Additional measurements will often be required to segregate ecosystem respiration into its heterotrophic (Rh) andautotrophic (Ra) components. These measurements include trenched plots and isotopic techniques (Hanson et al2000).

930
931
932
933
934
935

A second method involves the use of whole-plant transparent chambers (often referred to as cuvettes in theliterature) that measure the diurnal variations of carbon fluxes (Baldocchi, 2003), which can be used to calculate
NEE. These methods are appropriate for short stature vegetation and allow for replication of small area
measurements. Experimental artefacts introduced by the chambers can be held to reasonable levels by controlling
temperature and light. Similarly to eddy flux measurements, this approach does not directly separate GPP and R.
These studies often involve making sequential measurements after darkening chambers to estimate stop

There are three principal approaches in the scientific literature that are useful to our efforts to estimate the effectsof land use change and management on the atmosphere: eddy covariance or correlation techniques, clear
chambers (also called cuvettes in the literature) and individual flux measurements. There have been a few
attempts at estimating emissions from changes to peat elevations (Kool et al., 2006; Couwenberg et al. 2010),
but these methods still have high degrees of uncertainty regarding what part of this subsidence represents
emissions.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.33

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
936
937

photosynthesis and measure ecosystem R, which allows for the calculation of GPP (see for example Welker et al.,2004). Further measurements are required to segregate total R into Rh and Ra.

938
939
940
941
942
943
944

The final method involves measuring the major fluxes into and out of the SOM pool and calculating a massbalance based on the difference between inputs and outputs (Hergoualc’h and Verchot 2011). Litterfall anddeadwood inputs are measured and assigned decomposition coefficients or turnover times. At very large scales,models based on temperature and precipitation do a good job of estimating litter decomposition rates (Tuomi etal., 2009), but other more complicated models based on C:N ratios are also useful. For soil respiration, darkchambers are used and partitioning or total R into Ra and Rh is done either through trenched plots or isotopic
techniques (Hanson et al 2000).

945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956

Tier 1 simplifications

957
958
959
960

In this volume we use combinations of the approaches outlined above to generate globally applicable default
factors for Tier 1 inventories. We focus on developing best estimates of the emission factor (EF) in equation
2.26 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Countries can develop studies using these methods to develop Tier 2 default
factors for the same equation.

961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971

To generate Tier 1 factors we make a few simplifications. Because it is difficult to separate anthropogenic
emissions from natural ones in managed lands, the authors of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines used emissions andremovals from “managed land” as a proxy for anthropogenic emissions and removals (implicitly in the Revised
1996 Guidelines and explicitly in later documents). This means that all emissions/removals from managed lands
are assumed to be anthropogenic, while emissions/removals from unmanaged land are not included in theinventory. In most instances natural wetlands are sinks of atmospheric C and accumulation rates on the order of
0.1 to 0.2 MgC ha-1 y-1 in tundra systems (Robinson and Moore, 1999) and 0.3 to 0.7 MgC ha-1 y-1 in tropicalpeat systems are reported in the literature (Dommain et al., 2011; Page et al., 2004). Because we use managed
land as a proxy for anthropogenic emissions, we do not account for this lost sink associated with conversion andwe account only for emissions in the managed system. This is consistent with how the IPCC guidelines calculate
emissions from other types of land use change, like deforestation.

972
973
974

The second simplification is that we assume inputs and outputs from the dead organic matter pools are in steadystate. This means that inputs to the SOC pool from dead wood and litter are assumed to equal dead wood andlitter fall.

975
976
977
978
979
980
981

A third simplification is that emissions are assumed to remain constant over the life of the land use. In mineralsoil systems, the default for land remaining in a category is that there are no net emissions because soil organic
matter is in steady state. For land conversion to another land-use category the Tier 1 assumption is that SOC
pools reach a new equilibrium after 20 years and so they emit or sequester only during this period. Drainage oforganic soils results in continuous emissions and so there is no new equilibrium achieved. This means that no
distinction is made in emissions factors between land converted to a new land use and land converted to a newland use.

The Introductory chapter of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines state that Tier 1 methods are designed to be the simplest
to use, for which equations and default parameter values are provided. Country-specific activity data are needed,
but for Tier 1 there are often globally available sources of activity data estimates (e.g., deforestation rates,
agricultural production statistics, global land cover maps, fertilizer use, livestock population data, etc.), althoughthese data are usually spatially coarse. Tier 2 can use the same methodological approach as Tier 1 but applies
emission and stock change factors that are based on country- or region-specific data, for the most important landuse or livestock categories. Country-defined emission factors are more appropriate for the climatic regions, landuse systems and livestock categories in that country. Higher temporal and spatial resolution and moredisaggregated activity data are typically used in Tier 2 to correspond with country-defined coefficients for
specific regions and specialized land-use or livestock categories.

982

2.34

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995

EF for tropical wetlands

996
997
998

In all land-use (LU) treatments total C inputs to the peat were calculated as the sum of the average C inputs fromlitterfall and root mortality. Total C outputs from the peat were calculated as the sum of the average C outputs
from heterotrophic soil respiration, physical and soluble removals and CH4 emissions.

Data from a variety of published sources including journal articles, theses and reports were collected andcompiled. This analysis updates the work presented in Hergoualc’h and Verchot (2011). Carbon inputs to the soil
were derived from litterfall and root mortality data in the literature. The main soil C outputs were mineralization(heterotrophic respiration), methanogenesis, leaching, runoff, erosion and land-clearing fires. Carbon losses fromland-clearing fires were not included in the current calculation, given that they are already taken into account.
Table 2a.1 presents the methods and the reference of the data sources used for calculating several of these fluxes.
Soluble and physical C loss included dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon (POC). We
assumed a loss from soluble and physical removal of 1.0 ± 0.5 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 for all LUs, using the combined
maxima of what was observed in northern peatlands for POC and DOC (Holden, 2005). This estimate is inagreement with recent measurements by Moore et al. (2011) of a fluvial TOC (DOC + POC) loss flux per unit
area over the entire Sebangau catchment in Indonesia of 0.88 Mg C ha−1 yr−1. Total soil respiration rates areavailable in Table 2a.4 of the auxiliary material of the paper Hergoualc’h and Verchot (2011).

999
1000

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.35

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
TABLE 2A.1
METHOD AND DATA SOURCES FOR CALCULATION OF C FLUXES INTO AND OUT OF THE SOIL FOR DIFFERENT LAND-USE CATEGORIES ON
TROPICAL PEATLANDS.
Soil C inputs
Land Use

Root
Mortality

Litterfall
MethodSoil C outputs

Sources

MethodAverage (a)corrected in order to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Intact Forest
Average (a)include large-branch corrected using 4
fall
Degraded forest
Proportion C
Proportion C(burned/inputs in9
inputs in Intact
logged)Intact Forest (c)Forest (d)Heterotrophic
Respiration

CH4

Sources

MethodSources

MethodSources

1, 7, 5

Proportion of
total soil
respiration (b)8Average (a)22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 28

Average (a)27

Average (a)22, 24, 25,
26, 28Average (a)22, 23

Average (a)28

9Cropland andShrubland

Average (a)10, 7

Average (a)10, 11

Rice

Average (a)12, 13

Average (a)12, 13

Oil palm
plantation

Review (e)14

Average (a)15, 14

Acaciaplantation

Average (a)16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21

Estimate (g)21

Proportion of
total soil
respiration (b)Proportion of
total soil
respiration (b)Proportion of
total soil
respiration (b)(Totalrespiration root
respiration) (f)Average (a)1529Method: (a) Average value calculated from data available in literature, (b) Proportion of total soil respiration that can be allocated to heterotrophic respiration,
applied to mean total soil respiration assessed in Hergoualc’h and Verchot (2011), (c) Proportion of C inputs from litterfall in the virgin peat swamp forest, (d)Proportion of C inputs from root mortality in the virgin peat swamp forest (Figure 2), (e) Data from literature review, (f) Difference between total respirationassessed in Hergoualc’h and Verchot (2011) and mean root respiration from data available in the literature, (g) Estimate found in the literature.
Sources: 1, Brady (1997); 2, Rahajoe et al. (2000); 3, Sulistiyanto (2004); 4, Chimner and Ewel (2005); 5, Shimamura and Momose (2005); 6, Harrison et al.
(2007); 7, Chimner and Ewel (2004); 8, Ishida et al. (2001); 9, Hertel et al. (2009); 10, Hairiah et al. (2000); 11, database of Gill and Jackson (2000); 12, Hairiah
et al. (1999); 13, Matthews et al. (2000); 14, Lamade and Bouillet (2005); 15, Henson and Dolmat (2003); 16, Tsai (1988); 17, Bernhard-Reversat et al. (1993);
18, Ihwanudin (1994); 19, Pudjiharta (1995); 20, Mindawati (2000); 21, Laclau et al. (2008); 22, Furukawa et al. (2005); 23, Hadi et al. (2005); 24, Hirano et al.
(2008); 25, Inubushi et al. (1998); 26, Inubushi et al.(2003); 27, Jauhiainen et al. (2008); 28, Melling et al. (2005)

1001
1002

2.36

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

1003
1004
1005
1006
1007

Inputs

1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013

Because there are no published litterfall and root mortality rates in logged and fire-damaged peat swamp forests,
we used relationships obtained from measurements in mineral soils. From the results of Hertel et al. (2009), we
established relationships between the remaining biomass in the forest after disturbance and C inputs from: 1)
litterfall; and 2) root mortality in logged and fire-damaged forests, expressed as a percentage of C inputs fromlitterfall and root mortality, respectively, in the virgin peat swamp forest. We applied to these relationships thepercentage of remaining phytomass after logging and fire.

In virgin peat swamp forests, annual root mortality was assumed to equal annual root production, which is areasonable assumption for understanding short-term soil C dynamics (Hertel et al., 2009). The average C input
from fine root production was calculated using the values obtained in the literature (Table 2). This table also
includes the litterfall rates and total inputs to the peat.

1014
TABLE 2A.2
INPUTS TO THE SOC POOL IN TROPICAL PEAT SOILS FOR DIFFERENT LAND-USE CATEGORIES (MG HA-1 Y-1).

Land Use

Litterfall

SE

Roots

SE

Total C inputs

SE

Intact forest

7.4

0.7

1.5

0.8

8.9

1.1

Degraded forest (burned/logged)

4.3

2.2

0.8

0.7

5.1

2.3

Cropland & shrubland

2.4

0.6

1.9

0.8

4.2

1.0

Rice field

1.0

0.3

1.5

0.2

2.5

0.3

Oil palm plantation

1.5

0.1

3.6

1.1

5.0

1.1

Acacia plantation

5.1

0.3

6

n.d.

11.1

0.3

n.d. = no data available from which to make an estimate.

1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026

Outputs

1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037

Waterborne C loss included dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon (POC). DOC export
from temperate and boreal peatlands ranges between 10 and 500 kg DOC ha-1 y-1, which represents about 10% of
the C released (Holden, 2005). POC loss rates are similar to DOC release in northern peatlands and range from
20 to 400 kg ha-1 y-1. There are no estimates in the tropics; however, some recent studies (Yoshioka et al., 2002;
Yule and Gomez, 2009) measured DOC concentrations in tropical virgin peat swamp forests (50-124 mg C l-1)that were about twice those in northern peatlands (20-60 mg C L-1, (Holden, 2005)). DOC concentrations in therivers draining tropical virgin peat swamp forests were also high (6-31 mg C L-1) (Yoshioka et al., 2002; Baum etal., 2007). Therefore, we assumed a loss from soluble and physical removal of 1 ± 0.5 Mg C ha -1 y-1 for all land
uses, using the combined maxima of what was observed in northern peatlands for POC and DOC. We do notaccount for the fate of this carbon, and while we know that there is some downstream sequestration of DOC and
POC. This assumption is consistent with assumptions elsewhere in Tier 1 methods (e.g. HWP).

Mean soil respiration rates and CH4 fluxes were calculated for the different land use treatments from static ordynamic dark chamber measurements. There are very few data that separate the autotrophic soil respiration (Ra)from the heterotrophic soil respiration (Rh), but the few studies that exist suggest that Rh values in plantation
crops are on the order of 70 ± 10% of total soil respiration (Jauainen et al., 2011; Melling, 2007). For agricultural
systems where only total soil respiration was measured, we calculated Rh using this coefficient (Table 2a.3).
There are no measurements of Rh in intact swamp forest systems, but measurements in humid tropical forest
systems suggest that 50% of total soil respiration would be a reasonable approximation for Rh for intact forest
systems. (Mahli and Grace, 2000; Chambers et al., 2004). Because intact forest systems have much higher root
biomass than plantation crop systems (Persch et al, in prep), we use this value to estimate Rh for undisturbed
forest systems.

1038
1039
1040
1041

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.37

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
TABLE 2A.3
OUTPUTS FROM THE SOC POOL IN TROPICAL PEAT SOILS FOR DIFFERENT LAND-USE CATEGORIES (MG HA-1 Y-1)

Land use

Rh

SE

POC & DOC

SE

CH4

SE

Total C outputs

SE

Forest

6.9

2.2

1.0

0.5

0.03

0.01

7.9

1.4

Degraded
forest(burned/logged)

6.4

1.4

1.0

0.5

0.00

0.00

7.4

1.5

Cropland & shrubland

12.3

2.2

1.0

0.5

0.02

0.01

13.3

2.3

Rice field

9.9

3.3

1.0

0.5

0.16

0.08

11.1

3.3

Oil palm plantation

9.3

2.7

1.0

0.5

0.00

0.00

10.3

2.8

Acacia plantation

21.8

4.7

1.0

0.5

n.d.

n.d.

22.8

4.7

n.d. = no data available from which to make an estimate.

1042
1043

Calculation of EF  S O M

1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052

The EFSOM was simply taken as the difference between annual inputs and outputs to the SOC pool. Negativevalues indicate net losses from the SOC pool; positive values signify net sequestration. Uncertainty estimates arereported as standard errors. In all calculations, the Gaussian error propagation method was used for propagating
uncertainties. This method is adequate for step-by-step calculations that are intended to compute ecologicalquantities that can be expressed as an analytical equation using addition, subtraction, multiplication and division,
such as C stocks or fluxes (Lo, 2005). The method assumes that uncertainties can be considered to be
independent and normally distributed (Malhi et al., 2009). For addition and subtraction, uncertainties arepropagated by quadrature of absolute errors; for multiplication and division, propagation is by quadrature of
relative error (Malhi et al., 2009).

1053
1054
1055
1056

Tier 1 emission factors for tropical wetlands that are to be used in Equation 2.26 of the 2006 IPCC GL arepresented in Table 2a.4 along with indications of which sections of the GL that they update. These factors may
also be used in the application of Equation 2.26 in other sections of these guidelines where new methods for
freshwater wetland systems have been developed.

1057
TABLE 2A.4
TIER 1 EMISSION FACTORS AND UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATES

EFSOC(Mg C ha-1 y-1)

SE

Intact forest

1.00

2.52

Degraded forest (burned/logged)

-2.31

2.76

Cropland & shrubland

-9.11

2.47

Rice field

-8.56

3.32

Oil Palm

-5.24

2.99

Acacia plantation-11.67

4.74

Land Use

Negative values indicate net losses from the SOC pool; positive values signify net
sequestration.

2.38

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

1058

References

1059
1060
1061

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].

1062
1063
1064

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.

1065
1066

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

1067

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

1068
1069

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

1070
1071

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

1072
1073
1074

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.

1075
1076
1077

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.

1078
1079

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

1080
1081
1082

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.

1083
1084

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.

1085
1086

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.

1087
1088

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

1089
1090

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

1091
1092
1093

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.

1094
1095

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.

1096
1097

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

1098
1099

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.

1100
1101
1102

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.

1103
1104

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

2.39

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
1105
1106
1107

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.

1108
1109
1110

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.

1111
1112
1113

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.

1114
1115
1116

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).

1117
1118

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.

1119
1120

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.

1121
1122

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.

1123
1124

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.

1125
1126
1127

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.

1128
1129

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.

1130
1131

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, vol. 2: 988-992.

1132
1133
1134
1135

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.

1136
1137
1138

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.

1139
1140
1141
1142

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.

1143
1144
1145

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.

1146
1147

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.

1148
1149
1150

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.

1151

Lorenz et al. 2002

1152
1153
1154

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.

2.40

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

1155
1156

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.

1157
1158

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.

1159
1160

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.

1161
1162

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.

1163
1164
1165

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.

1166
1167

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.

1168
1169
1170

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.

1171
1172

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.

1173
1174
1175
1176

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/.

1177
1178

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.

1179
1180

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.

1181
1182

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.

1183
1184

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.

1185
1186
1187
1188

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.

1189
1190

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

1191
1192
1193

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.

1194
1195

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.

1196
1197

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.

1198
1199

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.

1200
1201

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.

1202
1203

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

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.41

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
1204
1205

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

1206
1207

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

1208
1209
1210
1211

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.

1212
1213
1214

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.

1215
1216

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

1217
1218
1219

Oleszczuk, R., Regina, K., Szajdak, L., Höper, H. and Maryganowa, V. 2008. Impacts of agricultural utilizationof peat soils on the greenhouse gas balance. In: Strack, M. (ed.), Peatlands and Climate Change. International
Peat Society, Jyväskylä Finland. pp. 70-97. ISBN 978-952-99401-1-0.

1220
1221
1222

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.

1223
1224

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.

1225
1226
1227

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.

1228
1229

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.

1230
1231

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

1232
1233

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.

1234

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

1235
1236
1237

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.

1238
1239

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

1240
1241
1242

Schrier-Uijl, AP., Kroon, PS., Leffelaar, PA., van Huissteden, JC., Berendse, F. and Veenendaal, EM.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.

1243

Schuch, M. 1977. Das Donaumoos und einige seiner gegenwärtigen Hauptprobleme. Telma 7: 167–173.

1244
1245
1246

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.

1247
1248
1249

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.

1250
1251
1252
1253

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).

2.42

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on green-house gas emissions
and removals from organic soils in all land-use categories

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTEFirst-order Draft

1254
1255

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

1256
1257

Sottocornola, M., and G. Kiely (2005), An Atlantic blanket bog is a modest CO2 sink, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
L23804, doi:10.1029/2005GL024731.

1258
1259

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

1260
1261

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.

1262
1263
1264

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.

1265
1266

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.

1267
1268

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

1269
1270

Tuittila, E.-S., Vasander, H. and Laine, J. 2004. Sensitivity of C sequestration in reintroduced Sphagnum towater-level variation in a peat extraction peatland, Restor. Ecol., 12, 483–493.

1271
1272

Turunen, J., Tomppo, E., Tolonen, K. and Reinikainen, A. 2002. Estimating carbon accumulation rates ofundrained mires in Finland – application to boreal and subarctic regions. The Holocene 12: 69-80.

1273
1274
1275

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.

1276
1277

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

1278
1279

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.

1280
1281

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.

1282
1283
1284

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.

1285
1286
1287

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

1288
1289
1290

Verchot, L.V., L. Hutabarat, K. Hairiah and M. van Noordwijk. 2006. Nitrogen Availability and Soil N2O
Emissions Following Conversion of Forests to Coffee in Southern Sumatra. Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
20: GB4008, doi10.1029/2005GB002469.

1291
1292

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.

1293
1294

von Arnold, K., Hånell, B., Stendahl, J. and Klemedtsson, L. 2005c. Greenhouse gas fluxes from drained organic forestland in

1295
1296
1297

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

1298
1299

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

1300
1301
1302

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.

Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 20:5, 400 - 411. DOI: 10.1080/02827580500281975.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

2.43

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 2: Cross-cutting guidance on greenhouse gas emissions
and removals in organic soils from all land-use categories

First-order Draft
1303
1304

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

1305
1306
1307

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.

1308
1309
1310

2.44

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement