Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

CHAPTER 2

DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.1Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

Cont ributing Authors
Nalin Srivastava (IPCC TFI TSU), Laura Bourgeau-Chavez (USA), Aljosja Hooijer (The Netherlands), Kari
Minkkinen (Finland), Nancy French (USA), Tara Strand (USA/New Zealand), Andrey Sirin (RussianFederation), Robert Mickler (USA), Kevin Tansey (UK) and Narasimhan Larkin (USA)

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

2.2

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Contents
2

Drained Inland Organic Soils..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1

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

2.2

Land Remaining in a Land-use Category........................................................................................ 7

2.2.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ................................................... 7

2.2.1.1

On-site CO2 emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils (CO2-Con-site) .................... 8

2.2.1.2

Off-site CO2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses from drained inland organic soils ........ 18

2.2.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils.......................................... 21

2.2.2.1

CH4 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ............................................ 21

2.2.2.2

N2O emissions from drained inland organic soils ................................................................. 31

2.2.2.3

CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fires on drained inland organic soils ................................ 36

2.3Land Converted to a New Land-use Category .............................................................................. 44

2.3.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils ................................................. 44

2.3.1.1

On-site CO2 emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils (CO2-Con-site) .................. 44

2.3.1.2

Off-site CO2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses from drained inland organicsoils (CO2-Csoil-onsite) ............................................................................................................ 45

2.3.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland organic soils.......................................... 46

2.3.2.1

CH4 emissions/removals from drained inland organic soils................................................... 46

2.3.2.2

N2O emissions from drained inland organic soils ................................................................. 47

2.3.2.3

Non-CO2 emissions from burning on drained organic soils .................................................. 47

2.4

Completeness, time series consistency, QA/QC and reporting and documentation ........................ 47

2.4.1

Completeness ........................................................................................................................... 47

2.4.2

Time series consistency ............................................................................................................ 47

2.4.3

Quality Assurance and Quality Control ..................................................................................... 48

2.4.4

Reporting and documentation ................................................................................................... 48

Annex 2A.1

Scientific background for developing CO2-C emission/removal factors for drained inland
organic soil from the scientific literature in Table 2.1 ................................................................ 49

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors .................................................................................. 52

Annex 2A.3

Derivation of DOC emission factors ......................................................................................... 54

Annex 2A.4

Derivation of CO2-C and non-CO2 emission factors for emissions from burning of drained
inland organic soils from the scientific literature in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 ...................................... 59

Appendix 2a.1 Estimation of Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) and Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) loss
from peatlands and drained organic soils: Basis for future methodological development ............ 61
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 63

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.3

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Equations
Equation 2.1

Annual carbon stock changes for a stratum of a land-use category as a sum of changes
in all pools (Equation 2.3 in Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines) .................... 7

Equation 2.2

CO2-C emissions/removals by drained organic soils ........................................................ 8Equation 2.3

Annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from drained organic soils excluding
emissions from fires ....................................................................................................... 9Equation 2.4

Annual off-site CO2 emissions due to DOC loss from drained organic soils (CO2) ......... 19

Equation 2.5

Emission factor for annual CO2 emissions due to DOC export from drainedorganic soils ................................................................................................................. 19

Equation 2.6

Annual CH4 emission from drained organic soils........................................................... 22

Equation 2.7

Direct N2O emissions from managed/drained organic soils ............................................ 31

Equation 2.8

Annual CO2-C and non-CO2 emissions from organic soil fire ........................................ 37

Equation 2a.1 Calculation of POC export from drained organic soils ................................................... 61

FiguresFigure 2.1

Summary of fluxes from drained organic soils................................................................. 7

Figure 2.2

Generic decision tree for identification of the appropriate tier to estimate greenhousegas emissions from fires on organic soils....................................................................... 38

Tables

2.4

Table 2.1

Tier 1 CO2 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use
categories ..................................................................................................................... 11

Table 2.2

Default DOC emission factors for drained organic soils................................................. 20

Table 2.3

Tier 1 CH4 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils (EFCH4_land) in allland-use categories ..................................................................................................... 25

Table 2.4

Default CH4 emission factors for drainage ditches ......................................................... 30

Table 2.5

Tier 1 Direct N2O emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use
categories ..................................................................................................................... 33

Table 2.6

Organic soil fuel consumption values .......................................................................... 40

Table 2.7

Emission factors (g kg-1 dry matter burnt) for organic soil fires...................................... 41

Table 2A.1

Collated data on ditch CH4 emissions from drained and rewetted organic soils .............. 53

Table 2A.2

Annual DOC flux estimates from natural or semi-natural peatlands used to derivedefault values for DOCflux-natural ..................................................................................... 55

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Table 2A.3

DOC concentration (above) or flux (below) comparisons between drained andundrained organic soils, used to derive default value for DOCDRAINAGE ........................ 57

Boxes

Box 2.1

Recent advances in satellite-derived fire products.......................................................... 422013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.5Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

2 DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS
2.1

INTRODUCTION

Organic soils are defined in Annex 3A.5, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines) and Section 1.2, Chapter 1 of this 2013 Supplement to the2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement). The
guidance in this Chapter applies to all inland organic soils that have been drained, i.e. drainage of lands thatstarted in the past and that still persists, or newly drained lands within the reporting period. This means that thewater table level is at least temporarily below natural levels. Natural levels mean that the mean annual watertable is near the soil surface but can experience seasonal fluctuations. Within each land-use category, water tablelevel is manipulated to varying degrees depending on land-use purpose, e.g. for cultivating cereals, rice or foraquaculture, which can be reflected by different drainage classes.
This Chapter deals with inland organic soils that do not meet the definition of “coastal” given in Chapter 4 ofthis Wetlands Supplement. In this Chapter, the term “organic soils” refers to “inland organic soils” in this
Chapter.
This Chapter provides supplementary guidance on estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals fromdrained inland organic soils in the following land-use categories, as defined in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines: Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Chapter 5 (Cropland), Chapter 6 (Grassland), Chapter 7 (Wetlands),
Chapter 8 (Settlements) and Chapter 9 (Other Land). Managed coastal organic soils are covered in Chapter 4 ofthis Wetlands Supplement. Rewetted organic soils are considered in Chapter 3 of this Wetlands Supplement.
This Chapter clarifies Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by summarising all emission factors andharmonising methods for organic soils across all land-use types. On the basis of recent advances in scientificinformation, this Chapter also updates, improves and completes methodologies and emission factors forgreenhouse gas emissions and removals in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and fills gaps where new scientificknowledge allows implementation of robust methodologies and use of better emission factors at the Tier 1 level.
This Chapter updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for:

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

methane (CH4) emissions from drained organic soils (referring to Chapter 7, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC
Guidelines); andnitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from drained organic soils (referring to Chapter 11, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC
Guidelines).

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

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

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

providing methodologies and emission factors for CO2, CH4 and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions frompeat fires.

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

2.6

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Figure 2.1

Summary of fluxes from drained organic soils

Fire
CO , CH , COHeterotrophic
soil respiration

2

4

CH4 and N2O

Net peatdecomposition loss

CO and CH
2

4

Litterfall

Root mortality

2.2

Soluble and physical removal(DIC, DOC and POC)

LAND REMAINING IN A LAND-USE
CATEGORY

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

2.2.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils

This section deals with the impacts of drainage and management on CO 2 emissions and removals from organicsoils due to organic matter decomposition and loss of DOC in drainage waters. DOC losses lead to off-site CO2
emissions. There are also erosional losses of POC, as well as waterborne transport of DIC (primarily dissolvedCO2) derived from autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. At present, the science andavailable data are insufficient to provide guidance on CO2 emissions or removals associated with thesewaterborne carbon fluxes; Appendix 2a.1 provides a basis for future methodological development in this area.
General information and guidance for estimating changes in soil carbon stocks are provided in Section 2.3.3,
Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines; this should be read before proceeding with the guidance
provided here. This guidance is based on the observation that in drained organic soils, emissions persist as longas the soil remains drained or as long as organic matter remains (Wösten et al., 1997; Deverel & Leighton, 2010).
Equation 2.3 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines refers to annual carbon stock changes for a
stratum of a land-use category as a sum of changes in all pools. This section addresses the stratum of a land-use
category on drained organic soils. The equation is repeated here as Equation 2.1 to demonstrate how theguidance in this Wetlands Supplement links to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

EQUATION 2.1
ANNUAL CARBON STOCK CHANGES FOR A STRATUM OF A LAND-USE CATEGORY AS A SUM OF
CHANGES IN ALL POOLS(EQUATION 2.3 IN CHAPTER 2, VOLUME 4, 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES)

CLUi  C AB  CBB  CDW  CLI  CSO  CHWP
Where:ΔCLUi = carbon stock changes for a stratum of a land-use category
Subscripts denote the following carbon pools:

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.7

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

AB= above-ground biomassBB= below-ground biomass

DW= dead woodLI

= litterSO= soils

HWP = harvested wood products
Guidance for the carbon pools above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, dead wood, litter and harvested
wood products in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is not dealt with further in these guidelines.
This section of the Wetlands Supplement updates and complements the guidance on the drained organic soils
component of CSO, referred to as Lorganic in Equation 2.24, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
For transparent distinction between drained and rewetted organic soils, the term is further specified as CO2Corganic, drained in Equation 2.2. CO2-Corganic, drained consists of on-site CO2 emissions/removals of the organic soil
from mineralisation and sequestration processes (CO2-Con-site), off-site CO2 emissions from leached carbon fromthe organic soil (CO2-CDOC) and anthropogenic peat fires (Lfire). Countries are encouraged to consider POC whenusing higher tier methodologies (see Appendix 2a.1). CO2 emissions from peat fires are not explicitly addressedin Equation 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, but can be important on drained organicsoils. CO2 emissions from peat fires are therefore included in Equation 2.2 as Lfire (Section 2.2.2.3).

EQUATION 2.2
CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS BY DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS
CO2  Corganic,drained  CO2  Consite  CO2  C DOC  L fire  CO2  C
Where:
CO2-Corganic, drained = CO2-C emissions/removals by drained organic soils, tonnes C yr -1
CO2-Con-site= on-site CO2-C emissions/removals by drained organic soils, tonnes C yr -1

CO2-CDOC= CO2-C emissions from dissolved organic carbon exported from drained organic soils,
tonnes C yr-1

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

2.2.1.1

O N - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS / REMOVALS FRO M DRAINE D
INLAND ORGANIC SOILS (CO 2 -C O N - S I T E )This section gives supplementary guidance for CO2 emissions and removals from drained organic soils in allland-use categories as defined in Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The IPCC
land-use categories are discussed in Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Chapter 5 (Cropland), Chapter 6 (Grassland),
Chapter 7 (Wetlands), Chapter 8 (Settlements) and Chapter 9 (Other Land). Flooded Lands (Chapter 7) are notincluded in this Wetlands Supplement.
Guidance is given for CO2 emissions from the soil carbon pool in drained organic soils in line with Section 2.3.3,
Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Guidance for changes in the carbon pools in above-groundand below-ground biomass, dead wood and litter on these lands is provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andremains unchanged.

CHOICE OF ME THOD
The most important factors considered for estimating on-site CO2 emissions and removals from drained organicsoils are land use and climate. Other factors such as nutrient status (or fertility) of the soil and drainage level
affect emissions and can be considered where appropriate and with higher tier methods. It is good practice tostratify land-use categories by climate domain (Table 4.1, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines),
nutrient status (Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF) andSection 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) and drainage class (shallow or deep)
according to the stratification given in Table 2.1.

2.8

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Nutrient status is defined in the GPG-LULUCF and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7,
Volume 4). Generally, ombrogenic organic soils are characterised as nutrient-poor, while minerogenic organicsoils are characterised as nutrient-rich. This broad characterisation may vary by peatland type or national
circumstances.
Drainage class is defined as the mean annual water table averaged over a period of several years; the shallowdrained class is defined as the mean annual water table depth of less than 30 cm below the surface; the deepdrained class is defined as the mean annual water table depth of 30 cm and deeper below the surface.
For Tier 1 methods, if the typical range of mean annual water table levels of drained organic soils for each landuse category is unknown - water table depth is specific for land-use categories and climate domains - the default
assumption is that the organic soil is deep-drained because deep-drained conditions are the most widespread andsuitable for a wide range of management intensities. Higher tier methods could further differentiate the drainage
intensity within land-use categories if there are significant areas that differ from the default deep-drained
conditions.
Figure 2.5 in Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides a decision tree for
identification of the appropriate tier to estimate CO2 emissions from drained organic soils by land-use category.

Tier 1The basic methodology for estimating annual carbon loss from drained organic soils is presented in Section 2.3.3
and Equation 2.26 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, as further specified in Equation 2.2. Equation 2.3
refers to CO2-Con-site in Equation 2.2 with stratification of land-use categories by climate domain and nutrient
status. Nutrient status and drainage classes only need to be differentiated for those land-use categories andclimate domains for which emission factors are differentiated in Table 2.1.
At Tier 1, there is no differentiation between CO2 emissions from long-term drained organic soils and organicsoils after initial drainage or where drainage is deepened. High carbon loss from drained organic soils can occur
immediately after initial drainage of organic soils (Stephens et al., 1984; Wösten et al., 1997; Hooijer et al.,2012) even if land use does not change. These CO2-Con-site emissions in the transitional phase are not captured by
the Tier 1 default emission factors shown in Table 2.1, which were derived from data representing long-term
land uses present for decades in the boreal and temperate climate zones, and land uses drained for more thansix years in the tropical climate zone. A transitional phase is thus not captured by Tier 1 methodology due to lackof data for deriving default emission factors. After initial drainage of organic soils and if a transitional phaseoccurs, this should be addressed by higher tier methods.
EQUATION 2.3
ANNUAL ON-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS EXCLUDINGEMISSIONS FROM FIRES

CO 2 Consite    A  EF 
c ,n ,dc ,n ,dWhere:
CO2-Con-siteA= annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from drained organic soils in a land-use
category, tonnes C yr -1= land area of drained organic soils in a land-use category in climate domain c, nutrient status n anddrainage class d, ha

EF = emission factors for drained organic soils, by climate domain c, nutrient status n and drainage classd, tonnes C ha-1yr-1

Tier 2The Tier 2 approach for CO2 emissions/removals from drained organic soils incorporates country-specificinformation into Equations 2.2 and 2.3 to estimate CO2 emissions/removals. Tier 2 uses the same procedural
steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1. Improvements to the Tier 1 approach may include: 1) a derivationof country-specific emission factors; 2) specification of climate sub-domains considered suitable for refinementof emission factors; 3) a finer, more detailed classification of management systems with a differentiation of landuse intensity classes; 4) a differentiation by drainage classes; 5) differentiation of emission factors by time sincedrainage or the time since changes in drainage class, e.g. between emission factors reflecting additionalemissions after deepening of drainage or new drainage and long-term stable water tables, or 6) a finer, moredetailed classification of nutrient status, e.g. by nitrogen, phosphorus or pH.
It is good practice to derive country-specific emission factors if measurements representing the national
circumstances are available. Countries need to document that methodologies and measurement techniques are2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.9Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

compatible with the scientific background for Tier 1 emission factors in Annex 2A.1. Moreover, it is goodpractice for countries to use a finer classification for climate and management systems, in particular for drainage
classes, if there are significant differences in measured carbon loss rates among these classes. Note that any
country-specific emission factor must be accompanied by sufficient national or regional land-use/management
activity and environmental data to represent the appropriate climate sub-domains and management systems forthe spatial domain for which the country-specific emission factor is applied.
The general guidance provided in Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines also applies
here.

Tier 3CO2 emissions/removals from drained organic soils can be estimated using modelling and/or measurement
approaches. Dynamic, mechanistic models will typically be used to simulate underlying processes while
capturing the influence of land use and management, particularly the effect of seasonally variable levels ofdrainage on decomposition (van Huissteden et al., 2006). General considerations for organic soils given in
Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines also apply here. It is good practice to describe
methodologies and models transparently, to document considerations for the choice and application of the modelin the inventory, and to provide evidence that this represents the national circumstances according to theguidance in Section 2.5, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACT ORS
Tier 1
All Tier 1 emission factors have been updated from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines based on a large number of new
measurement data from all land-use categories and climate zones. This new evidence allows for stratification of
more land-use categories and climate domains by nutrient status than in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. In addition,
temperate, nutrient-rich Grassland is further stratified into shallow-drained (less than approximately 30 cm
below the surface) and deep-drained. Within each land-use category, drained organic soils can experience a wide
range of mean annual water table levels that depend upon regional climatic characteristics and specific land-use
activity or intensity. Emission factors for temperate Grassland are given for shallow-drained and deep-drainedsoils. Shallow-drained and deep-drained Grassland emission factors differ significantly. In the absence ofadditional national information about mean annual water table and/or land-use intensity as a proxy, countries
should choose deep-drained factors as default.
The GPG-LULUCF and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7, Volume 4) distinguish between
nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils in some land-use categories and climate zones. This approach ismaintained here, in line with the guidance given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Two alternative emission/removal
factors are given in Table 2.1 for boreal nutrient-poor Forest Land; countries need to choose the one that matches
their national land-use definition.
Default Tier 1 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils (Table 2.1) were generated using a
combination of subsidence and flux data found in the literature, as described in Annex 2A.1. CO2-C losses occur
predominantly in the drained, oxic soil layer and thus reflect human-induced CO2-C fluxes. The part of the soil
profile affected by drainage can be deeper or shallower than the default 0 to 30 cm layer considered in the Tier 1
default methodology for soil organic carbon (SOC) pools in mineral soils.

2.10

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Forest Land, drained, including
shrubland and drained land that may not
be classified as forestc

Climate /vegetation
zone
Nutrient-poor

Nutrient-poor

BorealBorealEmission factora(tonnes CO2-C
ha-1yr-1)
0.37

0.25

95% Confidence
intervalb

-0.11

-0.23

0.84

0.73

No. of sites

Citations/comments

63

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

59

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

Forest Land, drainedd
Nutrient-rich

Forest Land, drained

Forest Land and cleared Forest Land (shrublande), drained

Boreal

0.93

0.54

1.3

62

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

Temperate

2.6

2.0

3.3

8

Glenn et al., 1993; Minkkinen etal., 2007b; von Arnold et al.,2005a, b; Yamulki et al., 2013

21

Ali et al., 2006; Brady, 1997;
Chimner & Ewel, 2005; Comeau etal., 2013; Dariah et al., 2013;
Darung et al., 2005; Furukawa etal., 2005; Hadi et al., 2005;
Harrison et al., 2007; Hergoualc’h& Verchot, 2011; Hertel et al.,2009; Hirano et al., 2009, 2012;
Inubushi et al., 2003; Ishida et al.,
2001; Jauhiainen et al., 2008,2012a; Melling et al., 2005a,
2007a; Rahaoje et al., 2000;
Shimamura & Momose, 2005;
Sulistiyanto, 2004; Sundari et al.,2012

Tropical

5.3

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

-0.7

9.5

2.11

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.1 (CONTINUED)TIER 1 CO2 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES a
Land-use category

Climate /vegetation
zone

Emission factora(tonnes CO2-C
ha-1yr-1)

Plantations, drained, unknown or long rotationsf

Tropical15

f gPlantations, drained, short rotations, e.g. acacia ,Plantations, drained, oil palmf

Plantations, shallow-drained (typically less than 0.3 m), typicallyused for agriculture, e.g. sago palmf

Cropland, drained

2.12

TropicalTropicalTropicalBoreal andTemperate

20

11

1.5

7.9

95% Confidence
intervalb

No. of sites

Citations/comments

10

n.a.

Average of emission factors for
acacia and oil palm

13

Basuki et al., 2012; Hooijer et al.,2012; Jauhiainen et al., 2012a;
Nouvellon et al., 2012; Warren etal., 201210

Comeau et al., 2013; Couwenberg& Hooijer, 2013; Dariah et al.,2013; DID & LAWOO, 1996;
Henson & Dolmat, 2003; Hooijer
et al., 2012; Lamade & Bouillet,
2005; Marwanto & Agus, 2013;
Melling et al., 2005a, 2007a, 2013;
Warren et al., 20125

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

16

5.6

-2.3

6.5

21

24

17

5.4

9.4

39

Drösler et al., 2013; Elsgaard et al.,2012; Grønlund et al., 2008;
Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 1997;
Leifeld et al., 2011; Maljanen etal., 2001a, 2003a, 2004, 2007;
Morrison et al., 2013; Petersen etal., 20122013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.1 (CONTINUED)TIER 1 CO2 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES a
Land-use category

Cropland and fallow, drained

Cropland, drained, paddy rice

Climate /vegetationzone

TropicalTropicalEmission factora(tonnes CO2-C
ha-1yr-1)

14

9.4

95% Confidence
intervalb

6.6

-0.2

26

20

No. of sites

Citations/comments

10

Ali et al., 2006; Chimner, 2004;
Chimner & Ewel, 2004; Dariah etal., 2013; Darung et al., 2005;
Furukawa et al., 2005; Gill &Jackson, 2000; Hairiah et al., 2000;
Hirano et al., 2009; Ishida et al.,
2001; Jauhiainen et al., 2012a;
Melling et al., 2007a

6

Dariah et al., 2013; Furukawa etal., 2005; Hadi et al., 2005; Hairiah
et al., 1999; Inubushi et al., 2003;
Ishida et al., 2001; Matthews et al.,
2000; Melling et al., 2007a

Grassland, drained

Boreal

5.7

2.9

8.6

8

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

Grassland, drained, nutrient-poor

Temperate

5.3

3.7

6.9

7

Drösler et al., 2013; Kuntze, 1992

Grassland, deep-drained, nutrient-richTemperate

6.1

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

5.0

7.3

39

Augustin, 2003; Augustin et al.,
1996; Czaplak & Dembek, 2000;
Drösler et al., 2013; Elsgaard et al.,2012; Höper, 2002; Jacobs et al.,
2003; Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al.,
1997; Langeveld et al., 1997;
Leifeld et al., 2011; Lorenz et al.,
1992; Meyer et al., 2001; Nieveen
et al., 2005; Okruszko, 1989;
Schothorst, 1977; Schrier-Uijl etal., 2010a, c; Veenendaal et al.,2007; Weinzierl, 1997

2.13

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.1 (CONTINUED)TIER 1 CO2 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES aa

Land-use category

Climate /vegetation
zone

Emission factora(tonnes CO2-C
ha-1yr-1)

Grassland, shallow-drained, nutrient-richTemperate

Grassland, drained

Tropical

95% Confidence
intervalb

No. of sites

Citations/comments

3.6

1.8

5.4

13

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

9.6

4.5

17

n.a.

Updated from Table 6.3, Chapter 6,
Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelinesh

Peatland Managed for Extractioni

Boreal andTemperate

2.8

1.1

4.2

20

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

Peatland Managed for Extractioni

Tropical

2.0

0.06

7.0

n.a.

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

Settlements

All climate
zones

Other LandAll climate
zones

There is no fixed default emission/removal factor for Settlements. For this category, it is good practice
to take the default emission/removal factor from Table 2.1 of the land-use category that is closest tonational conditions of drained organic soils under Settlements. Information about national conditions
could include drainage level, vegetation cover, or other management activities. For example, drainedorganic soils in urban green areas, parks or gardens could use the default Tier 1 emission/removal
factor for Grassland, deep-drained given in Table 2.1.
Other Land Remaining Other Land: 0
Land Converted to Other Land: maintain emission factor of previous land-use category

Mean

b

Some confidence intervals contain negative values. These were mathematically calculated based on error propagation of uncertainties. However, all underlying CO2 fluxes were positive.

c

Forest broader than FAO definitiond

Forest according to FAO definitione

Shrubland refers to any type of land sparsely or fully covered with shrubs or trees that may fulfil the national forest definition. It extends to degraded lands that cannot be clearly classified as forest or non-forest.

f

Plantations are reported under land-use categories according to national land-use definitions.

2.14

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

g

Number derived solely from Acacia plantation datah

The emission factor for Cropland for tropical zone was multiplied by the ratio between the emission factors for Grassland, drained, nutrient-poor and Cropland for temperate zone; the same applies to the confidence
interval. This new ratio updates the ratio applied to derive the emission factor for Grassland in the tropical zone in Table 6.3, Chapter 6, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
iOn-site CO2-C emissions from drained peat deposits only. For off-site CO2-C emissions from peat extracted for horticultural or energy use, see Chapter 7, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.15

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Common tropical plantations include oil palm, sago and Acacia crassicarpa. In Table 2.1, plantations are notallocated to a specific land-use category. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national landuse category according to national land-use definitions. National land-use definitions commonly classify timberand fibre plantations as Forest Land and oil palm or sago palm plantations as Cropland.

Tier 2The Tier 2 approach for carbon loss from drained organic soils incorporates country-specific information into
Equation 2.2 to estimate emissions. Tier 2 also uses the same procedural steps for calculations as provided forTier 1. Tier 2 emission factors by land-use category can, in general, be developed depending on a) climate, b)
drainage layout and intensity, c) nutrient status and, d) land-use intensity and practices.
Tier 2 emission factors could include the following refinements:use of country-specific emission factors measured or calculated locally taking into account climatic factorsthat provide for wetter or drier drainage classes than those defined here;

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

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

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

integration of temporal dynamics associated with changes in decomposition rates that may be related todrainage, management or to the physical and chemical changes to peat over time, including a possible
transition period of high emissions associated with drainage or deepening of drainage in lands remaining ina land-use category.

CO2 measurements derived through methods described in Annex 2A.1 and disaggregated by management
practices should be used to develop more precise, locally appropriate emission factors. CO2 flux measurements
do not take account of waterborne carbon losses, which must therefore be considered separately. In contrast,
subsidence-based measurements effectively incorporate waterborne carbon losses into the estimated stockchange. This methodological difference has to be considered when developing higher tier methods in order toavoid double-counting.

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach allows for a variety of methods and may use measurements or process-based models or othermore elaborate approaches, adequately validated using observation data that take into account temporal andspatial variations. Tier 3 should involve a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of
CO2 emissions and removals from drained organic soils, including the effects of management practices, sitecharacteristics, peat type and depth and drainage depth, among other factors. Tier 3 approaches could start bydeveloping relationships between drainage or nutrient status and heterotrophic CO2 emissions, which can befurther refined by land-use category and fertilisation. Furthermore, organic soils in Forest Land undergo a cycle
related to rotation of the tree cohorts and carbon losses associated with harvesting and site preparation should be
accounted for. Models could describe the rotational variation in water tables.
When peat is extracted, the peatland surface is disturbed by machinery and may be fertilised afterwards orotherwise amended for regeneration. Moreover, drainage systems may be renewed and dredging of ditches may
cause disturbances that alter greenhouse gas emissions and removals. These measures result in emission/removal
rates that vary predictably over time, which may in Tier 3 methods be captured by models used. Emissions fromstockpiles of drying peat are much more uncertain. Higher temperatures may cause stockpiles to release more
CO2 than the excavation field but data are at present insufficient to provide guidance. Methods for estimating
this emission may be developed at Tier 3.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
All management practices for land remaining in a land-use category are assumed to result in persistent emissions
from soils as long as the management system remains in place or as long as the land falls under the definition oforganic soils. Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on organic soils stratified byclimate domain, soil nutrient status, drainage class or additional criteria such as management practices. Total
areas should be determined according to the Approaches laid out in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines and should be consistent with those reported under other sections of the inventory. The estimation of
CO2 emissions/removals from drained organic soils will be greatly facilitated if this information can be used in

2.16

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

conjunction with national soils and climate data, vegetation inventories and other biophysical data. Stratificationof land-use categories according to climate domains, based on default or country-specific classifications, can beaccomplished with overlays of land use on suitable climate and soil maps.
Under most circumstances, the area of organic soils will remain constant over time. However, the area of organicsoils may change as organic soil disappears following drainage.

Tier 1The Tier 1 approach requires area data on drained organic soils for each land-use category, disaggregated byappropriate climate domains, nutrient status and drainage class as applicable. Classification systems for activity
data that form the basis of a Tier 1 inventory are provided in the respective land-use chapters of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.
Several institutions, including ISRIC and FAO, have country-specific and global maps that include organic soils(http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home or http://www.isric.org/). A global consortium has been
formed to make a new fine resolution digital soil map of the world (http://www.globalsoilmap.net/).
The GPG-LULUCF and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7, Volume 4) distinguish between
nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils in some land-use categories and climate zones. This approach ismaintained here, in line with guidance given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Nutrient-poor organic soils
predominate in boreal regions, while in temperate regions nutrient-rich organic soils are more common. It isgood practice for boreal countries that do not have information on areas of nutrient-rich and nutrient-poororganic soils to use the emission factor for nutrient-poor organic soils. It is good practice for temperate countries
that do not have such data to use the emission factor for nutrient-rich organic soils. Only one default factor isprovided for tropical regions, and disaggregation by soil fertility is therefore not necessary in the tropical climatezone when using the Tier 1 method. Due to lack of data, rice fields on tropical organic soils are notdisaggregated by water management regimes.
Areas of shallow-drained and deep-drained organic soils with Grasslands need to be derived from national data.
Data from water management plans, such as target water table levels, can serve as a source of information. Landuse intensity, e.g. the time of the first cut of Grassland, grazing intensity, or animal production levels, can serve
as a proxy, as can restrictions imposed by water management or biodiversity management (e.g. riparian zones,
buffer zones, or nature conservation for species or habitats with a typical water regime).
Without additional national information about mean annual water table and/or land-use intensity as proxy,countries should choose deep-drained as the default.

Tiers 2 and 3
Activity data for higher tier estimates are generally derived following the methods presented in Chapter 3,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Activity data may be spatially explicit and could be disaggregated bytype of management, drainage depth and/or nutrient status to improve the accuracy of the inventory if different
land-management systems use different drainage depths and/or nutrient levels, and if appropriate emission
factors are available. In general, practices that increase carbon stocks in mineral soils by increased organic
material input (e.g. fertilisation, liming, etc.) do not have a sequestration effect in drained organic soils.
The combination of land-use databases and soil maps or spatially explicit data allows delineation of
combinations of land-use categories, climate domains, drainage classes and management systems and theirchanges over time on organic soils. Data and their documentation could combine information from a land-use
transition matrix specifically made for organic soils. Stratification needs to be consistently applied across theentire time series.
Information sources about drainage with adequate disaggregation may include:

national land-use statistics, land-use maps and soil maps, maps of water and nature conservation zones withrestrictions for water management, wetlands;national water management statistics: in most countries, the agricultural land base including Cropland isusually surveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land uses, crops, tillage practices andother aspects of management, often at sub-national regional level; these statistics may originate, in part,from remote sensing methods, from which additional information about wetness or periods with seasonal
flooding could be extracted;

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

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.17

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

water management plans and documentation from water management installations;drainage maps;

maps of drainage or (partial) rewetting projects including remote sensing;

CALCULATION STEPS FOR TIER 1
The steps for estimating the direct loss of soil carbon from drained organic soils are as follows:
Step 1: Determine areas with drained organic soils under each land-use category, disaggregated by climate
domain and other appropriate factors as outlined above. In the case of Tier 1 emission factors, where necessary
land areas are further stratified into nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils. Temperate nutrient-rich
Grassland is further stratified into shallow-drained and deep-drained classes.
Step 2: Assign the appropriate emission factor from Table 2.1 for annual losses of CO2 to each land-use category,climate domain, nutrient status and drainage class stratum.
Step 3: Multiply each area by the appropriate emission factor using Equation 2.3.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in estimating emissions and removals in organic soils: 1) uncertainties
in land-use and management activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in the emission/removal factors forTier 1 or 2 approaches; and 3) model structure/parameter error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, ormeasurement error/sampling variability associated with Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. In general,
precision of an inventory is increased and confidence ranges are smaller with more sampling to estimate values
for land-use categories, while accuracy is more likely to be increased through implementation of higher tiermethods that incorporate country-specific information.
For Tier 1, the default uncertainty level of emission/removal factors is the 95% confidence interval given in
Table 2.1. Countries developing specific emission factors for their inventories at higher tiers should assess theuncertainty of these factors.
If using aggregate land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g. FAO data), the inventory compiler may have toapply a default level of uncertainty for land area estimates on organic soils (±20%; twice the uncertainty estimate
given in Table 3.7 for mineral soils in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). It is good practice for the inventory compiler
to derive uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a default level of uncertainty.
Uncertainties in activity data may be reduced through a better monitoring system, such as developing or
extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing toprovide additional coverage. Uncertainties in activity data and emission/removal factors need to be combinedusing an appropriate method, such as simple error propagation equations. Details are given in Chapter 3,
Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and in Chapter 5 of the GPG-LULUCF.
Accuracy can be increased by deriving country-specific factors using a Tier 2 method or by developing a Tier 3
country-specific estimation system. The underlying basis for higher tier approaches will be measurements in the
country or neighbouring regions that address the effect of land use and management on CO2 emissions/removals
from drained organic soils. In addition, uncertainties can be reduced through stratification by significant factors
responsible for within-country differences in land-use and management impacts, such as variation among climate
domains and/or organic soil types.

2.2.1.2

O FF - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS VIA WATERBO RNE CARBONLOSSES FROM DRAINED INLAN D ORGANIC SOILS

Waterborne carbon comprises DOC, POC, the dissolved gases CO2 and CH4, and the dissolved carbonate species
HCO3- and CO32-. Particulate inorganic carbon (PIC) losses from organic soils are negligible. Collectively,
waterborne carbon export can represent a major part of the overall carbon budget of an organic soil and in somecases can exceed net land-atmosphere CO2 exchange (e.g. Billett et al., 2004; Rowson et al., 2010). It istherefore important that waterborne carbon be included in flux-based (i.e. gain-loss) approaches for soil carbon
estimation, to avoid systematic under-estimation of soil carbon losses. Airborne (erosional) POC loss may also
be significant where land use leads to bare soil exposure, but little data exist to quantify this (see Appendix 2a.1).
Different forms of waterborne carbon have different sources, behaviour and fate, and different approaches are
therefore required to quantify off-site CO2 emissions associated with each form. In most peatlands and organicsoils, DOC forms the largest component of waterborne carbon export (e.g. Urban et al., 1989; Dawson et al.,
2004; Jonsson et al., 2007; Dinsmore et al., 2010). DOC export can be affected by land use, in particulardrainage (Wallage et al., 2006; Strack et al., 2008; Urbanová et al., 2011; Moore et al., 2013). It is reactive

2.18

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

within aquatic ecosystems and most DOC is thought to ultimately be converted to CO2 and emitted to theatmosphere (see Annex 2A.2 for supporting discussion). It is therefore good practice to include DOC export in
CO2 reporting, and a Tier 1 methodology for this purpose is described below.
Of the other forms of waterborne carbon, POC fluxes are typically very low from vegetated peatlands andorganic soils, but can become very large where bare organic soil becomes exposed, e.g. due to erosion, peat
extraction, burning and conversion to Cropland. Although it may be possible to estimate POC loss fluxes as afunction of bare soil exposure, high uncertainty remains regarding the reactivity and fate of POC exported fromorganic soils. Some POC is likely to be converted to CO2, but POC that is simply translocated from the soil
profile to other stable carbon stores, such as freshwater or marine sediments, may not lead to CO2 emissions.
Due to the uncertain fate of POC export, an estimation method is not presented at this time; current knowledge
and data needed to support POC estimation in future are described in Appendix 2a.1.
Gaseous CO2 and CH4 dissolved in water transported laterally from the organic soil matrix represent indirectly
emitted components of the total emission of these gases from the land surface. Dissolved CO 2 in excess of
atmospheric pressure will also be degassed from drainage waters, while some DIC may be transported
downstream. At present, available data are insufficient (particularly for drained organic soils) to permit default
emission factors to be derived. Additional information and future methodological requirements needed tosupport full accounting of emissions associated with waterborne inorganic carbon are included in Appendix 2a.1.
CH O ICE O F M ETH O D
The basic methodology for estimating annual off-site CO2 emissions associated with waterborne carbon loss
from drained organic soils is presented in Equation 2.4:

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

CO 2 C DOC    A  EFDOC 
c ,n

c ,n

Where:
CO2-CDOC = annual off-site CO2-C emissions due to DOC loss from drained organic soils, tonnes C yr -1
Ac, n= land area of drained organic soils in a land-use category in climate zone c and nutrient
status n, ha

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

EFDOC can be calculated from Equation 2.5:

EQUATION 2.5
EMISSION FACTOR FOR ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC EXPORT FROM DRAINEDORGANIC SOILSEFDOC  DOCFLUX _ NATURAL  1  DOCDRAINAGE   FracDOC CO2
Where:EFDOC = emission factor for DOC from a drained site, tonnes C ha -1yr-1
DOCFLUX_NATURAL = flux of DOC from natural (undrained) organic soil, tonnes C ha -1yr-1
DOCDRAINAGE = proportional increase in DOC flux from drained sites relative to undrained sites
FracDOC-CO2 = conversion factor for proportion of DOC converted to CO2 following export from site
Because of the lack of data for other components of waterborne carbon fluxes and due to uncertainty about theirsources and/or fate, off-site CO2 emissions associated with waterborne carbon are only represented by DOC
losses at this stage. However, if in the future adequate data become available or if adequate data are available forhigher tiers, inventory compilers can expand Equation 2.4 to include POC and/or DIC (see section on
methodological requirements in Appendix 2a.1).

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.19

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

DOCFLUX_NATURAL(t C ha-1yr-1)

Boreal0.08 (0.06–0.11)

Temperate

0.21 (0.17–0.26)

Tropical

0.57 (0.49–0.64)

DOCDRAINAGEa

FracDOC-CO2

0.60(0.43–0.78)

0.9(± 0.1)

EFDOC_DRAINED(t C ha-1yr-1)
0.12 (0.07–0.19)
0.31 (0.19–0.46)
0.82 (0.56–1.14)

Values shown in parentheses represent 95% confidence intervals. For data sources and supporting references, see Tables 2A.2 and 2A.3.
a

Due to the limited number of available studies, a single Tier 1 value for DOCDRAINAGE has been assigned to all soil types based on all
available comparisons of drained and undrained sites. In the case of fens, there is more uncertainty associated with the estimation of DOC
flux changes after drainage; countries may therefore choose to apply the values of DOCFLUX_NATURAL given above (multiplied by FracDOC-CO2
but assuming DOCDRAINAGE = 0) or to obtain direct measurements of the DOC flux from drained sites.

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

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

use of country-level data on the impacts of organic soil drainage on DOC flux to derive specific values of
DOCDRAINAGE that reflect local organic soil types, and the nature of drainage practices and subsequent landuse - if sufficient, robust, direct measurements are available from representative drained sites, these may be
used to estimate DOC fluxes from drained sites, replacing DOCFLUX_NATURAL in Equation 2.5; specific DOC
flux estimates from drained organic soils in different land-use categories could also be considered wheredata support this level of stratification; anduse of alternative values for FracDOC-CO2 where evidence is available to estimate the proportion of DOC
exported from drained organic soils that is transferred to stable long-term carbon stores, such as lake or
marine sediments.

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach might include the use of more detailed data to develop and apply process models that describe
DOC release as a function of vegetation composition, nutrient levels, land-use category, water table level andhydrology, as well as temporal variability in DOC release in the years following land-use change (e.g. initialdrainage) and ongoing management activities (e.g. drain maintenance, forest management) (see Annex 3A.2,
Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement).
Guidance is not currently presented for the effects of land use other than drainage on DOC loss from peatlands
and organic soils, such as the effects of managed burning or of intensity of agricultural use. However, these may
be included in higher tier methods if sufficient evidence can be obtained to develop the associated emission
factors.

2.20

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA
Tier 1
Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on drained organic soils summarised byorganic soil type, climate zones and land-use type (specifically occurrence of drainage). Total areas should bedetermined according to the Approaches laid out in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andshould be consistent with those reported 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 precipitation may be used to refine emission estimates, as shown in Table 2.2.

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

CALCULATIO N STEPS FOR TIER 1
The steps for estimating off-site emissions from soil carbon on drained organic soils are as follows:
Step 1: Determine areas with drained organic soils under each land-use category for land remaining in a land-use
category, disaggregated by climate domain and other appropriate factors as outlined above.
Step 2: Assign the appropriate values for DOCFLUX_NATURAL, DOCDRAINAGE and FracDOC-CO2 from Table 2.2 foreach land-use category and climate domain.
Step 3: Calculate EFDOC for each land-use category using Equation 2.5.
Step 4: Multiply activity data by the emission factor for each land-use category and sum across land-use
categories.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in estimating off-site emissions and removals: 1) uncertainties in landuse and management activity and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in the emission/removal factors for Tier 1
or 2 approaches; and 3) uncertainties in the fraction of DOC that is emitted as CO 2. In general, precision of an
inventory is increased and confidence ranges are smaller with more sampling to estimate values for thesecategories, while accuracy is more likely to be increased through implementation of higher tier methods thatincorporate country-specific information.
Uncertainties for land use and management activities are the same as for on-site emissions and will not be
repeated here. Uncertainty ranges (95% confidence intervals) are provided for DOC emission factors in Table
2.2. These ranges are calculated based on: 1) literature data in Annex 2A.2 based on observations from natural
peatlands used to derive values of DOCFLUX-NATURAL in each of the peat classes used (Table 2A.2); 2)
observations of DOCDRAINAGE from published studies (Table 2A.3); and 3) an uncertainty range for the FracDOCCO2 value of 0.8-1.0 as described above. These uncertainty ranges may be adapted or refined under Tier 2 if
further sub-classification according to land-use type or intensity is undertaken, based on additional measurement
data.

2.2.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained
inland organic soils

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

2.2.2.1

CH 4 EMISSIONS AND REMOVA LS FROM DRAINED INLANDORGANIC SOILS

In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, CH4 emissions are assumed to be negligible from all drained organic soils.
However, recent evidence suggests that some CH4 emissions can occur from the drained land surface, and also2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.21

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

from the ditch networks constructed during drainage. Each of these emission pathways is considered here (Best& Jacobs, 1997; Minkkinen & Laine, 2006; Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011; Hyvönen et al., 2013).
Drainage lowers the water table, exposes formerly saturated organic soil layers to oxidation and, as describedabove, increases CO2 emissions from the land surface. Drainage alters environmental factors such as temperature,
reduction–oxidation potential, and the amount of easily decomposable organic matter. Drainage also affects theactivity of methanogens and methanotrophs (Blodau, 2002; Treat et al., 2007). Drainage increases plant root
respiration and mitigates CH4 emission dramatically (Martikainen et al., 1995a; Strack et al., 2004; Hergoualc’h&Verchot, 2012) as methanogenic bacteria thrive only in anoxic conditions. Shifts in vegetation with dominantaerenchymous species to other vegetation types will also reduce the transfer of CH4 from the soil profile to theatmosphere (e.g. Tuittila et al., 2000). In general, when organic soil is drained, natural production of CH4 isreduced and organic soils may even become a CH4 sink, once methanotrophs dominate the CH4 cycle.
Ditch networks provide a further source of CH4 emissions from drained organic soils. This occurs due to a
combination of lateral CH4 transfer from the organic soil matrix, and in situ CH4 production within the ditches
themselves (e.g. Roulet & Moore, 1995; van den Pol-van Dasselaar et al., 1999a; Sundh et al., 2000; Minkkinen& Laine, 2006; Teh et al., 2011; Vermaat et al., 2011). These emissions may approach, or even exceed, the CH4flux from an undrained organic soil when averaged over the land surface (Roulet & Moore, 1995; Schrier-Uijl etal., 2011). Emission/removal factors for ditch CH4 emissions were compiled from available published literature(see Annex 2A.1). We present only general factors for ditches because of limited data. Effects of ditch
maintenance, deepening and other factors may be addressed at higher tiers.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Tier 1CH4 emissions from the land surface are estimated using a simple emission factor approach (see Equation 2.6),
depending on climate and type of land use. The default methodology considers boreal, temperate and tropicalclimate zones, and nutrient-rich/nutrient-poor organic soils. Different land uses imply drainage to different
depths. The CH4 emission factors depend on gas flux measurements, either from closed chambers or (for landsurface emissions) from eddy covariance.
Ditch CH4 emissions should be quantified for any area of drained organic soil where there are ditches ordrainage canals (note that CH4 may also be emitted from ditches within rewetted organic soils where ditchesremain present, although at Tier 1 it is assumed that this flux equates to that from the remainder of the rewetted
site; see Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement). Estimation of ditch CH4 emissions requires information on theland-use class and on the area of the landscape occupied by the drainage ditch network, Fracditch.
EQUATION 2.6
ANNUAL CH4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILSCH 4 _ organic   Ac,n, p  1  Fracditch   EFCH4 _ landc ,n  Fracditch  EFCH4 _ ditchc , p

c ,n , p

Where:
CH4_organic= annual CH4 loss from drained organic soils, kg CH4 yr-1

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

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

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

2.22= fraction of the total area of drained organic soil which is occupied by ditches (where“ditches” are considered to be any area of manmade channel cut into the peatland). The
ditch area may be calculated as the width of ditches multiplied by their total length. Where
ditches are cut vertically, ditch width can be calculated as the average distance from bank tobank. Where ditch banks are sloping, ditch width should be calculated as the average widthof open water plus any saturated fringing vegetation.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Tier 2The Tier 2 approach for estimating CH4 emissions from drained organic soils incorporates country-specificinformation into Equation 2.6. Tier 2 uses the same procedural steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1.
Under Tier 2, the emission factors for CH4 from the surface of drained organic soils can be further differentiatedby drainage depth, land-use subcategories or vegetation type (such as presence or absence of plant species thatact as transporters of CH4 from the soil to the atmosphere). Guidance for further stratification follows theprinciples given in Section 2.2.1.1 of this Chapter.
Tier 2 approaches for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches generally follow the Tier 1 approach described above,with country-specific measurements or estimates of annual mean ditch CH4 emissions, and national or regional
estimates of fractional ditch area that reflect local drainage practices. The land-use sub-categories in Table 2.4
may be expanded or subdivided where appropriate to reflect the range of observed land use on drained organicsoils.

Tier 3Tier 3 methods for estimating CH4 emissions from drained organic soils involve a comprehensive understanding
and representation of the dynamics of CH4 emissions and removals on managed peatlands and organic soils,
including the effect of site characteristics, peat/soil type, peat degradation and depth, land-use intensity, drainage
depth, management systems, and the level and kinds of fresh organic matter inputs. Emission spikes may also
occur, for example during spring thaw or strong rains or when debris from ditch dredging is deposited on
adjacent land.
For CH4 emissions from drainage ditches, development of a Tier 3 approach could take account of the influenceof land-management activities (e.g. organic matter additions to agricultural land) on substrate supply for methane
production in ditches, of possible short-term pulses of ditch CH4 emissions associated with land-use change, andof the legacy effects of past land use (e.g. nutrient-enriched soils). Information on drainage ditch characteristics
and maintenance may be used to refine ditch CH4 emission estimates, for example taking account of: 1) the
potential effects of plant or algal growth within ditches; 2) presence of subsurface drainage in Cropland andGrassland; 3) water flow rates, transport length of water and oxygen status; 4) ditch maintenance activities; and 5)
the deposition of organic material removed from ditches onto adjacent land areas.

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS
Tier 1
Default emission factors for the Tier 1 method are provided in Table 2.3 for EF CH4_land and Table 2.4 for
EFCH4_ditch. EFCH4_land were derived from the mean of all data within each land-use class, typically from chamber
measurements, and uncertainty ranges were calculated as 95% confidence intervals. References are given in
Table 2.3.
At present, data from literature are sufficient to provide Tier 1 default values of EFCH4_ditch for each of the four
major land-use classes on drained organic soils (Forest Land, Grassland, Cropland and Wetlands used for peat
extraction) in boreal and temperate regions (Table 2.4). In the case of Cropland, because no data are currently
available, Tier 1 default values for deep-drained Grassland may be applied. Limited data on ditch CH4 emissions
are currently available for tropical organic soils, and a single Tier 1 emission factor is therefore provided for all
drained land-use classes. Scientific background for EFCH4_ditch and Fracditch is given in Annex 2A.2.

Tier 2Tier 2 emission factors EFCH4_land may be based on country- or region-specific emission factors for CH4
emissions from the surface of drained organic soils. These allow further stratification of land-use categories bydrainage class, nutrient status or vegetation characteristics.
Methane emissions from drainage ditches will vary according to peat/soil type, land-use type, drainage intensityand (for agriculturally managed areas) land-use intensity. For example, labile organic matter and nutrient inputs
from terrestrial areas are likely to increase CH4 production in ditches (Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011). The Tier 1
emission factors EFCH4_ditch provided are based on measurements from ditches located within the organic layer.
Subsurface drainage systems may represent additional sources of CH4 emissions in Cropland and Grassland, andcould be incorporated into the approach provided that appropriate measurement data are available. Countries areencouraged to obtain new measurement data for significant land-use classes to enhance the current dataset, andto develop country-specific Tier 2 emission factors. Sharing of data between countries may be appropriate whereenvironmental conditions and practices are similar.

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

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.23

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

A Tier 3 approach for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches might include the use of more detailed data todevelop and apply process models that describe CH4 emissions as a function of drainage ditch characteristics andmaintenance, for example taking account of: 1) the potential effects of plant or algal growth within ditches; 2)water flow rates, transport length of water and oxygen status; 3) ditch maintenance activities; and 4) the
deposition of organic material removed from ditches onto adjacent land areas.
A Tier 3 approach to estimating ditch CH4 emissions could take account of the temporal variability ofhydrological conditions, labile substrate and nutrient supply, and controls on the composition of in-ditchvegetation that might enhance or reduce emission rates.
Emissions from stockpiles of drying peat are uncertain and stockpiles may release or consume CH4 at different
rates than the excavation field, but data are not at present sufficient to provide guidance. Methods for estimating
this flux may be developed for Tier 3 approaches.

2.24

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.3
TIER 1 CH4 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (EFCH4_LAND) IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES a
Land-use category

ForestLand,drainedNutrientpoor

Climate /vegetation
zones

BorealEmission factora(kg CH4 ha-1yr-1)

7.0

95% confidence intervalb(centred on mean)

2.9

11

No. ofsites

Citations/comments

47

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

Boreal

2.0

-1.6

5.5

83

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

Forest Land, drained

Temperate

2.5

-0.60

5.7

13

Glenn et al., 1993; Moore & Knowles, 1990; Sikström etal., 2009; von Arnold et al., 2005a, b; Weslien et al., 2009;
Yamulki et al., 2013

Forest Land andcleared Forest Land(shrublandc), drained

Tropical/
Subtropical

4.9

2.3

7.5

7

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

Forest plantations,drainedd

Tropical/
Subtropical

2.7

-0.9

6.3

5

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

Plantation: oil palm

Tropical/
Subtropical

0

0

0

1

Melling et al., 2005b

Tropical/
Subtropical

26.2

7.2

45.3

6

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

Nutrientrich

Plantation: sago palm

Cropland, drained

CroplandBoreal andTemperate

0

-2.8

2.8

38

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

Tropical/
Subtropical

7.0

0.3

13.7

5

Furukawa et al., 2005; Hirano et al., 20092013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.25

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.3 (CONTINUED)TIER 1 CH4 EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS (EFCH4_LAND) IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES a
Land-use category

Climate /vegetation
zones

Emission factora(kg CH4 ha-1yr-1)

95% confidence intervalb(centred on mean)

Ricee

Tropical/
Subtropical

143.5

63.2

223.7

6

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

Grassland, drained

Boreal

1.4

-1.6

4.5

12

Grønlund et al., 2006; Guðmundsson & Óskarsson, 2008;
Hyvönen et al., 2009; Maljanen et al., 2001b, 2003b, 2004,
2010b, c; Nykänen et al., 1995; Regina et al., 2007

Grassland, drained,
nutrient-poor

Temperate

1.8

0.72

2.9

9

Drösler et al., 2013; Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 2009;van den Bos, 2003

No. of sites

Citations/comments

Grassland, deepdrained, nutrient-richTemperate

16

2.4

29

44

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

Grassland, shallowdrained, nutrient-richTemperate

39

-2.9

81

16

Augustin, 2003; Drösler et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2003;
van den Pol-van Dasselaar et al., 1997

Tropical/
Subtropical

7.0

0.3

13.7

5

Same emission factor as tropical Cropland

Peat Extraction

Boreal andTemperate

6.1

1.6

11

15

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

Settlements

All climate
zones

There is no fixed default emission/removal factor for Settlements. For this category, it is good practice to take the default emission/removal factor
from Table 2.3 of the land-use category that is closest to national conditions of drained organic soils under Settlements. Information about
national conditions could include drainage level, vegetation cover or other management activities. For example, drained organic soils in urban
green areas, parks or gardens could use the default Tier 1 emission/removal factor for Grassland, deep-drained given in Table 2.3.

Other LandAll climate
zones

Other Land Remaining Other Land: 0
Land Converted to Other Land: maintain emission factor for previous land-use category

Grassland

2.26

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

a

Mean

b

Some confidence intervals contain negative values. This indicates that, while the mean emission factor is zero or a net CH 4 emission, a net CH4 uptake has been observed in some studies.

c

Shrubland refers to any type of land sparsely or fully covered with shrubs or trees that may fulfil the national forest definition. It extends to degraded lands that cannot be clearly classified as forest or non-forest.

d

Number derived solely from acacia plantation data.

e

The default value applies to countries without data on the flooding regime for rice on organic soils. Countries with data on the flooding regime for rice on organic soils may continue to use the methodologies andemission factors provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.27

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Plantations can be defined as Forest Land or Cropland or any other land-use category, according to national
definitions. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national land-use category according tonational land-use definitions.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Tier 1
It is good practice to use the same activity data for estimating CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions from drainedorganic soils. Information on obtaining these data is provided in Section 2.2.1 above. For countries in boreal andtemperate regions using the Tier 1 method, if available information does not allow stratification by nutrient
status of organic soils, countries may rely on guidance given in Section 2.2.1.1.
Activity data required to estimate CH4 emissions from drainage ditches at Tier 1 consist of areas of drainedorganic soils disaggregated by land-use category (Forest Land, Grassland, Cropland and Wetlands used for peat
extraction) as shown in Table 2.4. Fractional ditch areas recorded in published studies are given for individualsites in Table 2A.1 and these data have been used to provide indicative Fracditch values by land-use class inTable 2.4. However, it should be noted that these proportions are likely to vary between countries and it istherefore good practice to derive country-specific activity data on fractional ditch areas wherever possible, toreflect local land-use practices. This fractional ditch area may depend on the topographic situation and onorganic soil properties rather than on land use alone. Fractional ditch area can be calculated from spatially
explicit information about ditch and canal networks. From these the length and width of ditches can be derived,or alternatively ditch spacing and ditch width on organic soils, giving the ditch area on organic soils. Thisgeometrical information is converted to fractional ditch area by dividing the ditch area on organic soils by thearea of drained organic soils.

Tiers 2 and 3
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.
Activity data for higher tier methods may be spatially explicit and consist of areas of drained organic soils
managed for different forest types, peat extraction, production systems, horticulture and plantations,disaggregated according to the nutrient status of the organic soil if relevant. More sophisticated estimation
methodologies will require the determination of areas in different phases of land uses with longer-term rhythms
such as age-classes in Forest Land or in a peat extraction operation, where on abandoned areas drainage or theeffects of former peat extraction are still present. Land-use intensity, particularly fertiliser and organic matter
addition, may be used to refine CH4 emission estimates for Grassland and Cropland, as emissions are likely tochange under more intensive management systems.
To estimate CH4 emissions from drainage ditches, additional activity data are required on fractional ditch area
within each land-use category. Country-specific values of fractional ditch areas are used to reflect drainage
methodologies such as typical ditch spacing, depth, width and length, maintenance (such as vegetation clearance)and land-use practices. Fractional ditch area can be stratified by type of organic soil or topographic situation,peat/soil properties, and land use.
Activity data for CH4 emissions from drainage ditches could incorporate additional information on water tablelevel and variability (such as seasonal water management regime), flow rates, in-ditch vegetation and land-use
factors affecting substrate supply for methanogenesis, such as livestock density and fertiliser application in
intensive Grassland and Cropland. Incorporating seasonal and short-term controls on emissions would require
additional activity data on the nature and timing of agricultural activities (such as organic matter additions) andon hydrological parameters.

CALCULATION STEPS FO R TIER 1
The steps for estimating CH4 emissions from drained organic soils are as follows:
Step 1: Determine areas with drained organic soils under each land-use category for lands remaining in a landuse category, disaggregated by climate domain and other appropriate factors as outlined above and consistent
with estimates of on-site CO2 emissions from drained organic soils. Where needed for Tier 1 emission factors,
land areas are further stratified into nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils. Temperate nutrient-rich
Grassland is further stratified into shallow-drained and deep-drained classes.
Step 2: Assign the appropriate value for the fraction of areas covered by ditches using national statistics. If
statistics are not available, values given in Table 2.4 provide appropriate defaults.

2.28

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Step 3: Assign the appropriate emission factor values (EFCH4_land and EFCH4_ditch) from Tables 2.3 and 2.4,
respectively.
Step 4: Multiply each area by the appropriate emission factor using Equation 2.6 and sum across land-use
categories.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.29

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.4
DEFAULT CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINAGE DITCHES
Climatezone

Land use

DrainedForestLand
DrainedWetlandsb

Boreal /Temperate

Shallowdrained
Grassland

Deepdrained
Grassland
Croplandc

Peat
Extraction

Tropicala

All landuses
involvingdrainage

EFCH4_ditch(kg CH4 ha-1
yr-1)

217

527

1165

542

2259

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

41–393285–769

335–1995

102–981599–3919d

No.
of
sites

11

5

6

6

2

Fracditch(indicativevaluese)Citations0.025

Cooper & Evans, 2013;
Glagolev et al., 2008;
Minkkinen & Laine,2006 (two study areas);
Roulet & Moore, 1995
(three study areas); Sirin
et al., 2012 (three study
areas); von Arnold etal., 2005b0.05

Best & Jacobs, 1997;
Hendriks et al., 2007,2010; McNamara, 2013;
van den Pol-van
Dasselaar et al., 1999a;
Vermaat et al., 20110.05

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

0.05

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

0.02

Jauhiainen &Silvennoinen, 2012(drained and abandoned,
and pulpwood
plantations)

Values represent 95% confidence intervals unless otherwise statedb

Ditch CH4 emissions from Wetlands subject to drainage but no other land-use modifications are assumed to be equivalent to those fromorganic soils drained for forestry.
c

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

d

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

Indicative values for Fracditch within each class are derived from the mean of studies reporting CH 4 emission values for this class. Note thatstudies from The Netherlands were not included in this calculation, because they are characterised by much higher fractional ditch areas (0.1–0.25) that are not typical of drained organic soils in other countries.

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

2.30

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

category, the uncertainty range is provided by the lower (abandoned) and higher (pulpwood plantations)emission values recorded.
The final calculation of CH4_organic is also sensitive to uncertainties in activity data, and in particular to data used
to estimate the proportion of the land area that is occupied by drainage ditches, Fracditch. Many countries lacksuch data and although activity data should be country-specific, even for Tier 1, indicative values from Table
2A.1 can be used at the discretion of the inventory compiler. Uncertainty assessments should therefore also takeaccount of this source of uncertainty in calculating total CH4 emissions from drained organic soils.

2.2.2.2

N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM DRAIN ED INLA ND ORGANIC SOILSN2O emissions from soils are produced by the microbiological processes of nitrification and denitrification (toN2O or N2) (Firestone & Davidson, 1989; Davidson, 1991). These processes are controlled by several factors,
including water-filled pore space (Davidson, 1991; Aulakh & Bijay-Singh, 1997; Dobbie et al., 1999; Ruser etal., 2001), temperature (Keeney et al., 1979; Kroon et al., 2010), and concentration of mineral nitrogen (Ryden& Lund, 1980; Firestone & Davidson, 1989; Bremner, 1997).
Drained organic soils emit significant amounts of N2O, whereas emissions from wet organic soils are close tozero (Kasimir-Klemedtsson et al., 1997; Flessa et al., 1998; Couwenberg et al., 2011). A main reason forincreased N2O emissions is nitrogen mineralisation associated with organic matter decomposition in drainedorganic soils (Höper, 2002). Emissions from this N mineralisation will be dealt with here. Other sources ofanthropogenic N in organic soils include nitrogen fertiliser, application of crop residues and organic amendments.
These emissions from other N sources are dealt with in Chapter 11, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andin all earlier guidance.
Most of the published data on N2O fluxes from drained organic soils refer to boreal and temperate ecosystems
and these data served as the basis for the emission factors given in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. With new studies
published since 2005, there are enough data to derive separate N2O emission factors for Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland and Peatlands under Peat Extraction in boreal and temperate zones. These new values replace thevalues given in Table 7.6, Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
There are still only limited data available for drained tropical organic soils. However, the studies that have been
published over the past decade provide enough data to develop Tier 1 emission factors for the first time.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Tier 1This section presents the equation for estimating direct emissions of N2O due to drainage of organic soils. The
revisions presented here, as shown in Equation 2.7, are applicable to Equation 11.1 presented in Chapter 11,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This Equation is used to estimate N2O for specific land-use categories,
but there are not enough data available to develop coefficients to modify emission factors by condition-specificvariables (e.g. variations in drainage depths). Equations 11.1 and 11.2 have been modified to include variables
for the boreal climate zone as well by adding terms FOS, CG Bor NR, FOS, CG, Bor NP, FOS, F, Bor, NR and FOS, F Bor NP (thesubscripts CG, F, Bor, NR and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest Land, Boreal, Nutrient-Rich andNutrient-Poor, respectively) and their respective emission factors.
Direct N2O emissions from managed soils are estimated using Equation 11.1 in Chapter 11, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. This Equation has three segments: one for emissions associated with N inputs, one fororganic soils and one for urine and dung inputs during grazing. In this section, updates are provided for thesecond segment focusing on organic soils as follows:

EQUATION 2.7
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED/DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS



 



FOS ,CG,Bor  EF2CG,Bor   FOS ,CG,Temp  EF2CG,Temp  FOS ,CG,Trop  EF2CG,Trop  N 2O  N OS  FOS ,F ,Bor , NR  EF2 F ,Bor , NR   FOS ,F ,Temp , NR  EF2 F ,Temp , NR  FOS ,F ,Bor,NP  EF2F ,Bor,NP   FOS ,F ,Temp,NP  EF2F ,Temp,NP  FOS ,F ,Trop  EF2F ,Trop 





 



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

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.31

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

FOS= 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)

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

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

Tier 3Tier 3 approaches can attribute N2O emissions from drained organic soils separately to the mineralisation of peator organic matter versus N input by fertiliser, crop residues and organic amendments. Attribution could rely on
the fraction of N2O released by N2O emissions peaks after N fertilisation, or by subtracting a fertiliser emission
factor from total N2O emissions. Nitrogen mineralisation from the drained organic soil can be estimated by CO2C emissions from the drained organic soil and the C/N ratio of the topsoil; this value could be used to predict
N2O emissions.
Tier 3 methods are based on modelling or measurement approaches. Models can simulate the relationshipbetween the soil and environmental variables that control the variation in N 2O emissions and the size of thoseemissions (Stehfest & Bouwman, 2006; Kroon et al., 2010; Dechow & Freibauer, 2011). These models can beused at larger scales where measurements are impractical. Models should only be used after validation against
representative measurements that capture the variability of land use, management practices and climate present
in the inventory (IPCC, 2010).

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS
Tier 1
Emission fa ctors for drained organi c soils

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide emission factors that were partly disaggregated for land-use types or climatic
zones (Table 11.1, Chapter 11, Volume 4). The increased availability of scientific data allows for an improved
choice of default emission factors (Table 2.5). Nutrient-poor and nutrient-rich organic soils drained for forestry
have different N2O emissions. Cropland and Grassland are established on nutrient-rich organic soil or are
amended for better nutrient availability and are here considered to be nutrient-rich. Peat extraction occurs bothon nutrient-poor (bogs) and on nutrient-rich (fens) peatlands. It is common for the residual bottom peat layers ofpeat extraction sites to consist of minerogenous but recalcitrant nutrient-rich peat. There are not enough data
available to disaggregate peat extraction areas by peat types.
Default emission factors were derived from the mean of all data within each land-use class, typically fromchamber measurements. Uncertainty ranges were calculated as 95% confidence intervals. References are given
in Table 2.5.

2.32

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.5
TIER 1 DIRECT N2O EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES a
Land-use category

Climate /vegetation
zone

Emission factor-1

95% confidence interval-1(kg N2O-N ha yr )No. ofsites

Citations/comments

Nutrientpoor

Boreal

0.22

0.15

0.28

43

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

Nutrientrich

Boreal

3.2

1.9

4.5

75

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

Forest Land, drained

Temperate

2.8

-0.57

6.1

13

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

Forest Land and cleared
Forest Land(shrublandb), drained

Tropical/
Subtropical

2.4

1.3

3.5

10

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

Plantation: oil palm

Tropical/
Subtropical

1.2

n.a.

n.a.

1

Melling et al., 2007b

Plantation: sago palm

Tropical/
Subtropical

3.3

n.a.

n.a.

1

Melling et al., 2007b

Boreal andTemperate

13

8.2

18

36

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

Tropical/
Subtropical

5.0

2.3

7.7

8

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

Rice

Tropical/
Subtropical

0.4

-0.1

0.8

6

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

Grassland, drained

Boreal

9.5

4.6

14

16

Grønlund et al., 2006; Hyvönen et al., 2009; Jaakkola, 1985; Maljanen et al.,2001b, 2003a, 2004, 2009, 2010b; Nykänen et al., 1995; Regina et al., 1996,
2004

Grassland, drained,
nutrient-poor

Temperate

4.3

1.9

6.8

7

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

ForestLand,drained

Cropland, drained
Cropland except rice2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.33

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.5 (CONTINUED)TIER 1 DIRECT N2O EMISSION/REMOVAL FACTORS FOR DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS IN ALL LAND-USE CATEGORIES a
Land-use category

Climate /vegetation
zone

Emission factor-1

95% confidence interval-1(kg N2O-N ha yr )No. of
Sites

Citations/comments

Grassland, deepdrained, nutrient-richTemperate

8.2

4.9

11

47

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

Grassland, shallowdrained, nutrient-richTemperate

1.6

0.56

2.7

13

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

Grassland

Tropical/
Subtropical

5.0

2.3

7.7

8

The emission factor for tropical Cropland can be used

Peatland Managed forExtraction

Boreal andTemperate

0.30

-0.03

0.64

4

Hyvönen et al., 2009; Nykänen et al., 1996; Regina et al., 1996

Peatlands Managed forExtraction

Tropical/
Subtropical

3.6

Settlements

All climate
zones

There is no fixed default emission/removal factor for Settlements. For this category, it is good practice to take the default emission/removal factor
from Table 2.5 of the land-use category that is closest to national conditions of drained organic soils under Settlements. Information about national
conditions could include drainage level, vegetation cover or other management activities. For example, drained organic soils in urban green areas,parks or gardens could use the default Tier 1 emission/removal factor for Grassland, deep-drained given in Table 2.5.

Other Lands

All climate
zones

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

0.2–5.0

Emission factors from Table 7.6 of Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines can be used.

a

Mean

b

Shrubland refers to any type of land sparsely or fully covered with shrubs or trees that may fulfil the national forest definition. It extends to degraded lands that cannot be clearly classified as forest or non-forest.

2.34

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Plantations can be defined as Forest Land or Cropland. The attribution to Cropland made in this table is notbinding. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national land-use category according tonational land-use definitions.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, emission factors were provided for EF2CG, Trop and EF2F, Trop, based on the
expectation that net mineralisation was twice as high in tropical soils as in temperate soils. Research in tropicalsoils suggests that net mineralisation 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, 2006; Ishizuka et al., 2005). It also
needs to be highlighted that all measurements of N2O emissions on tropical organic soils to date are fromSoutheast Asia and from a very limited number of studies. Nonetheless these emission factors are to be used for
all tropical ecosystems until better data become available.

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

Tier 3Tier 3 emission factors or relations are based on country-specific emission data and models calibrated for
management practices such as: 1) drainage intensity; 2) crop, livestock or forest type; 3) fertiliser or organic
matter additions; 4) peat extraction technology; and 5) the phases of peat extraction or other relevant factors forN2O emissions.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on drained organic soils stratified bymajor land-use types, management practices and disturbance regimes. Total areas should be determinedaccording to the Approaches laid out in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and should beconsistent with those reported under other sections of the inventory. Stratification of land-use categories
according to climate regions, based on default or country-specific classifications, can be accomplished withoverlays of land use on suitable climate and soil maps.

Tier 1
It is good practice to use activity data for N2O emissions consistent with activity data for CO2 and CH4
emissions from soils. Guidance for activity data is given in the respective sections in this Chapter.

Tiers 2 and 3
Activity data required for higher tier methods are likely to include more detailed information on land use, inparticular land-use intensity within Grassland and Cropland classes. Further stratification may be necessary forother classes if sufficient data become available to estimate emission factors, e.g. for cleared peat swamp forest,
oil palm or pulpwood plantations in tropical peat areas.
Activity data for higher tier methods may be spatially explicit and consist of areas of drained organic soils under
different forest types, peat extraction, cultivation systems, horticulture and plantations, disaggregated according
to nutrient status of the organic soil if relevant, and annual peat production data. More sophisticated estimation
methodologies will require the determination of areas in different phases of land uses with longer-term rhythms
such as age-classes in Forest Land or in a peat extraction cycle, where on abandoned areas drainage or the effects
of former peat extraction are still present.

CALCULATION STEPS FO R TIER 1
The steps for estimating N2O emissions on drained organic soils are as follows:
Step 1: Determine areas with drained organic soils under each land-use category for lands remaining in a landuse category, disaggregated by climate domain and other appropriate factors as outlined above. Where needed
for Tier 1 emission factors, land areas are further stratified into nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor organic soils.
Temperate nutrient-rich Grassland is further stratified into shallow-drained and deep-drained classes.
Step 2: Assign the appropriate values for EF2 from Table 2.5 for each land-use category, climate domain,
nutrient status, and drainage class stratum.
Step 3: Multiply activity data by the emission factor for each land-use category according to Equation 2.7.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.35

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
Uncertainties in estimates of direct N2O emissions from drained organic soils are caused by uncertainties related
to emission factors (see Table 2.5 for uncertainty ranges), inter-annual variability associated with temperatureand precipitation, activity data, lack of coverage of measurements, spatial aggregation and lack of information on
specific on-farm practices.
Additional uncertainty will be introduced in an inventory when emission factors are derived from measurementsthat are not representative of the variation of conditions in a country. Because of very high spatial variability ofN2O emissions from soils, most estimates have large standard errors relative to the mean flux. In general, theuncertainty of activity data will be lower than that of the emission factors. Additionally, uncertainties may becaused by missing information on variation in drainage levels, and changing management practices in farming. It
is generally difficult to obtain information on the actual drainage levels and possible emission reductions
achieved, as well as on farming practices. For more detailed guidance on uncertainty assessment, refer to
Chapter 3, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2.2.2.3

CO 2 AND NON -CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM FIRES ON DRAINEDINLAND ORGANIC SOILS

Fires can be a large and variable source of greenhouse gases and significantly affect other feedbacks within the
climate system. When compared to combustion of above-ground vegetation, emissions from both uncontrolled
wildfires and managed (prescribed) fires in organic (peat) soils are high. On organic soils, fires comprise both
surface fires that consume vegetation, litter and duff, and ground fires that burn into and below the surface.
Ground fires consume soil organic matter and dead-wood mass as a fuel source. These are smouldering fires thatmay persist for long periods of time, burn repeatedly in response to changing soil moisture and surfacehydrology, and penetrate to different depths. This section addresses emissions arising from combustion of soilorganic material. Although the focus of guidance in this Chapter is on drained organic soils, the guidance inSection 2.2.2.3 could also be used to calculate emissions from fires on managed land with undrained andrewetted organic soils (Chapter 3 of this Wetlands Supplement).
In any ecosystem, fire activity is strongly influenced by several factors, namely weather/climate, fuel availability,
drainage and ignition agents, including human activities (Johnson, 1992; Swetnam, 1993). In ecosystems withorganic soils, conditions such as organic soil depth and density, soil moisture, vegetation composition and soil
surface micro-topography (e.g. Benscoter & Wieder, 2003) along with fire characteristics, such as intensity,
frequency and duration (Kasischke et al., 1995), which are affected by fire management practices, influence thequantity of organic matter consumed and hence emissions of greenhouse gases (Kuhry, 1994; Kasischke et al.,
1995; Kasischke & Bruhwiler, 2003).
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines cover emissions from burning of above-ground carbon stocks (biomass and deadorganic matter) but do not cover the often substantial release of emissions from combustion of organic soils. It isgood practice to report greenhouse gas emissions from fires on all managed lands with organic soils, including
all fire-related emissions both from natural fires and from those that have a human-induced cause (e.g. soil
drainage) even if the initiation of the fire is non-anthropogenic in nature (e.g. lightning strike).
This Chapter updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by:

providing default methodologies and emission factors for CO2, CH4 and CO emissions from fires on organicsoils; andproviding generic guidance for higher tier methods to estimate these fluxes.

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

CHOICE OF METHOD
CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from burning of drained organic soils can either be directly measured or estimatedusing data on the area burnt along with default values for mass of fuel consumed and emission factors provided
in this Chapter. Previous IPCC Guidelines noted that emissions from wildfires on managed (and unmanaged)
land can exhibit large inter-annual variations that may be driven either by natural causes (e.g. climate cycles,
random variation in lightning ignitions), or by indirect and direct human causes (e.g. prescribed burning,historical fire suppression and past forest harvest activities) or by a combination of all three causes, the effects ofwhich cannot be readily separated. This variability is also true for emissions from fires on organic soils thatcritically depend on extent and depth of organic soil, fuel moisture, water table depth and hence thickness of the

2.36

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

drained layer, and resulting depth of consumed organics, all of which are affected by site characteristics, weather,land management, fire type and climate. At Tier 1, differentiation by land-management category and fire type ispossible, but reporting at higher tiers will enable a greater level of differentiation between land use, sitecharacteristics and fire types.
The parameters required to calculate the CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from burning organic soils are area burnt,
mass of fuel available for consumption, combustion factor (also known as burning efficiency and can be used tocharacterise smouldering vs. flaming fires), and emission factor. Compared with vegetation fires, theuncertainties involved in estimating emissions from fires on organic soils are much higher because organic soils
can burn repeatedly and to different depths. Furthermore, the type and density of the soil organic material
combined with the combustion efficiency will determine the nature of gases and other compounds emitted.
The mass of fuel that can potentially burn in a fire event on organic soils will be determined by measuring thedepth of burn, along with soil bulk density and carbon content; the former is strongly controlled by soil watercontent (influenced by position of the water table or permafrost depth) while the latter variables are ideallymeasured in the field. While default values can be used for Tier 1 reporting, data on the depth of burn and soil
carbon density need to be determined in the case of higher tiers. The combustion factor describes how much of
the fuel mass available is actually consumed during a fire event, i.e. converted into CO2 or non-CO2 gases. The
emission factor (Gef) determines the mass of CO2 or non-CO2 gas emitted per unit mass of fuel consumed by thefire (e.g. g CO2/kg dry fuel). Total emissions of CO2 or non-CO2 gases are calculated from the product of area
burnt and the corresponding biomass loading, combustion factor and emission factor.
EQUATION 2.8
ANNUAL CO2-C AND NON-CO2 EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC SOIL FIRE

L fire  A  M B  C f  Gef  103
Where:
L= amount of CO2 or non-CO2 emissions, e.g. CH4 from fire, tonnesA= total area burnt annually, hafire

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

in Table 2.6; units differ by gas species)

Cf = combustion factor, dimensionless
Gef = emission factor for each gas, g kg-1 dry matter burnt (default values in Table 2.7)
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (the product of
MB and Cf) can be used under Tier 1 methodology (Table 2.6). The value 10-3 converts Lfire to tonnes.
The amount of fuel that can be burnt is given by the area burnt annually and the mass of fuel available in that
area.
Default values for the Tier 1 method or components of a Tier 2 method are provided in Tables 2.6 and 2.7. For
higher tiers, data on the variation in the mass of fuel available (based on site- or region-specific data, includingarea of organic soil burnt, depth of organic soil, depth of burn and/or depth of water table/soil moisture content
values and soil bulk density) are incorporated.
Figure 2.2 presents a decision tree that guides the selection of the appropriate tier level to report CO2 and nonCO2 emissions from the burning of organic soils.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.37

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Figure 2.2

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

Start

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

Yes

Use detailed data on fires on organic soils forTier 3 methods .
Box 3: Tier 3

No

Are country-specific activity data and emission factors
available ?

Yes

Use country-specific activity data and emission
factors for Tier 2 method.
Box 2: Tier 2No

Is prescribed fire , agricultural fire or wildfire a key
category 1?

No

Are aggregate data on burning of organicsoils available ?

No

Yes

Yes
Collect data for Tier 3 or Tier 2 methods.

Gather data on burning .

Use aggregate data and default emission factors
for Tier 1 method.
Box 1: Tier 1

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

2.38

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Tier 1Countries may choose to report CO2 emissions using the Tier 1 method if fires on organic soils are not a key
category. This approach is based on highly aggregated data and default factors. It does, however, require primarydata on the area burnt.
If burning in ecosystems with organic soils is a key category, countries are encouraged to report emissions byapplying the highest tier possible, given national circumstances. For prescribed fires, country-specific data will
be required to generate reliable estimates of emissions.
At Tier 1, it is assumed that there is either no or very little combustive loss of soil organic matter during
prescribed fires on organic soils.

Tiers 2 and 3
The Tier 1 method is refined by incorporating more disaggregated area estimates (per organic soil and fire typesub-categories) and country-specific estimates of combustion and emission factors into Equation 2.8. Tier 2 uses
the same procedural steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1. Potential improvements to the Tier 1 approach
may include:

knowledge of the amount of soil organic matter consumed;the position of the soil water table relative to the surface;

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

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

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

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS
Tier 1The Tier 1 method uses default values for MB, Cf and Gef along with default emission factors provided in Tables
2.6 and 2.7. Gas species in Table 2.7 are given as CO2-C, CO and CH4.
Due to limited data available in the scientific literature, organic soils have been very broadly stratified according
to climate domain (boreal/temperate and tropical) and fire type (wild vs. prescribed). Values are derived from theliterature for all categories with the exception of prescribed fires.
For all organic soil fires, the default combustion factor is 1.0, since the assumption is that all fuel is combusted(Yokelson et al., 1997).

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.39

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.6
ORGANIC SOIL FUEL CONSUMPTION VALUES(MASS OF DRY MATTER FOR A RANGE OF ORGANIC SOIL AND FIRE TYPES, TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EQUATION 2.8,
TO ESTIMATE THE PRODUCT OF QUANTITIES MB AND CF )Climate/vegetationzone

Sub-category

Boreal/temperate

Wildfire (undrained
peat)

66

Wildfire(drained peat)

336

4a

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

No literature foundWildfire (undrained
peat)

-

-

No literature foundWildfire(drained peat)

353

170

536

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

Prescribed fire(agricultural land
management)b

155

82

228

Saharjo & Munoz, 2005; Saharjo &Nurhayati, 2005

TropicalaStandard errorb

The consumption value excludes crop residues.

Mean(t d.m. ha-1)

95%
confidence
interval(t d.m. ha-1)

Citations46

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

86

Note: Where fuel consumption values have been reported as t C ha -1, default values for organic soil bulk density (0.1 g cm-3)c and carbon
density (50% mass dry weight)d have been applied to derive a value for mass of fuel (t ha -1) (following Akagi et al., 2011). At higher tierlevels, country- or ecosystem-specific values for both these variables are used.
c

The value for surface organic soil bulk density is an average derived from Gorham (1991), who provides a default value of 0.112 g cm-3 for
all northern peatlands and Page et al. (2011), who provide a default value of 0.09 g cm-3 for all tropical peats.
d

The value for surface organic soil carbon content is an average derived from the typical average for eutrophic peat of 48% and the typical
average for oligotrophic peat of 52% (after Lucas (1982), Immirzi et al. (1992) as reported in Charman (2002)).

2.40

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

CO2-C

CO

CH4

Citations

Boreal/temperate

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

464

210

21

Christian et al., 2003

Tropical
1.

2.

These values have been derived from a very limited number of studies. The EF values for boreal/temperate fires are arithmetic
means of the two values reported by Yokelson et al. (1997) for Alaska and Minnesota organic soils (carbon content 49% for
Minnesota; n.d. for Alaska), of the minimum and maximum values reported by Ward and Hardy (1984) (no carbon contents
reported) and of the single value reported by Yokelson et al. (2013) for Alaskan organic soil (carbon content 42%). Surface(flaming) and deep (smouldering) organic soil fires produce a complex mixture of gases and fine particles, the nature of which
will reflect vegetation type, fire behaviour, soil physical and chemical characteristics as well as combustion conditions (inparticular combustion efficiency) (Itkonen & Jantunen, 1986; NCDENR, 1998). The combustion of organic material leads to aloss of carbon; most of this is in the form of CO 2, but quantities of CO, CH4, long-chain hydrocarbons and carbon particulatematter are also emitted. Other greenhouse gases along with ozone precursors (NO x), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) andpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also released (Ramadan et al., 2000; Gebhart et al., 2001; Honrath et al., 2004; Val
Martin et al., 2006; Lapina et al., 2008; Akagi et al., 2011). Emission factors for N2O and NOx are not provided at Tier 1.
There are very limited data for N2O and NOx emissions from organic soil fires and it should be noted that N2O can be producedin canisters during sample storage (e.g. Cofer et al., 1990). At higher tiers, N2O and NOx can either be measured directly or
could be calculated using published emission ratios for organic soil fires (e.g. Christian et al., 2003; Hamada et al., 2013).
The composition of organic soil fire emissions differs substantially from forest fires on mineral soils; in part, this is a functionof the fact that organic soil fires are dominated by smouldering rather than flaming combustion owing to the moist and often
oxygen-limiting substrate conditions. Fire temperatures also differ: the typical peak temperature of smouldering organic soil
fires is in the range 500–700C, while for flaming fires it can be 1000–1500C (Usup et al., 2004; Rein et al., 2008). The lower
temperatures and smouldering combustion associated with organic soil fires make them harder to detect by satellites and leadto the emission of high amounts of CO relative to CO 2 as well as large amounts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5); fires on
tropical organic soils, for example, emit as much as three to six times more particulate matter per amount of biomass consumed
than other types of biomass fires (grassland, forest, plantation fires) (Heil et al., 2006). The emission ratio of CO to CO 2
(ERCO/CO2) can be used as an indicator of the relative amount of flaming versus smouldering combustion during bi omassburning with higher ERCO/CO2 observed in smouldering fires (Cofer et al., 1989, 1990; Christian et al., 2007; Yokelson et al.,2007).

Tiers 2 and 3
At higher tiers, the approach for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from fires on organic soils incorporates
country-specific information into Equation 2.8. When deriving higher tier emission factors, country-specificcombustion factors need to be developed. Regional factors for stratification could include:

stratification by drainage class - position of the soil water table is a proxy for soil moisture, which
determines depth of burn;

stratification by depth of burn - this can be measured in the field post-fire (e.g. Turetsky & Wieder, 2001;
Page et al., 2002; Turetsky et al., 2011a) or using remote sensing approaches (e.g. LiDAR) (Ballhorn et al.,2009);



stratification by fire type (wild vs. prescribed fires) - GIS techniques of interpolation may be helpful in thisanalysis; under Tier 3, one might consider annual sampling of a number of control sites;

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

use of regionally specific values for organic soil bulk density and carbon concentration; andstratification by land-use and management types, including differences in drainage layout and intensity,land-use intensity and practices, all of which will influence the mass of fuel available for combustion.

Emission factors can be derived from measurements (field or laboratory-based) or calculations validated against
country-specific measurements. The literature on emissions from fires on organic soils is very sparse andcountries are encouraged to share data when organic soil quality, environmental conditions, and land-use
practices are similar.
A higher tier approach might also use process-based models, adequately validated using observation data thattake into account temporal and spatial variations in the differences between fires on different types of organicsoils and conditions and fuel combustion efficiencies. This approach will involve a comprehensive mechanistic
understanding of combustion of organic soils, including the effects of site characteristics, drainage intensity,
vegetation cover, soil type and depth, management practices, depth of water table and soil moisture, among
others. Higher tier approaches could start by developing robust relationships between drainage and depth of burn,2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.41

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

which could then be further refined by land-management category. Models ideally also take into account the fire
return interval. Fire changes organic soil chemical and physical characteristics (Yefremova & Yefremov, 1996;
Zoltai et al., 1998; Milner et al., forthcoming) as well as the rate and nature of post-fire vegetation recovery, andthus can alter total net ecosystem productivity.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA
Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category with organic soils stratified by climatezone and fire type. Total areas should be determined according to the Approaches laid out in Chapter 3, Volume
4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and should be consistent with those reported under other sections of theinventory. The assessment of fire-driven changes in soil carbon will be greatly facilitated if this information canbe used in conjunction with national soils and climate data, vegetation inventories, maps of burnt area, and otherbiophysical data. Stratification of land-use categories according to climate zones, based on default or countryspecific classifications, can be accomplished with overlays of land use on suitable climate and soil maps.

Tier 1The Tier 1 method requires data on burnt area of organic soils stratified by climate domain and fire type (wild vs.
prescribed). Data on burnt area can be obtained from ground-based inventories, which can be very valuable inareas of small fire. Some countries/regions may have an established fire inventory method in place, which they
are encouraged to maintain rather than go with less comprehensive satellite methods. For larger and/or lessaccessible locations, burnt area data are often obtained from a time series of images from remote sensors. Incountry burnt area maps should ideally be mapped at Landsat TM scale (30–50 m resolution). If data notavailable at this resolution, 250 m and even 1 km data can be used. Box 2.1 provides more details on the remotesensing platforms currently used for obtaining burnt area data. Other methods, such as national statistics andforest inventory fire data, can also produce suitable information in some cases, but may not be as reliable or ascomprehensive as remotely sensed data. Caution is advised regarding the detection of thermal anomalies using
datasets derived from satellite data. Although this provides a reasonable indicator of the presence of a fire, burnt
area parameters required in the emission estimate equations cannot reliably be derived.

BOX 2.1
RECENT ADVANCES IN SATELLITE-DERIVED FIRE PRODUCTS

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

2.42

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home; http://www.isric.org/). A global consortium has been formed
to make a new fine resolution digital soil map of the world (http://www.globalsoilmap.net/).

Tiers 2 and 3
Higher tier methods require more disaggregated and spatially explicit activity data than lower tiers. This includes
disaggregation according to drainage class, vegetation type and condition (the latter refers to moisture, leaf
on/off, and other factors), drainage depth, and land-management status to improve Tier 1 estimates. It may also
take into account such variables as seasonal norms and modifications in water table level due to seasonal weather
patterns, etc. Data on depth of burn (obtained from in situ field measurements), along with country-specific dataon organic soil bulk density and carbon content, will also greatly improve knowledge of the mass of fuelconsumed and the scale of carbon emissions. Seasonal variations in fire-driven emissions are then aggregated toannual emissions.
The accuracy of emission estimates will be further improved if information is available on land use and its effecton organic soil condition, since fire extent and severity and hence quantity of emissions increase according to thescale of disturbance (e.g. disturbance of vegetation cover and the presence of drainage structures associated with
agriculture, forestry, peat extraction, oil and gas extraction, roads etc. (e.g. Turetsky et al., 2011a, b)). Remotesensing techniques (e.g. Kasischke et al., 2009) can also be used to provide an indication of likely fire risk by
estimating soil water conditions and providing an accurate proxy measure of organic soil surface water content
levels and hence likely depth of burn at a landscape scale.

CALCULATION STEPS FO R TIER 1
The steps for estimating CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from fires on drained organic soils for land remaining in aland-use category are as follows:
Step 1: Using guidance in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, stratify areas with drained organicsoils of land remaining in a land-use category for each land-use category according to climate domain and fire
type. Obtain estimates of A (area burnt) from national sources or, if not available, from global databases.
Step 2: Assign the appropriate fuel consumption value from Table 2.6 (Mb*Cf with Cf=1) and emission factor(Gef) from Tables 2.6 and 2.7 for the gas.
Step 3: Estimate CO2 or non-CO2 emissions by multiplying the burnt area by the appropriate fuel load (MB) andemission factor (Gef) from Tables 2.6 and 2.7 using Equation 2.8.
Step 4: Repeat step 3 for each greenhouse gas using emission factors (Gef) in Table 2.7.

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

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.43

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

2.3

LAND CONVERTED TO A NEW LAND-USE
CATEGORY

2.3.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils

CO2 emissions/removals from land converted to another land-use category on drained organic soils arecalculated in the same way as CO2 emissions/removals from land remaining in a land-use category. 1 CO2emissions/removals for the lands in the conversion category are calculated using Equations 2.1 and 2.2.
On-site CO2 emissions after land-use change on drained organic soils can occur from all five carbon pools.
Land-use change can result in direct losses/gains because of biomass clearance/(re)planting. This is addressed by
guidance for changes in the carbon pools in above-ground and below-ground biomass and dead organic matteron lands converted to another land-use category provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Land-use change can indirectly affect carbon gains and losses because of altered growth of woody biomass andaltered respiration and organic matter oxidation through altered soil temperature. These effects are included in
the guidance for lands remaining in a land-use category provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for above-groundand below-ground biomass and dead organic matter and updated emission factors in Table 2.1 in Section 2.2.1.1.
Additional carbon losses from biomass and soil can occur through altered fire frequency after drainage and landuse change. These CO2 emissions from fire are addressed in Section 2.3.2.3.

2.3.1.1

O N - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS / REMOVALS FRO M DRAINEDINLAND ORGANIC SOILS (CO 2 -C O N - S I T E )CHOICE OF METHOD
Tier 1CO2 emissions/removals from land converted to another land-use category on drained organic soils within theinventory time period are calculated in the same way as CO2 emissions/removals from land remaining in a landuse category. CO2 emissions/removals for lands in the conversion category are calculated using Equation 2.3 ifsoils are drained. Specific guidance for other land-use categories is given in Chapters 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.
At Tier 1, there is no transition period for CO2 emissions from drained organic soils because the land
immediately switches to the methods for the new land-use category. High carbon loss from drained organic soils
can occur after natural vegetation is converted to another land use, e.g. after converting tropical Forest Land topalm plantations, or converting Grassland to Cropland, and in particular, immediately after initial drainage oforganic soils (Stephens et al., 1984; Wösten et al., 1997; Hooijer et al., 2012). These CO2-Con-site emissions in thetransition phase are not captured by the Tier 1 default emission factors shown in Table 2.1, which were derived
from data representing long-term land uses present for decades in the boreal and temperate climate zones, andland uses drained for more than six years in the tropical climate zone. A transitional phase is not captured by Tier
1 methodology due to lack of scientific data for deriving default emission factors. After initial drainage oforganic soils and if a transitional phase occurs, this should be addressed using higher tier methods.

1

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

2.44

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Tier 2
Country-specific Tier 2 emission factors may include CO2 emissions in the transition phase after land
conversion, in particular after initial drainage of organic soils and when land conversion is associated withdeeper drainage.

Tier 3Tier 3 methodologies could further consider the dynamic nature of the additional CO 2-C-on-site emissions in thetransition phase, which may be highest in the first years after the transition.
Additional guidance on Tier 1, 2, and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.1.1.

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

Tier 2
If land conversions on drained organic soils contribute significantly to CO2 emissions from soils and if CO2
emissions from soils are a key category, it is good practice to develop country-specific Tier 2 emission factorsthat include additional CO2-Con-site emissions in the transition phase. Tier 2 emission factors could be stratified bytype of land conversion and by the magnitude of change in water table through drainage. Unless other countryspecific evidence is available, the default length of 20 years can be used for the transition phase.

Tier 3Tier 3 methodologies could develop response functions or models that capture the dynamic nature of additional
CO2-Csoil-onsite emissions in the transition phase.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.1.1.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.1.1.

2.3.1.2

O FF - SITE CO 2 EMISSIONS VIA WATERB ORNE CARBONLOSSES FROM DRAINED INLAN D ORGANIC SOILS (CO 2 -C S O I L ONS ITE )CHOICE OF METHOD
Tier 1
At Tier 1, CO2 emissions/removals from land converted to another land-use category on drained organic soils
within the inventory time period are calculated in the same way as CO 2 emissions/removals from land remaining
in a land-use category. Guidance for DOC is given in Section 2.2.1.2. CO2 emissions/removals for lands in theconversion category are calculated using Equations 2.4 and 2.5.

Tier 2The Tier 2 approach for waterborne carbon losses from drained organic soils incorporates country-specificinformation to estimate emissions. Tier 2 uses the same procedural steps for calculations as provided for Tier 1.
Tier 2 emission factors can be developed following the same principles as for land remaining in a land-use
category. Guidance is given in Section 2.2.1.2. Generally, the same stratification should be used for land
converted to another land-use category as is used for land remaining in a land-use category. Tier 2 approaches
for land-use changes can be further stratified according to the time since land-use change. Specific transition
periods can be considered depending on the type of land-use change and the persistence of emissions or
removals, which differ from those on lands that have been in the new land-use category for a long time.
Alternatively, the default transition period applicable to the new land-use category in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
can be applied.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.45

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Tier 3The development of Tier 3 approaches follows the guidance given in Section 2.2.1.2, including the guidance fortransparent documentation of Tier 3 approaches given in Section 2.2.1.1. Generally, the same approach should
be used for land converted to another land-use category as is used for land remaining in a land-use category. Tier
3 methods should further differentiate transition effects of increased or reduced waterborne carbon losses afterland-use change and time since land-use change.
Additional guidance on Tier 1, 2, and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.1.2.

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACT ORS
CO2 emission/removal factors for lands in the conversion category are the same as for land remaining in a landuse category. For Tier 1, these are given in Table 2.2. Additional guidance on Tier 1, 2, and 3 emission/removal
factors is given in Section 2.2.1.2.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.1.2.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.1.2.

2.3.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained
inland organic soils

2.3.2.1

CH 4 EMISSIONS / REMOVALS FROM DR AINED INLANDORGANIC SOILSCHOICE OF METHOD
CH4 emissions/removals from land converted to another land-use category on drained organic soils within theinventory time period are calculated in the same way as CH4 emissions/removals from land remaining in a landuse category. 2 CH4 emissions/removals for lands in the conversion category are calculated using Equation 2.5.
Additional guidance on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.2.1.

CHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACT ORS
CH4 emission/removal factors for land in the conversion category are the same as for land remaining in a landuse category. For Tier 1, these are given in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. Additional guidance on Tier 1, 2, and 3
emission/removal factors is given in Section 2.2.2.1.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.2.1.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.2.1.

2

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

2.46

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

2.3.2.2

N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM DRAIN ED INLA ND ORGANIC SOILSCHOICE OF METHODN2O emissions from land converted to another land-use category on drained organic soils within the inventory
time period are calculated in the same way as N2O emissions from land remaining in a land-use category. N2Oemissions for lands in the conversion category are calculated using Equation 2.7. Additional guidance on Tier 1,
2, and 3 approaches is given in Section 2.2.2.2.

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

CHOICE OF ACTIVIT Y DATA
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.2.2.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.2.2.

2.3.2.3

N ON -CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM BURNI NG ON DRAINED ORGANICSOILSCHOICE OF EMISSION/REMOVAL FACT ORS
Non-CO2 emission factors for land in the conversion category are the same as for land remaining in a land-use
category. For Tier 1, these are given in Tables 2.6 and 2.7. Additional guidance on Tier 1, 2, and 3
emission/removal factors is given in Section 2.2.2.3.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.2.3.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Guidance is the same as for land remaining in a land-use category, as given in Section 2.2.2.3.

2.4

COMPLETENESS, TIME SERIESCONSISTENCY, QA/QC AND REPORTING AND
DOCUMENTATION

2.4.1

CompletenessComplete greenhouse gas inventories will include estimates of all greenhouse gas emissions and removals on
drained inland organic soils for which Tier 1 guidance is provided in this Chapter, for all types of organic soils
and land-use categories that occur on the national territory. Further guidance on completeness is provided in
Chapter 7.5 of the Wetlands Supplement.

2.4.2

Time series consistency

It is good practice for countries to clearly define organic soils and use this definition consistently over time.
Consistent time series require that the same methodology be used for the entire time series. Whenever new
methodologies are used, previous estimates should be recalculated using the new methods for all years in thetime series. It is also good practice to report why new estimates are regarded as more accurate or less uncertain.
One potential problem in recalculating previous estimates is that certain datasets may not be available for theearlier years. There are several ways of overcoming this limitation and they are explained in detail in Chapter 5,
Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Time series consistency is discussed further in Chapter 7.6 of the2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.47

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Wetlands Supplement and Chapter 5, Volume 1 (Time series consistency and recalculations) of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

2.4.3

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

It is good practice to develop and implement quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures as outlined
in Chapter 7.7 of the Wetlands Supplement. Countries using Tier 1 methods are encouraged to critically assess
the applicability of default assumptions to their national circumstances. These default assumptions are presented
in the main text and Annexes to this Chapter. Water table or drainage classes and time after water tabledrawdown are likely to have the strongest impact on greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Water table
information should be factored in to the assessment of the applicability of or development of emission factors.
Countries are encouraged to focus the efforts of QA/QC procedures on the accuracy of water table information.
Higher tier methods should be carefully designed to ensure that resulting estimates are compatible acrossdifferent pools. In particular, potential double-counting or omission of emissions or removals could occur if
measurements underlying national emission factors comprise several carbon pools, e.g. organic soil pool anddead organic matter, soil respiration with components of autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration that are not
attributable to the organic soil, or combined on-site and off-site CO2 emissions. Annex 2A.1 of this Chapter
describes the underlying assumptions and methodologies used in deriving Tier 1 emission factors that avoid
double-counting or omission of carbon pools.
Where country-specific emission factors are used, they should be based on high-quality field data, developed
using a rigorous measurement programme and adequately documented, preferably in peer-reviewed, scientific
literature.
It is good practice to develop additional, category-specific QA/QC procedures for greenhouse gas emissions andremovals from drained organic soils. Examples of such procedures include, but are not limited to, examining thetime series of the total area of managed land on organic soils and the fraction of these soils that is drained acrossall land-use categories (to ensure there are no unexplained gains or losses of land) and conducting a comparative
analysis of emission factors in the scientific literature or in neighbouring countries with similar environmental
and management conditions.

2.4.4

Reporting and documentation

Chapter 7.2.1.1 of the Wetlands Supplement provides specific guidance on where to report greenhouse gas
emissions and removals from drained organic soils.
It is good practice for countries to report and document how they define organic soils, how they ensure
consistency with the IPCC definition and how drained organic soils are identified.
Countries using Tier 1 methods are encouraged to document their assessment of whether the default assumptions
are applicable to their national circumstances and of actions taken in case default assumptions are considered not
or only partially applicable. It is good practice to document how national data compare to default assumptions
and why they may differ. Whenever national methodologies are used it is good practice to documenttransparently and completely data sources, underlying assumptions, compatibility with the assumptions in the
Tier 1 methodology or reasons for deviations, data used, and models or calculation algorithms used in thenational methodology. It is good practice to document, and countries are encouraged to publish, the data,
methodology and results of their assessment of how and why they represented the national circumstances and to
document the QA/QC procedures, e.g. peer-review of methodologies before application in the inventory.

2.48

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Annex 2A.1

Scientific background for developing CO2-C
emission/removal factors for drained inland
organic soil from the scientific literature in Table
2.1

The Tier 1 CO2 emission factors presented in Table 2.1 were calculated as annual net change of soil organiccarbon (SOC) plus below-ground portion of litter carbon in different land uses. CO2 emissions were obtainedusing two well-established methodologies:
1.

Flux method: Flux measurements are commonly used on all types of organic soils to determine gas
exchange at frequencies from minutes to weeks over monitoring periods of up to a few years.

2.

Subsidence method: Determining subsidence rates of drained organic soils at frequencies of months toyears, over periods representing one to many years of subsidence.

Flux met ho d
The flux method uses chamber-based techniques or eddy covariance in combination with auxiliary carbon pooldata from the study sites.
Dark chamber measurements
Chamber flux measurements are made with varying frequency over short periods with dark chambers todetermine total respiration (Rt), which includes autotrophic (Ra) plus heterotrophic (Rh) respiration from the soil
and heterotrophic respiration from litter. To obtain organic soil CO 2 emissions, the observed flux (Rt) must be
adjusted for contributions from other carbon pools (e.g. litter) and autotrophic (plant root) respiration needs to be
subtracted (Ojanen et al., 2012). For these calculations, the proportion of Rh to Rt was estimated from a limited
number of studies.
As with any mass balance approach, outputs must be balanced against inputs to calculate a net flux to theatmosphere. Thus, inputs in the form of root mortality and above-ground litterfall are important in calculating net
carbon loss or gain. Tier 1 assumes that the litter pool remains constant in land remaining in a land-use category,so litter inputs to SOC are equal to litterfall plus root mortality. While litterfall is relatively easy to measure,
below-ground litter inputs are hard to measure directly (Gaudinski et al., 2010; Finér et al., 2011; Sah et al.,2011). Estimates of litter inputs were made from a limited number of studies and were subtracted from Rh to
estimate the net flux of carbon to the atmosphere. On Peatlands Managed for Extraction, no vegetation is present
and so the net change in soil carbon was assumed to be Rh.
Transparent chamber measurements
CO2 emission measurements using transparent chambers determine net ecosystem exchange (NEE), i.e. thebalance between Rt and gross primary productivity (GPP). To obtain SOC emissions, NEE must be corrected forthe contributions from other carbon pools (e.g. litter, above-ground biomass, etc.). Design and use of transparent
chambers are described in detail by Drösler (2005).
Eddy covariance flux measurements
The eddy covariance (EC) method is the most useful for larger sites or at landscape scales. Sophisticatedinstrumentation and data-processing software calculate fluxes of gases by the covariance of gas concentrations
with upward and downward movements of air parcels. In its simplest interpretation for CO2 fluxes, the EC
method measures NEE (the balance of ecosystem respiration and GPP). Whenever photosynthetically active
radiation (PAR) is zero (such as at night), GPP is zero and NEE is equivalent to ecosystem respiration or Rt. In
essence, the strategy for obtaining Rh from EC results is the same as for transparent chambers; correction isrequired for Ra (above-ground and below-ground), removals of biomass carbon, inputs of carbon from fertilisers,
etc.

Subs idence met ho dDrainage of an organic soil leads to subsidence or loss of elevation (Armentano & Menges, 1986; Grønlund etal., 2008; Leifeld et al., 2011). Oxidative loss of carbon can be related to volume loss of the organic soil using
bulk density and soil carbon content obtained from soil cores or pits. Total subsidence of the drained organic soil
surface is tracked over time using elevation markers. Other markers, such as pollen, have been used to correlatehorizons among cores (Minkkinen et al., 1999) as an aid to determining subsidence rates.
The parameters used for calculating emissions in each study varied slightly. We applied a standardised approachto calculating emissions from each study so that assumptions across sites would be consistent. CO 2 emission
estimates are obtained by converting the volume loss to carbon via bulk density, carbon content and estimates of2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.49

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

the oxidised fraction of the volume lost compared with compaction. Bulk density was considered to remain
constant over short periods of time and oxidation fractions were calculated from data in each paper, whenavailable, or data from similar sites were used when data were not available. In all papers in tropical climate,carbon content was measured by loss on ignition, which may lead to an underestimate of the carbon content. For
these studies, carbon content was estimated using the relationship of Warren et al. (2012). Subsidence emissions
were corrected for DOC losses using Tier 1 default factors from Section 2.2.1.2.
Tropical emission/removal factors
Two types of data were available for the tropical climate zone: flux studies and studies based on subsidence.
Integrating the two approaches was problematic because the data for each approach were different and because
many studies had not measured all parameters required to fully assess C losses. The approach that was finallyadopted was to calculate one estimate using a gain-loss approach based on flux data for each of the gain and loss
terms of the mass balance for each land use. A second estimate was calculated using the subsidence approach,aggregated by site. The average of the two approaches was used to determine the emission factor, when there
were appropriate data available for a particular land use. This was only the case for acacia and oil palm
plantations.
There was divergence of opinion on several points with regard to each of the calculations described above; thegeneral approach adopted was to calculate independent estimates using different best judgements about theapplication of subsidence and gain-loss calculations to the dataset and to then average the two calculations when
they came to different values. One point of divergence was over the importance of consolidation of peat layers
below the water table. Another was over the ability of surface flux measurements to adequately capture
respiration of below-ground litter. Two calculations were made, one excluding one recently cleared subsidencesite and including the below-ground carbon inputs to the measured surface fluxes. A second calculation wasmade including the site previously excluded and excluding below-ground inputs. The final emission factor wasderived from the average of these two calculations.
Errors were propagated using the quadrature of absolute errors method (Malhi et al., 2009) for each calculation.
Most estimates converged, but several estimates differed by more than 4 tonnes C ha-1yr-1. These differenceswere not statistically significant and means from each approach were within the 95% confidence interval of eachother. To resolve the discrepancy between the two approaches, the final emission factor was determined to be themean of the two approaches. The uncertainty interval was taken from the highest and lowest values of the 95%
confidence interval for either approach.

Select io n o f st udies
A dramatic increase in published studies of CO2 fluxes occurred recently but not all studies reported results that
could be used to develop Table 2.1. Studies included in the derivation of emission factors were assessed on thebasis of a set of quality criteria.
Study site characteristics (site location, land use, soil type, peat depth, land-use history prior to current landuse described, and water table). Sites on drained organic soils were included. All sites in the boreal andtemperate zone had a decadal history of reported land use. Sites in tropical climate had at least six years ofdrainage and current land use.



Experimental study design: need for exclusion of unrealistic data, e.g. extreme fertilisation, extreme watertable level. Only “control” and common practice sites were included. Many experimental studies involved
manipulations other than drainage so often their results could not be used; exceptions are results from a“control” drained site. Survey studies, particularly on Cropland and Grassland, often involved fertilisation or
annual cropping where corrections were often possible to determine Rh. Most studies in the boreal climate
region and many in the temperate were conducted seasonally, typically from April/May throughSeptember/October (in the northern hemisphere). Annualisation of seasonal results was guided by several
studies that specifically targeted winter fluxes (e.g. Alm et al., 1999; Heikkinen et al., 2002; Saarnio et al.,2007). Tropical sites were assessed as representative of the annual flux 1) if data adequately covered dry andwet seasons, in practice seven months or more; and 2) if there were at least monthly flux observations(typically more in short studies).

Monitoring and flux quality (study design and position of chambers and subsidence poles, temporal
coverage, spatial coverage, monitoring frequency, total number of samples, number of replicates,
measurement methodology, methodology used for annual flux estimates, data quality control, anduncertainty estimate for fluxes provided). Studies were accepted if there were at least three spatial replicates.
Studies in tropical climate were additionally ranked from “A” = “very good and robust” to “E” = “highly
uncertain, inadequate for deriving annual emission factors”. Studies classified from A to D were included in
the derivation of emission factors to use the broadest possible database despite sometimes there being
considerable uncertainty.

2.50

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils



Every site was entered as one entry into the emission factor data. Multi-year observations were averaged to asingle value to avoid over-representation of sites with a long time series of observations.

Transparency and traceability of reported values and calculations: in the case of studies with incomplete
methodology description or inconsistent reported numbers, the authors of the assessed studies were
contacted. This made it possible to reduce uncertainty in a few studies. Unclear studies were excluded.

No double-counting: some studies were performed close to each other. Authors who knew the exact
positions of the observation points were contacted to check whether observations were independent of eachother. Sites located within a few metres of each other were treated as one. Some of the subsidence studies
had large numbers of replicates, which may be partially independent of each other. There was no agreement
among the authors on how to objectively split these studies into sub-sites, so each subsidence study wastreated as a single site.



Criteria for gain and loss terms of mass balance for the flux method: some studies using the flux method,
including most studies in tropical climate, have reported total soil respiration only. In these cases, thereported CO2 flux had to be corrected by gain and loss terms of mass balance to derive the CO2 flux fromthe organic soil pool in Table 2.1 and to avoid double-counting with biomass and litter carbon pools. These
terms are the ratio of heterotrophic to total respiration, above-ground litter input and fine root mortality(Hergoualc’h & Verchot, 2013). Whenever available, the terms were taken directly from the flux studies.
Otherwise, generic land-use-specific values were developed based on studies of these terms that passed thequality criteria of study site characteristics, monitoring quality, transparency, and traceability. The ratio ofheterotrophic to total respiration data was derived purely from studies on organic soils. When no data wereavailable, e.g. for sago palm plantations and rice, the ratio was transferred from the most similar land-use
type. Above-ground litter and root input were available from studies on organic soils for all land-use types
except for plantations and rice. Instead of Acacia crassicarpa, which is grown on organic soils, data from
Acacia mangium chronosequences on mineral soils (Nouvellon et al., 2012) were used, which best reflected
the age-dependent litter production. For oil palm, data from mineral and organic soils were used (Henson &Dolmat, 2003; Lamade & Bouillet, 2005). Due to high root biomass and spatial heterogeneity (Dariah et al.,2013), root input by oil palm is particularly uncertain. For sago palm, the oil palm and rice values were used
for above-ground and below-ground inputs, respectively, due to lack of land-use-specific data (Kakuda et al.,2005).

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.51

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors

The Tier 1 default emission factors presented in Table 2A.1 were derived from the published studies listed. The
number of studies available remains relatively small, although some include a substantial number of individual
measurement sites. Measured fluxes are generally quite variable within each soil/land-use type, and are not
evenly distributed across different organic soil types (e.g. most of the data for deep-drained and shallow-drained
Grassland on organic soils are obtained from studies in the Netherlands). Tier 1 defaults for EFCH4-ditch were
derived from the mean of all data within each land-use class, and uncertainty ranges were calculated as 95%
confidence intervals. Indicative Tier 1 default values for the fractional area of ditches within drained organicsoils were calculated in the same way, except that data from the Netherlands were omitted from the Grasslandclasses, on the basis that fractional ditch areas are considered to be higher in that country than elsewhere, andthat their inclusion would therefore lead to atypically high default values. Note that there are currently few dataon CH4 emissions from ditches in tropical organic soils or from blanket bogs. Further published data on ditch
CH4 emissions may be used to refine the default values presented in Table 2.4, or to derive country-specificTier 2 emission factors.

2.52

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2A.1
COLLATED DATA ON DITCH CH4 EMISSIONS FROM DRAINED AND REWETTED ORGANIC SOILSEFCH4_ditch(t CH4-C ha-1yr-1)

Fracditch

Schrier-Uijl et al., 2010b, 2011

0.435

0.21

The
Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.592

0.25

Deep-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Best & Jacobs, 1997

0.072

0.06

Deep-drained Grassland

UK

McNamara, 2013

0.580

0.04

Dee-drained Grassland

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.450

0.04

Deep-drained Grassland

RussiaChistotin et al., 2006

1.989

0.04

Deep-drained Grassland

USA

Teh et al., 2011

1.704

0.05

Shallow-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.592

0.25

Shallow-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Best & Jacobs, 1997

0.345

0.06

Shallow-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

van den Pol-van Dasselaar et al.,1999a, b, c

0.085

0.25

Shallow-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Hendriks et al., 2007, 2010

0.375

0.10

Drained treed bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.114

0.03

Drained treed fen

Finland

Minkkinen & Laine, 2006

0.783

0.03

Drained afforested fen

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.139

0.02

Drained afforested fen

RussiaGlagolev et al., 2008

0.088

0.04

Drained treed bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.028

0.03

Drained afforested bog

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.301

0.01

Drained afforested bog

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.011

0.01

Drained afforested bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.192

0.03

Drained afforested bog

Swedenvon Arnold et al., 2005b

0.013

0.02

Drained afforested bog

Finland

Minkkinen & Laine, 2006

0.053

0.03

Peat extraction site

FinlandNykänen et al., 1995

0.133

0.02

Peat extraction site

SwedenSundh et al., 2000

0.356

0.03

Peat extraction site

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

1.022

0.04

Peat extraction site

RussiaChistotin et al., 2006

0.797

0.04

Peat extraction site
(inactive)

FinlandHyvönen et al., 2013

0.011

0.06

Peat extraction (inactive)

CanadaWaddington & Day, 2007

0.110

0.05

Drained blanket bog

UK

Cooper & Evans, 2013

0.070

0.03

Drained tropical peat(abandoned)Indonesia

Jauhiainen & Silvennoinen, 2012

0.449

0.02

Drained tropical peat
(pulpwood plantation)

Indonesia

Jauhiainen & Silvennoinen, 2012

2.939

0.02

Organic soil/land-use
typeCountry

Deep-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Deep-drained Grassland

Reference

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.53

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Annex 2A.3

Derivation of DOC emission factors

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

Estimat io n o f DOC F L U X - N A T U R A L
Most available published studies of drainage impacts on DOC loss report concentration changes relative toundrained comparison sites, rather than direct (robust) flux measurements. On the other hand, a larger number ofstudies provide reliable DOC flux estimates from natural, or near-natural, peatland systems. These two data
sources (DOC fluxes from natural sites, and DOC changes from drained-natural comparisons) were therefore
combined to derive best estimates of the DOC flux from drained sites, following Equation 2.5.
Default values for DOCFLUX-NATURAL were derived from 23 published studies reporting DOC fluxes for 26 sites intotal, including natural boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, temperate blanket bogs and tropical peatswamp forests (Table 2A.2). Most data were derived from catchment-scale studies with natural drainage
channels, for which accurate hydrological data are available, and to avoid double-counting of reactive DOC
exports from peatlands that are rapidly converted to CH4 or CO2 within the ditch network (i.e. on-site emissions).
Clear differences in flux were observed according to climate zone, with the lowest fluxes from boreal sites andthe highest fluxes from tropical sites, supporting a simple Tier 1 classification system for natural DOC flux
estimates based on this classification.

2.54

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

Climate zone
BorealCountry
Finland

Juutinen et al., 2013

0.037

BorealCanadaMoore et al., 2003

0.043

BorealCanadaKoprivnjak & Moore, 1992

0.052

BorealCanadaMoore et al., 2003

0.060

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al., 2006

0.060

BorealFinland

Jager et al., 2009

0.078

BorealSwedenÅgren et al., 2008

0.099

BorealFinland

Rantakari et al., 2010

0.120

BorealSwedenNilsson et al., 2008

0.130

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al., 2006

0.159

Temperate

CanadaStrack et al., 2008

0.053

Temperate

CanadaRoulet et al., 2007

0.164

Temperate

USA

Urban et al., 1989

0.212

Temperate

USA

Kolka et al., 1999

0.235

Temperate

CanadaMoore et al., 2003

0.290

Temperate

CanadaClair et al., 2002

0.360

Temperate

UK

Dawson et al., 2004

0.194

Temperate

UK

Dinsmore et al., 2010

0.260

Temperate

UK

Billett et al., 2010

0.234

Temperate

UK

Billett et al., 2010

0.276

Temperate

Ireland

Koehler et al., 2009, 2011

0.140

Temperate

Australia

di Folco & Kirkpatrick, 2011

0.134

TropicalIndonesia

Baum et al., 2007

0.470

TropicalIndonesia

Alkhatib et al., 2007

0.549

TropicalMalaysia

Yule & Gomez, 2009; Zulkifli, 2002

0.632

TropicalIndonesia

Moore et al., 2013

0.625

Estimat io n o f  DOC D R A I N A G E
A total of 11 published studies were identified that provided sufficient data to calculate ratios of either DOC
concentration or DOC flux between comparable drained and undrained peat sites (Table 2A.3). These included
data from boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, blanket bogs and tropical peats, and drainage for both peat
extraction and land-use change to agriculture. There is a reasonable degree of consistency among the studies
included; all show an increase in DOC following drainage, with an overall range of 15-118%. Most of the
published studies suggest a DOC increase close to the mean (across all studies) of 60%, and there wasinsufficient evidence to support the use of different Tier 1 DOCDRAINAGE values for different peat types, climate
zones, drainage type or drainage intensity. The use of concentration data to estimate DOCDRAINAGE does,
however, assume no corresponding change in total water flux as a result of drainage, which adds uncertainty to
the calculated flux changes. This uncertainty should be relatively small for high-precipitation boreal/temperatebogs, as a large change in water flux could only occur if there is a correspondingly large change inevapotranspiration. For drier bog sites, drainage might be expected to increase water fluxes, therefore amplifying
the observed concentration differences between drained and undrained sites (e.g. Strack & Zuback, 2013).
However, for fens, which are fed by external groundwater or surface water inputs rather than solely by
precipitation, there is greater potential for drainage to lead to fundamental changes in hydrological functioning(e.g. by routing lateral water inputs around the fen rather than through it), thus altering the water flux.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.55

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Consequently, although observed DOC concentration changes in drained fens are similar to those from drainedbogs (Table 2A.3), the appropriate default value of DOCDRAINAGE for fens is more uncertain. At Tier 1, it could
therefore be assumed that the DOC flux from a drained fen is unchanged from the natural flux (i.e. that
DOCDRAINAGE is equal to zero and that the DOC export is thus equal to DOCFLUX-NATURAL). At Tier 2, it may bepossible to develop specific estimates of DOCDRAINAGE based on paired comparisons between reliable DOC
flux measurements for undrained and drained fens, either on a country-specific basis or by pooling studies indifferent countries. Alternatively, direct measurements of DOC export flux could be used to derive Tier 2emission factors for DOC emissions from drained fens.
Overall, the available data support a Tier 1 default DOCDRAINAGE value of 0.60 for drained bogs and tropicalorganic soils. Given difficulties in quantifying the water budget of drained fens, there is greater uncertainty about
the applicable value for DOCDRAINAGE for this organic soil type. Countries may therefore choose to apply thesame Tier 1 default value as for other soil types, or to make the assumption that DOC export does not increase
with drainage from fens, i.e. to apply the natural DOC flux value to calculate EFDOC. An exception may also bemade where drainage channels are cut into underlying mineral soils, as this has been found to reduce DOC loss
(e.g. Moore, 2003).

2.56

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

DOC
Land use

Country

DrainedDOCDRAINAGE
(%)

Study
Undrained

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

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

CanadaGlatzel et al., 2003

60

110

83%

CanadaStrack et al., 2008

16

24.29

53%

Boreal fen

Drainage

USA

Kane et al., 2010

56

71.7

29%

Boreal fen

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

Finland

Heikkinen, 1990

17

20

15%

PolandBanaś & Gos, 2004

48

71

49%

New Zealand

108

54%

Czech Republic

Moore & Clarkson,
2007
Urbanová et al., 201170

Temperate bog

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

36

53.9

51%

Temperate fen

Drainage

Czech Republic

Urbanová et al., 2011

17

37.5

118%

Temperate
blanket bog

Drainage

UK

Wallage et al., 2006

28

42.9

55%

Tropical peat

Drainage(sago palm)
Drainage(agriculture)

Temperate bog
Temperate bog

Tropical peat

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

Inubushi et al., 1998

33

63

91%

Indonesia

Moore et al., 2013

62

97

54%

Estimat io n o f Frac D O C - C O 2
The significance of DOC export in terms of greenhouse gas estimation depends on its ultimate fate, i.e. whether
it is returned to the atmosphere as CO2 (or even CH4) or deposited in stable forms such as lake or marine
sediments. The latter simply represents a translocation of carbon between stable stores, and should therefore not
be included in the estimation. The parameter FracDOC-CO2 sets the proportion of DOC exported from organic soils
that is ultimately converted to CO2. While uncertainty remains in the estimation of this parameter, there is
growing evidence that fluvial systems process a high proportion of incoming terrestrial carbon, and that much ofthis is converted to CO2 (e.g. Algesten et al., 2003; Cole et al., 2007; Wickland et al., 2007; Battin et al., 2009).
Both Algesten et al. (2003) and Jonsson et al. (2007) estimated that, within large, lake-influenced catchments in
Sweden, around 50% of all terrestrially derived organic carbon was mineralised. Wickland et al. (2007)
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 Raymond and Bauer (2001) measured 63% biodegradation ofriverine DOC during a one-year dark incubation. Multiple studies showing a strong correlation between lake
DOC concentration and dissolved CO2 concentrations (e.g. Sobek et al., 2003; Stutter et al., 2011 and references
therein) all suggest widespread conversion of DOC to CO2 in lakes. Dawson et al. (2001) estimated that 12–18%
of DOC was removed within a 2 km stream reach, Experiments undertaken on light-exposed samples of peatderived waters (Köhler et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2013; Worrall et al., 2013) consistently show rapid andextensive DOC loss, with averages ranging from 33–75% over periods of up to 10 days. Both Köhler et al. (2002)
and Jones et al. (2013) found that peat-derived DOC was more susceptible to photodegradation than DOC fromother water sources, and Köhler et al. (2002) found that most of the DOC lost was converted to CO2 (e.g. Opsahl& Benner, 1998). Jones et al. (2013) observed that since much of this degradation occurs within the first 48
hours, this would be sufficient to convert most peat-derived DOC to CO2 before it enters the sea. Overall,Algesten et al. (2003) estimated that 90% of the DOC removal in the large catchments studied was due tomineralisation to CO2, with only 10% buried in lake sediments. Terrestrially-derived DOC that does reach thesea largely appears to be photochemically or microbially processed in the marine system, mostly within years to
decades (Opsahl & Benner, 1997; Bianchi, 2011).
In summary, there is strong evidence that a high proportion of peat-derived DOC is mineralised rapidly inheadwaters, that this processing continues at a relatively high rate through rivers and lakes, and that any peatderived DOC that does reach the sea will nevertheless largely be mineralised in the marine ecosystem. Theseobservations support the use of a high value for FracDOC-CO2. Taking the ratio of mineralisation to sediment burial
obtained by Algesten et al. (2003), and assuming that a similar ratio applies to any DOC exported to the ocean,would suggest that around 90% of peat-derived DOC is eventually converted to CO2. On this basis, a Tier 1

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.57

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

default value of 0.9 is proposed, with an uncertainty range of 0.8–1.0 to reflect uncertainties in the proportion of
DOC returned to burial in lake or marine sediments.
There is some evidence that controlled burning (for moorland management) also increases DOC losses (e.g.
Yallop et al., 2010; di Folco & Kirkpatrick, 2011), although other experimental studies have shown no effect(e.g. Ward et al., 2007; Worrall et al., 2007). A precautionary estimate is that managed burning may increasemean DOC loss by 20–50%, but further work is required to resolve uncertainties on this issue (Holden et al.,2012). Grazing levels on semi-natural vegetation have not been shown to affect DOC loss (Ward et al., 2007;
Worrall et al., 2007), and data on the effects of more intensive agricultural (Grassland and Cropland)
management on DOC loss are currently insufficient to estimate an emission factor. Generic values for the effects
of drainage therefore may be used.

2.58

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Annex 2A.4

Derivation of CO2-C and non-CO2 emission factors
for emissions from burning of drained inland
organic soils from the scientific literature in Tables
2.6 and 2.7

CO2 emission factors for fires on drained organic soils were obtained by consideration of the available scientific
literature. The data presented in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 provide default values for the mass of available fuel andemission factors.
The data in Table 2.6 were obtained using a variety of approaches to calculate the mass of fuel combusted. It
should be noted that there are only a limited number of publications providing ground- or laboratory-based dataon the depth (i.e. volume) of soil organic material consumed. Quantitative estimation of depth of burn as well asorganic soil characteristics (i.e. bulk density and carbon content) are not easy to determine in the field and so
information on these key parameters is often based on theoretical assumptions or on limited groundmeasurements. This knowledge gap contributes considerably to overall uncertainties related to emissions fromfires on organic soils because it is difficult to accurately assess the amount of fuel that is consumed. Field data on
depth of burn are available from a number of studies of fires on organic soils in northern forests and peatlands inNorth America, Europe and Asia (e.g. Zoltai et al., 1998; Turetsky & Wieder, 2001; Page et al., 2002; Benscoter& Wieder, 2003; Ballhorn et al., 2009; de Groot et al., 2009; Turetsky et al., 2011a), while in other cases, data
have been extrapolated from previous studies.
Obtaining accurate field data on the depth of combustion on organic soils is problematic since there is usually alack of reference data. Turetsky and Wieder (2001) developed a method for field assessment that considered therooting depth of trees, while other studies have used comparison of adjacent unburnt sites to quantify combustion
depth (e.g. Kasischke, 2000; Page et al., 2002; de Groot et al., 2009; Turetsky et al., 2011a) or measurement offuel loads before and after experimental fires (e.g. Usup et al., 2004). The use of LiDAR remote sensing has also
been applied in one study (Ballhorn et al., 2009).
Nearly all the data presented in Table 2.6 for boreal and temperate zones are actually from the boreal zone, with
only one study in the temperate zone (Poulter et al., 2006) and two studies in the tropical zone (Page et al., 2002;
Ballhorn et al., 2009). Most studies are of wildfires (i.e. unwanted and unplanned fires ignited other than byprescription (e.g. by lightning or as a result of human activities, including escaped prescribed fires as well as
those started through negligence or by arson) and are for fires on undrained peatland organic soils. Only
Turetsky et al. (2011b) provide depth-of-burn data for a wildfire on a drained boreal organic soil. In addition,
there are no data for organic soil losses associated with prescribed fires in the boreal/temperate zone but somestudies suggest that DOC increases following fire (see also Annex 2A.2). Most prescribed (i.e. managed) fires on
the vegetation of organic soils probably result in either no or only minimal ignition loss of soil carbon.
Fuel moisture content, depth of water table and burn history will all determine the extent of organic soil
combustion during a prescribed fire but the scale of loss will often depend on the skill and experience of the fire
manager. In some parts of the temperate zone, prescribed rotational burning of vegetation on organic soils is along-established land-management practice. In the UK, it is carried out on about 18% of peatlands,
predominantly in the uplands (Marsden & Ebmeier, 2012), with the aim of removing older, less productive
vegetation and encouraging new growth for livestock grazing and cover for game birds (Worrall et al., 2010). In
North America, prescribed burning of vegetation on organic soils is also practised, with a range of benefits
including the reduction of wildfire hazards, improvement of wildlife habitats and restoration of ecosystem
diversity and health (e.g. Christensen, 1977). Typically, prescribed burning will be carried out when fuelmoisture is high enough to prevent combustion of the organic soil but low enough to carry a surface fire, thus
reducing the risk of soil ignition. Shifts in climate have narrowed the window of opportunity for prescribedburning and changes in weather patterns have resulted in unexpected drying of peatlands during ongoingprescription burns. Some local fire managers have recognised this shift, but unfortunately this is a minimallystudied area and little information exists on the scale of emissions arising from the combustion of organic soils
during prescription burns. At Tier 1, it is assumed that there is either no or very little combustive loss of soilorganic matter during prescribed fires on organic soils.
The average depth of burn of tropical organic soils has not been explored in a consistent way that
representatively covers the different geographical regions, vegetation types, or fire types (i.e. wild vs. prescribedfires). There have been a limited number of field measurements of depth of burn and estimates of organic soil
combustion losses. These have used either direct field measurements (e.g. Page et al., 2002; Usup et al., 2004) ora combination of field measurements and LiDAR data (e.g. Ballhorn et al., 2009). There are only three studies ofwildfires on drained organic soils and none in undrained organic soils, although other studies have demonstrated
that, when in an intact condition, tropical peat swamp forest is at very low risk of fire (e.g. Page et al., 2002).

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.59

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

There have been a limited number of studies investigating depth of burn on drained organic soils under
agricultural management (e.g. Saharjo & Munoz, 2005). Prescribed agricultural burning is undertaken on both asmall and a large scale to improve soil fertility and/or to remove forest or crop residues during land preparation
activities. For example, traditional “sonor” rice cultivation on shallow organic soils involves regular burning ofcrop residues along with the soil surface to enhance soil fertility. In addition to field measurements, there havebeen limited laboratory-based burn tests aimed at establishing environmental controls on depth of organic soil
combustion (e.g. Benscoter et al., 2011). While more field and laboratory experiments to determine fuelconsumption during fires on organic soils are needed (French et al., 2004), there is also a need for improved
remote sensing methods to aid burn severity mapping in peatlands (defined as the magnitude of ecologicalchanges between pre- and post-fire conditions), which can provide an indication of the likely depth of burn. Burnseverity is not easy to either investigate or quantify but there have been a limited number of studies using
spectral indices to discriminate different levels of burn severity in boreal and temperate forests (e.g. van
Wagtendonk et al., 2004; Epting et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2008) but only one study to date of tropical organicsoils (Hoscilo et al., 2013). Even regionally developed consumption models can have large uncertainties withrespect to organic soil consumption. The development of robust methodologies to assess burn severity and totalorganic soil consumption in wetlands would enable more accurate quantification of carbon emissions from bothabove-ground and below-ground fires for reporting at higher tiers.
Accurate assessment of the volume of organic soil combusted during a fire will only be feasible at Tier 2 andTier 3, while at Tier 1 some simplifying assumptions are required.

2.60

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Appendix 2a.1 Estimation of Particulate Organic Carbon (POC)
and Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) loss frompeatlands and drained organic soils: Basis for
future methodological development
This Appendix provides a basis for future methodological development rather than complete guidance.

Part iculate Org anic C arbo nParticulate organic carbon (POC) is generally a negligible component of the carbon balance of natural peatlands
and organic soils. However, disturbance of organic soils through land-use change, including drainage (which can
include the dredging of peat from drains and canals), burning (managed burning and wildfire), conversion toarable land and peat extraction, can all result in high rates of POC loss via waterborne erosion and also winderosion. 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).
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, PEAT BARE, would include unvegetateddrainage ditches, erosion gullies, peat extraction surfaces and areas of the soil surface exposed by burning,
intensive grazing or the deposition of peat dredged from drainage channels onto the land surface. For Cropland,some estimation of the annual average proportion of the organic soil surface exposed over the full crop rotation
would be required. Data from eroding UK blanket bogs suggest that waterborne POC exports can be reasonably
well predicted based on a POC flux from bare peat surfaces (POCFLUX_BAREPEAT) of around 4 t C ha-1yr-1(Goulsbra et al., 2013). Further work is required to establish whether different values would be applicable toother soil types, land-use types and climate regimes (in particular whether it is dependent on precipitation
amount or intensity). At present, there are few data on which to base an estimate of airborne POC loss, andfurther work is required to quantify this loss term, which may be large in peat extraction and Cropland sites.
Finally, there is limited information currently available from which to derive a value for the proportion of POC
ultimately converted to CO2 (FracPOC-CO2). Unlike DOC, a substantial proportion of POC is mobilised fromorganic soils through physical erosion processes, and its reactivity in fluvial systems is uncertain. Some studies
have shown fairly high rates of POC turnover in river and estuarine systems (e.g. Sinsabaugh & Findlay, 1995),
and POC redeposited on floodplains may be subject to moderate rates of oxidation (Goulsbra et al., 2013).
However, it is likely that a significant proportion of waterborne POC loss from organic soils may simply betransferred to lake or coastal sediments, redeposited on floodplains or transported to other land areas via aeoliantransport, rather than converted to CO2. Further research is therefore needed to establish realistic ranges for
FracPOC-CO2 in different systems.
EQUATION 2A.1
CALCULATION OF POC EXPORT FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILSEFPOC  POCFLUX _ BAREPEAT  PEAT BARE  FracPOC CO2
Where:EFPOC= POC emission factor, t C ha-1yr-1

POCFLUX_BAREPEAT = Flux of POC from a bare peat surface, t C ha-1yr-1
PEATBARE = Proportion of the ground surface occupied by exposed peat
FracPOC-CO2 = Conversion factor for the fraction of POC converted to CO2 following export from site

Disso lv ed I norg anic C arbo n
Waterborne carbon fluxes from organic soils, comprising bicarbonate ion (HCO 3-), carbonate ions (CO32-) andfree CO2, are collectively termed dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). These different carbon species exist in
equilibrium, depending primarily on the pH of the water. In water-draining low-pH organic soils (i.e. bogs),
almost all DIC is present as CO2. Most of this CO2 derives from autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration withinorganic soils, and is transferred laterally from soils into drainage waters, where it is consistently present atconcentrations well in excess of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This supersaturated CO2 will be emitted(“evaded” or “degassed”) to the atmosphere, typically within a few kilometres of its source (e.g. Hope et al.,2001). Limited measurements of CO2 evasion from natural peatlands suggest that this emission is aquantitatively significant component of the overall carbon budget. For example, Dinsmore et al. (2010) recorded

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.61

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

a DIC flux of 0.12–0.16 t C ha-1yr-1 at a Scottish peatland catchment, of which over 90% was evaded to theatmosphere within the first 5 km of stream length. Although this may be considered an “on-site” emission, in
practice it will not be measured as part of the terrestrial CO2 emission using chamber-based methods, and isunlikely to be captured by eddy covariance methods. Consequently, direct measurements of CO 2 emissions fromwater bodies draining organic soils (e.g. using floating chambers or gas transfer coefficients linked tomeasurements of dissolved CO2 within the water column) are likely to be required in order to obtain reliable
estimates of this component of the carbon flux. Currently, only a few such measurements are available forundrained organic soils (e.g. Hope et al., 2001; Billett & Moore, 2008; Dinsmore et al., 2009, 2010; Wallin et al.,2011). For drained organic soils, insufficient data are currently available to permit default emission factors to be
developed. Further measurements of CO2 evasion for a range of climate zones, soil types, land-use classes anddrainage systems are therefore required to support future methodological development in this area. Care isrequired to avoid double-counting of CO2 emissions associated with mineralisation of DOC within downstream
water bodies, as opposed to direct degassing of CO2 released from the organic soil into the water body.
As noted above, other components of the DIC flux can be considered minor for bogs, due to their low pH. This is
not the case for fens, which have a higher pH, so that HCO3- and CO32- may form significant components of total
DIC export. However, a high proportion of this flux may derive from weathering processes external to theorganic soil (i.e. in groundwater or river water inputs to the fen) and this geogenic flux cannot be considered apart of the internal carbon budget of the organic soil (Fiedler et al., 2008). On the other hand, autotrophic andheterotrophic respiration processes may also generate dissolved CO2, which can then dissociate to form HCO3and CO32- in alkaline waters. This flux does form a component of the organic soil carbon balance, but further
work is needed in order to: 1) quantify this flux (particularly for drained organic soils); 2) differentiate thisbiogenic DIC from geogenic DIC (e.g. using isotopic methods); and 3) determine the proportion of DIC exported
from organic soils that is ultimately returned to the atmosphere as CO2, rather than sequestered into sediments,
such as marine carbonate deposits.
Finally, available data consistently suggest that, other than emissions from drainage ditches (see Section 2.2.2.1),
on- or off-site emissions of dissolved CH4 from water bodies represent a negligible component of the total
carbon and greenhouse gas budget of organic soils (e.g. Hope et al., 2001; Dinsmore et al., 2010; Billett &Harvey, 2013).

2.62

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

ReferencesÅgren, A., Jansson, M., Ivarsson, H., Bishop, K. & Seibert, J. (2008) Seasonal and runoff-related changes intotal organic carbon concentrations in the River Öre, Northern Sweden. Aquatic Science 70: 21–29.
Ahlholm, U. & Silvola, J. (1990) Turvetuotannon ja turpeen käytön osuus maapallon ja Suomen hiilitaseessa.
Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ser. D 183, 1–57 (in Finnish).
Akagi, S.K., Yokelson, R.J., Wiedinmyer, C., Alvarado, M.J., Reid, J.S., Karl, T., Crounse, J.D. & Wennberg,
P.O. (2011) Emission factors for open and domestic biomass burning for use in atmospheric models.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11: 4039–4072.
Algesten, G., Sobek, S., Bergström, A.-K., Ågren, A., Tranvik, L. & Jansson, M. (2003) Role of lakes fororganic carbon cycling in the boreal zone. Global Change Biology 10: 141–147.
Ali, M., Taylor, D. & Inubushi, K. (2006) Effects of environmental variations on CO 2 efflux from a tropicalpeatland in Eastern Sumatra. Wetlands 26: 612–618.
Alkhatib, M., Jennerjahn, T.C. & Samiaji, J. (2007) Biogeochemistry of the Dumai River estuary, Sumatra,Indonesia, a tropical blackwater river. Limnology and Oceanography 52: 2410–2417.
Alm, J., Saarnio, S., Nykänen, H., Silvola, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (1999) Winter CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes onsome boreal natural and drained peatlands. Biogeochemistry 44: 163–186.
Amiro, B.D., Todd, J.B., Wotton, B.M., Logan, K.A., Flannigan, M.D., Stocks, B.J., Mason, J.A., Martell, D.J.
& Hirsch, K.G. (2001) Direct carbon emissions from Canadian forest fires, 1959–1999. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 31: 512–525.
Armentano, T.V. & Menges, E.S. (1986) Patterns of change in the carbon balance of organic soil – wetlands ofthe temperate zone. Journal of Ecology 74: 755–774.
Augustin, J. (2003) Gaseous emissions from constructed wetlands and (re)flooded meadows. Publicationes
Instituti Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis 94: 3–8.
Augustin, J. & Merbach, W. (1998) Greenhouse gas emissions from fen mires in Northern Germany:
quantification and regulation. In: Beiträge aus der Hallenser Pflanzenernährungsforschung, ed. W. Merbach& L. Wittenmayer, pp. 97–110. Beuren, Germany: Grauer.
Augustin, J., Merbach, W., Käding, H., Schmidt, W. & Schalitz, G. (1996) Lachgas- und Methanemission aus
degradierten Niedermoorstandorten Nordostdeutschlands unter dem Einfluß unterschiedlicher
Bewirtschaftung. In: Von den Ressourcen zum Recycling, ed. Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung, pp. 131–139. Berlin,
Germany: Ernst & Sohn.
Augustin, J., Merbach, W., Steffens, L. & Snelinski, B. (1998) Nitrous oxide fluxes of disturbed minerotrophic
peatlands. Agribiological Research 51: 47–57.
Aulakh, M.S. & Bijay-Singh (1997) Nitrogen losses and fertilizer N use efficiency in irrigated porous soils.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 47: 197–212.
Ballhorn, U., Siegert, F., Mason, M. & Limin, S. (2009) Derivation of burn scar depths and estimation of carbon
emissions with LIDAR in Indonesian peatlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:
21213–21218.
Banaś, K. & Gos, K. (2004) Effect of peat-bog reclamation on the physico-chemical characteristics of groundwater in peat. Polish Journal of Ecology 52: 69–74.
Basuki, S., Suwardi & Munoz, C.P. (2012) Emission of CO2 and CH4 from plantation forest of Acacia
crassicarpa on peatlands in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Peat Congress. Stockholm,
Sweden, 3–8 June.
Battin, T.J., Luyssaert, S., Kaplan, L.A., Aufdenkampe, A.K., Richter, A. & Tranvik, L.J. (2009) The boundlesscarbon cycle. Nature Geoscience 2: 598–600.
Baum, A., Rixen, T. & Samiaji, J. (2007) Relevance of peat draining rivers in central Sumatra for the riverine
input of dissolved organic carbon into the ocean. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 73: 563–580.
Benscoter, B.W & Wieder, R.K. (2003) Variability in organic matter lost by combustion in a boreal bog during
the 2001 Chisholm fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 2509–2513.
Benscoter, B.W., Thompson, D.K., Waddington, J.M., Flannigan, M.D., Wotton, B.M., de Groot, W.J. &Turetsky, M.R. (2011) Interactive effects of vegetation, soil moisture, and bulk density on depth of burningof thick organic soils. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20: 418–429.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.63

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Best, E.P.H. & Jacobs, F.H.H. (1997) The influence of raised water table levels on carbon dioxide and methane
production in ditch-dissected peat Grasslands in the Netherlands. Ecological Engineering 8: 129–144.
Bianchi, T.S. (2011) The role of terrestrially derived organic carbon in the coastal ocean: a changing paradigm
and the priming effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108: 19473–19481.
Billett, M.F. & Harvey, F.H. (2013) Measurements of CO2 and CH4 evasion from UK Peatland headwater
streams. Biogeochemistry doi: 10.1007/s10533-012-9798-9.
Billett, M.F. & Moore, T.R. (2008) Supersaturation and evasion of CO2 and CH4 in surface waters at Mer Bleue
peatland, Canada. Hydrological Processes 22: 2044–2054.
Billett M.F., Charman, D.J., Clark, J.M., Evans, C.D., Evans, M.G., Ostle, N.J., Worrall, F., Burden, A.,
Dinsmore, K.J., Jones, T., McNamara, N.P., Parry, L., Rowson, J.G. & Rose, R. (2010) Carbon balance ofUK peatlands: current state of knowledge and future research challenges. Climate Research 45: 13–29.
Billett, M.F., Palmer, S.M., Hope, D., Deacon, C., Storeton-West, R., Hargreaves, K.J., Flechard, C. & Fowler,
D. (2004) Linking land-atmosphere-stream carbon fluxes in a lowland peatland system. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 18: GB1024.
Blodau, C. (2002) Carbon cycling in peatlands: a review of processes and controls. Environmental Reviews 10:
111–134.
Brady, M.A. (1997) Organic matter dynamics of coastal peat deposits in Sumatra, Indonesia [PhD thesis].
Department of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Bremner, J.M. (1997) Sources of nitrous oxide in soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 49: 7–16.
Cahoon, D.J., Stocks, B.J., Levine, J., Cofer, W. & Pierson, J. (1994) Satellite analysis of the severe 1987 forest
fire in northern China and southeastern Siberia. Journal of Geophysical Research 99: 18627–18638.
Charman, D. (2002) Peatlands and Environmental Change. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Chimner, R.A. (2004) Soil respiration rates of tropical peatlands in Micronesia and Hawaii. Wetlands 24: 51–56.
Chimner, R.A. & Ewel, K.C. (2004) Differences in carbon fluxes between forested and cultivated Micronesiantropical peatlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12: 419–427.
Chimner, R.A. & Ewel, K.C. (2005) A tropical freshwater wetland: II. Production, decomposition, and peat
formation. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13: 671–684.
Chistotin, M.V., Sirin, A.A. & Dulov, L.E. (2006) Seasonal dynamics of carbon dioxide and methane emission
from a peatland in Moscow Region drained for peat extraction and agricultural use. Agrokhimija 6: 54–62.
Christensen, N.L. (1977) Fire and soil-plant nutrient relations in a pine-wiregrass savanna on the coastal plain ofNorth Carolina. Oecologia 31: 27–44.
Christian, T.J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R.J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P.J., Hao, W.M., Saharjo, B.H. & Ward, D.E.
(2003) Comprehensive laboratory measurements of biomass-burning emissions: 1. Emissions fromIndonesian, African and other fuels. Journal of Geophysical Research 108: D23. doi:
4710.1029/2003JD003704.
Christian, T.J., Yokelson, R.J., Carvalho Jr, J.A., Griffith, D.W.T., Alvarado, E.C., Santos, J.C., Neto, T.G.S.,
Veras, C.A.G. & Hao, W.M. (2007) The tropical forest and fire emissions experiment: trace gases emitted bysmoldering logs and dung from deforestation and pasture fires in Brazil. Journal of Geophysical Research
112: D18308. doi: 18310.11029/12006JD008147.
Clair, T.A., Arp, P., Moore, T.R., Dalvac, M. & Meng, F.-R. (2002) Gaseous carbon dioxide and methane, as
well as dissolved organic carbon losses from a small temperate wetland under a changing climate.
Environmental Pollution 116: S143–S148.
Cofer III, W.R., Levine, J.S., Sebacher, D.I., Winstead, E.L., Riggan, P.J., Stocks, B.J., Brass, J.A., Ambrosia,
V.G. & Bost, P.J. (1989) Trace gas emissions from chaparral and boreal forest fuels. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 94: 2255–2259.
Cofer III, W.R., Levine, J.S., Winstead, E.L. & Stocks, B.J. (1990) Gaseous emissions from Canadian boreal
forest fires. Atmosphere and Environment, Part A 24: 1653–1659.
Cole, J.J., Prairie, Y.T., Caraco, N.F., McDowell, W.H., Tranvik, L.J., Striegl, R.G., Duarte, C.M., Kortelainen,
P., Downing, J.A., Middelburg, J.J. & Melack, J. (2007) Plumbing the global carbon cycle: integrating inland
waters into the terrestrial carbon budget. Ecosystems 10: 171–184.

2.64

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Comeau, L.-P., Hergoualc’h, K., Smith, J.U. & Verchot, L. (2013) Conversion of intact peat swamp forest to oilpalm plantation: effects on soil CO2 fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra. Working Paper 110. Bogor, Indonesia: Center
for International Forestry Research.
Cooper, M. & Evans, C. (2013) CH4 emissions from ditches in a drained upland blanket bog, North Wales, UK.
In: Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters. Report to Defra under project
SP1205: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with non-gaseous losses of carbon from peatlands – fate ofparticulate and dissolved carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
Couwenberg, J. & Hooijer, A. (2013) Towards robust subsidence-based soil carbon emission factors for peatsoils in south-east Asia, with special reference to oil palm plantations. Mires and Peat 12: 1–13.
Couwenberg, J., Thiele, A., Tanneberger, F., Augustin, J., Bärisch, S., Dubovik, D., Liashchynskaya, N.,
Michaelis, D., Minke, M., Skuratovich, A. & Joosten, H. (2011) Assessing greenhouse gas emissions frompeatlands using vegetation as a proxy. Hydrobiologia 674: 67–89.
Czaplak, I. & Dembek, W. (2000) Polish peatlands as a source of emission of greenhouse gases. Zeszyty
Edukacyjne wyd. IMUZ 6: 61–71.
Dariah, A., Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. (2013) Peat CO2 emissions from oil palm plantations, separating rootrelated and heterotrophic respirations. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change doi:
10.1007/S11027/013/95915/6.
Darung, U., Morishita, T., Takakai, F., Dohong, S., Limin, H.S. & Hatano, R. (2005) The effects of forest fire
and agriculture on CO2 emissions from tropical peatlands, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Proceedings ofthe International Workshop on Human Dimension of Tropical Peatland under Global Environmental
Changes, pp. 112–119. Bogor, Indonesia, 8–9 December 2004.
Davidson, E.A. (1991) Fluxes of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide from terrestrial ecosystems. In: Microbial
Production and Consumption of Greenhouse Gases: Methane, Nitrogen Oxides and Halomethanes, ed. J.E.
Roggers & W.B. Whitman, pp. 219–235. Washington, DC, USA: American Society for Microbiology.
Dawson, J.J.C., Bakewell, T. & Billett, M.F. (2001) Is in-stream processing an important control on spatialchanges in carbon fluxes in headwater catchments? Science of the Total Environment 265: 153–167.
Dawson, J.J.C., Billett, M.F., Hope, D., Palmer, S.M. & Deacon, C.M. (2004) Sources and sinks of aquatic
carbon in a peatland stream continuum. Biogeochemistry 70: 71–92.
de Groot, W.J. & Alexander, M.E. (1986) Wildfire behavior on the Canadian Shield: case study of the 1980
Chachukew Fire, east-central Saskatchewan. In: Proceedings of the Third Central Region Fire Weather
Committee Science and Technology Seminar, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Canadian Forest Service, Western andNorthern Regions, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Canada.
de Groot, W.J., Pritchard, J. & Lynham, T.J. (2009) Forest floor fuel consumption and carbon emissions in
Canadian boreal forest fires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 367–382.
Dechow, R. & Freibauer, A. (2011) Assessment of German nitrous oxide emissions using empirical modelling
approaches. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 91: 235–254.
Deverel, S.J. & Leighton, D.A. (2010) Historic, recent, and future subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
California, USA. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 8(2).
di Folco, M.-B. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. (2011) Topographic variation in burning-induced loss of carbon fromorganic soils in Tasmanian moorlands. Catena 87: 216–255.
DID and LAWOO (1996) Western Jahore integrated agricultural development project. Peat soil management
study. Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Land and Water ResearchGroup (LAWOO), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Dinsmore, K.J., Billett, M.F. & Moore, T.R. (2009) Transfer of carbon dioxide and methane through the soilwater-atmosphere system at Mer Bleue peatland, Canada. Hydrological Processes 23: 330–341.
Dinsmore, K.J., Billett, M.F., Skiba, U.M., Rees, R.M., Drewer, J. & Helfter, C. (2010) Role of the aquatic
pathway in the carbon and greenhouse gas budgets of a peatland catchment. Global Change Biology 16:
2750–2762.
Dobbie, K.E., McTaggart, I.P. & Smith, K.A. (1999) Nitrous oxide emissions from intensive agricultural
systems: variations between crops and seasons, key driving variables, and mean emission factors. Journal ofGeophysical Research 104: 26891–26899.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.65

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Drösler, M. (2005) Trace gas exchange and climatic relevance of bog ecosystems, Southern Germany.
Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany. [www document] URL http://nbnresolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:91-diss20050901-1249431017 (in German).
Drösler, M., Adelmann, W., Augustin, J., Bergman, L., Beyer, C., Chojnicki, B., Förster, Ch., Freibauer, A.,
Giebels, M., Görlitz, S., Höper, H., Kantelhardt, J., Liebersbach, H., Hahn-Schöfl, M., Minke, M., Petschow,U., Pfadenhauer, J., Schaller, L., Schägner, Ph., Sommer, M., Thuille, A. & Wehrhan, M. (2013)
Klimaschutz
durch
Moorschutz.
Schlussbericht
desBMBF-Vorhabens:
Klimaschutz
Moornutzungsstrategien
2006–2010.
[wwwdocument]
URL
http://edok01.tib.unihannover.de/edoks/e01fb13/735500762.pdf.
Elsgaard, L., Gorres, C.-M., Hoffmann, C.C., Blicher-Mathiesen, G., Schelde, K. & Petersen, S.O. (2012) Net
ecosystem exchange of CO2 and carbon balance for eight temperate organic soils under agricultural
management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 162: 52–67.
Epting, J., Verbyla, D. & Sorbel, B. (2005) Evaluation of remotely sensed indices for assessing burn severity ininterior Alaska using Landsat TM and ETM+. Remote Sensing of Environment 96: 328–339.
Ernfors, M., Rutting, T. & Klemedtsson, L. (2011) Increased nitrous oxide emissions from a drained organic
forest soil after exclusion of ectomycorrhizal mycelia. Plant and Soil 343: 161–170.
Fiedler, S., Höll, B.S., Freibauer, A., Stahr, K., Drösler, M., Schloter, M. & Jungkunst, H.F. (2008) Particulateorganic carbon (POC) in relation to other pore water carbon fractions in drained and rewetted fens inSouthern Germany. Biogeosciences 5: 1615–1623.
Finér, L., Ohashi, M., Noguchi, K. & Hirano, Y. (2011) Fine root production and turnover in forest ecosystems
in relation to stand and environmental characteristics. Forest Ecology and Management 262: 2008–2023.
Firestone, M.K. & Davidson, E.A. (1989) Microbiological basis of NO and N2O production and consumption insoil. In: Exchange of Trace Gases between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere, ed. M.O. Andreae &D.S. Schimel, pp. 7–21. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley.
Flessa, H. & Beese, F. (1997) Einfluss unterschiedlicher Gülleapplikationstechnik auf die gasförmige
Freisetzung von N2O; CH4 und CO2. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft 85(2): 883–
887.
Flessa, H., Wild, U., Klemisch, M. & Pfadenhauer, J. (1998) Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes from organicsoils under agriculture. European Journal of Soil Science 49: 327–335.
French, N.H.F., Goovaerts, P. & Kasischke, E.S. (2004) Uncertainty in estimating carbon emissions from boreal
forest fires. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: D14. doi: 10.1029/2003JD003635.
Furukawa, Y., Inubushi, K., Ali, M., Itang, A.M. & Tsuruta, H. (2005) Effect of changing groundwater levels
caused by land-use changes on greenhouse gas emissions from tropical peatlands. Nutrient Cycling inAgroecosystems 71: 81–91.
Gaudinski, J., Torn, M., Riley, W., Dawson, T., Doslin, D. & Majdi, H. (2010) Measuring and modeling thespectrum of fine-root turnover times in three forests using isotopes, minirhizotrons, and the Radix model.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 24: GB3029. doi: 10.1029/2009/GB003649.
Gebhart, K.A., Kreidenweis, S.M. & Malm, W.C. (2001) Back-trajectory analyses of fine particulate mattermeasured at Big Bend National Park in the historical database and the 1996 scoping study. Science of the
Total Environment 36: 185–204.
Giglio, L., Loboda, T., Roy, D.P., Quayle, B. & Justice, C.O. (2009) An active-fire based burned area mapping
algorithm for the MODIS sensor. Remote Sensing of Environment 113: 408–420.
Gill, R.A. & Jackson, R.B. (2000) Global patterns of root turnover for terrestrial ecosystems. New Phytologist
147: 13–31.
Glagolev, M.V., Chistotin, M.V., Shnyrev, N.A. & Sirin, A.A. (2008) The emission of carbon dioxide andmethane from drained peatlands changed by economic use and from natural mires during the summer-fallperiod (on example of a region of Tomsk oblast) Agrokhimija 5: 46–58.
Glatzel, S., Kalbitz, K., Dalva, M. & Moore, T. (2003) Dissolved organic matter properties and their relationshipto carbon dioxide efflux from restored peat bogs. Geoderma 113: 397–411.
Glenn, S., Heyes, A. & Moore, T. (1993) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes from drained peat soils, southernQuebec. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7: 247–257.

2.66

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Gorham, E. (1991) Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming.
Ecological Applications 1: 182–195.
Goulsbra, C., Evans, M. & Allott, T. (2013) Towards the estimation of CO 2 emissions associated with POC
fluxes from drained and eroding peatlands. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland
drainage waters. Report to Defra under project SP1205: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with nongaseous losses of carbon from peatlands – fate of particulate and dissolved carbon. Report to the Departmentof Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
Gregoire, J.-M., Tansey, K.J. & Silva, J.M.N. (2003) The GBA2000 initiative: developing a global burnt area
database from SPOT-VEGETATION imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 24: 1369–1376.
Grønlund, A., Hauge, A., Hovde, A. & Rasse, D.P. (2008) Carbon loss estimates from cultivated peat soils in
Norway: a comparison of three methods. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 81: 157–167.
Grønlund, A., Sveistrup, T.E., Søvik, A.K., Rasse, D.P. & Kløve, B. (2006) Degradation of cultivated peat soils
in Norway based on field scale CO2, N2O and CH4 emission measurements. Archives of Agronomy and Soil
Science 52: 149–159.
GTOS-68 (2009) Assessment of the status of the development of the standards for the Terrestrial Essential
Climate Variables. Fire Disturbance: Assessment report on available methodological standards and guides, 1
November 2009. [www document] URL www.fao.org/gtos/doc/ECVs/T13/T13.pdf
Guðmundsson, J. & Óskarsson, H. (2008) Summaries of GHG measurement studies. UNESCO/IHA greenhousegas research project. Measurement Specification Workshop, London, 12–14 November.
Hadi, A., Inubushi, K., Furukawa, Y., Purnomo, E., Rasmadi, M. & Tsuruta, H. (2005) Greenhouse gas
emissions from tropical peatlands of Kalimantan, Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71: 73–80.
Hairiah, K., van Noordwijk, M. & Cadisch, G. (1999) Roots as part of the carbon and nitrogen input and outputof three types of cropping systems on an Ultisol in North Lampung. In: Proceedings of the Seminar Toward
Sustainable Agriculture in Humid Tropics Facing 21st Century, ed. C. Ginting, A. Gafur & FX Susilo, pp.
86–95. Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, 27–28 September. Bogor, Indonesia: International Centre for Researchin Agroforestry.
Hairiah, K., van Noordwijk, M. & Cadisch, G. (2000) Crop yield, C and N balance of three types of cropping
systems on an Ultisol in Northern Lampung. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 48: 3–17.
Hall, R.J., Freeburn, J.T., de Groot, W.J., Pritchard, J.M., Lynham, T.J. & Landry, R. (2008) Remote sensing ofburn severity: experience from western Canada boreal fires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17: 476–
489.
Hamada, Y., Darung, U., Limin, S.H. & Hatano, R. (2013) Characteristics of fire-generated gas emission
observed during a large peatland fire in 2009 at Kalimantan, Indonesia. Atmospheric Environment 74: 177–
181.
Harrison, M.E., Cheyne, S.M., Sulistiyanto, Y. & Rieley, J.O. (2007) Biological effects of smoke from dryseason fires in non-burnt areas of the Sabangau peat swamp forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Paper
presented at International Symposium and Workshop Carbon–Climate–Human Interactions: Carbon Pools,
Fire, Mitigation, Restoration and Wise Use, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 27–31 August. [www document] URL
http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/carbopeat/media/pdf/yogyapapers/p9.pdf
Heikkinen, K. (1990) Transport of organic and inorganic matter in river, brook and peat mining water in thedrainage basin of the River Kiiminkijoki. Aqua Fennica 20: 143–155.
Heikkinen, J.E.P., Maljanen, M., Aurela, M., Hargreaves, K.J. & Martikainen, P. (2002) Carbon dioxide andmethane dynamics in a sub-Artic peatland in northern Finland. Polar Research 21(1): 49–62.
Heil, A., Langmann, B. & Aldrian, E. (2006) Indonesian peat and vegetation fire emissions: study on factors
influencing large-scale smoke haze pollution using a regional atmospheric chemistry model. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 113–133.
Hendriks, D.M.D., van Huissteden, J. & Dolman, A.J. (2010) Multi-technique assessment of spatial andtemporal variability of methane fluxes in a peat meadow. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150: 757–
774.
Hendriks, D.M.D., van Huissteden, J., Dolman, A.J. & van der Molen, M.K. (2007) The full greenhouse gasbalance of an abandoned peat meadow. Biogeosciences 4: 411–424.
Henson, I.E. & Dolmat, M.T. (2003) Physiological analysis of an oil palm density trial on a peat soil. Journal of
Oil Palm Research 15: 1–27.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.67

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Hergoualc’h, K. & Verchot, L.V. (2011) Stocks and fluxes of carbon associated with land-use change inSoutheast Asian tropical peatlands: a review. Global Biochemical Cycles 25: GB2001. doi:2010.1029/2009GB003718.
Hergoualc’h, K. & Verchot, L.V. (2012) Changes in soil CH4 fluxes from the conversion of tropical peat swamp
forests: a meta-analysis. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9: 93–101.
Hergoualc’h, K. & Verchot, L.V. (2013) Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use and land-use change inSoutheast Asian peatlands. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change doi: 10.1007/s11027013-9511-x.
Hertel, D., Harteveld, M.A. & Leuschner, C. (2009) Conversion of a tropical forest into agroforest alters the fineroot-related carbon flux to the soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41: 481–490.
Hirano, T., Jauhiainen, J., Inoue, T. & Takahashi, H. (2009) Controls on the carbon balance of tropical peatlands.
Ecosystems 12: 873–887.
Hirano, T., Segah, H., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Takahashi, H. & Osaki, M. (2012) Effects of disturbances on the
carbon balance of tropical peat swamp forests. Global Change Biology 18: 3410–3422.
Holden, J., Chapman, P.J., Palmer, S.M., Kay, P. & Grayson, R. (2012) The impacts of prescribed moorland
burning on water colour and dissolved organic carbon: a critical synthesis. Journal of Environmental
Management 101: 92–103.
Honrath, R.E., Owen, R.C., Val Martin, M., Reid, J.S., Lapina, K., Fialho, P., Dziobak, M.P., Kleissl, J. &Westphal, D.L. (2004) Regional and hemispheric impacts of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions
on summertime CO and O3 in the North Atlantic lower free troposphere. Journal of Geophysical Research
109: D24310. doi: 24310.21029/22004JD005147.
Hooijer, A., Page, S., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W.A., Lu, X.X., Idris, A. & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon
loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9: 1053–1071.
Hope, D., Palmer, S.M., Billett, M.F. & Dawson, J.J.C. (2001) Carbon dioxide and methane evasion from atemperate Peatland stream. Limnology and Oceanography 46: 847–857.
Höper, H. (2002) Carbon and nitrogen mineralization rates in German agriculturally used fenlands. In: Wetlandsin Central Europe: Soil Organisms, Soil Ecological Processes, and Trace Gas Emissions, ed. G. Broll, W.
Merbach & E.-M. Pfeiffer, pp. 149–164. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hoscilo, A., Tansey, K.J. & Page, S.E. (2013) Post-fire vegetation response as a proxy to quantify the magnitudeof burn severity in tropical peatland. International Journal of Remote Sensing 34: 412–433.
Hyvönen, N.P., Huttunen, J.T., Shurpali, N.J., Lind, S.E., Marushchak, M.E., Heitto, L. & Martikainen, P.J.
(2013) The role of drainage ditches in greenhouse gas emissions and surface leaching losses from a cutaway
peatland cultivated with a perennial bioenergy crop. Boreal Environment Research 18: 109–126.
Hyvönen, N.P., Huttunen, J.T., Shurpali, N.J., Tavi, N.M., Repo, M.E. & Martikainen, P.J. (2009) Fluxes ofnitrous oxide and methane on an abandoned peat extraction site: effect of reed canary grass cultivation.
Bioresource Technology 100: 4723–4730.
Immirzi, C.P., Maltby, E. & Clymo, R.S. (1992) The global status of peatlands and their role in carbon cycling.
Wetland Ecosystems Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Exeter, UK.
Inubushi, K., Furukawa, Y., Hadi, A., Purnomo, E. & Tsuruta, H. (2003) Seasonal changes of CO2, CH4 andN2O fluxes in relation to land-use change in tropical peatlands located in coastal area of South Kalimantan.
Chemosphere 52: 603–608.
Inubushi, K., Hadi, A., Okazaki, M. & Yonebayashi, K. (1998) Effect of converting wetland forest to sago palm
plantations on methane gas flux and organic carbon dynamics in tropical peat soil. Hydrological Processes
12: 2073–2080.
IPCC (2010) Use of models and facility-level data in greenhouse gas inventories. In: Report of IPCC Expert
Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Sydney, Australia, 9–11
August, ed. H.S. Eggleston, N. Srivastava, K. Tanabe, J. Baasansuren & M. Fukuda. IGES, Kanagawa, Japan.
Ishida, T., Suzuki, S., Nagano, T., Osawa, K., Yoshino, K., Fukumura, K. & Nuyim, T. (2001) CO2 emission ratefrom a primary peat swamp forest ecosystem in Thailand. Environmental Control in Biology 39: 305–312.
Ishizuka, S., Iswandi, A., Nakajima, Y., Yonemura, S., Sudo, S., Tsuruta, H. & 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.

2.68

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Itkonen, A. & Jantunen, M.J. (1986) Emissions and particle-size distribution of some metallic elements of twopeat/oil-fired boilers. Environmental Science and Technology 20: 335–341.
Jaakkola, A. (1985) Lannoite ja kasviainestypen hyväksikäyttö ja häviö. Biologisen typensidonnan ja
ravinnetypen hyväksikäytön projekti. Suomen itsenäisyyden juhlavuoden 1967 rahasto. Julkaisu 13. Helsinki,
Finland. 107 pp (in Finnish).
Jacobs, C.M.J., Moors, E.J. & van der Bolt, F.J.E. (2003) Invloed van waterbeheer op gekoppelde
broeikasgasemissies in het veenweidegebied by ROC Zegveld. Alterra-rapport 840. Alterra, Wageningen,
The Netherlands (in Dutch).
Jager, D.F., Wilmking, M. & Kukkonen, J.V.K. (2009) The influence of summer seasonal extremes on dissolved
organic carbon export from a boreal peatland catchment: evidence from one dry and one wet growing season.
Science of the Total Environment 407: 1373–1382.
Jauhiainen, J. & Silvennoinen, H. (2012) Diffusion GHG fluxes at tropical peatland drainage canal water
surfaces. Suo 63: 93–105.
Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A. & Page, S.E. (2012a) Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation on
peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9: 617–630.
Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A. & Page, S.E. (2012c) Greenhouse gas emissions from a plantation on thick tropicalpeat. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Peat Congress. Stockholm, Sweden, 3–8 June.
Jauhiainen, J., Limin, S., Silvennoinen, H. & Vasander, H. (2008) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in drained
tropical peat before and after hydrological restoration. Ecology 89: 3503–3514.
Jauhiainen, J., Silvennoinen, H., Hämäläinen, R., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Raison, R.J. & Vasander, H. (2012b)
Nitrous oxide fluxes from tropical peat with different disturbance history and management. Biogeosciences 9:1337–1350.Johnson, E.A. (1992) Fire and Vegetation Dynamics: Studies from the North American Boreal
Forest. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, T., Jones, D. & Evans, C. (2013) Conversion of waterborne DOC to CO2 – results of laboratory
experiments. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters. Report to Defra
under project SP1205: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with non-gaseous losses of carbon frompeatlands – fate of particulate and dissolved carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food andRural Affairs, UK.
Jonsson, A., Algesten, G., Bergström, A.-K., Bishop, K., Sobek, S., Tranvik, L.J. & Jansson, M. (2007)
Integrating aquatic carbon fluxes in a boreal catchment carbon budget. Journal of Hydrology 334: 141–150.
Juutinen, S., Väliranta, M., Kuutti, V., Laine, A.M., Virtanen, T., Seppä, H., Weckström, J. & Tuittila, E.-S.
(2013) Short-term and long-term carbon dynamics in a northern peatland-stream-lake continuum: acatchment approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 118: 171–183.
Kajii, Y., Kato, S., Streets, D., Tsai, N., Shvidenko, A., Nilsson, S., McCallum, I., Minko, N., Abushenko, N.,
Altyntsev, D. & Khodzer, T. (2002) Boreal forest fires in Siberia in 1998: estimation of area burned andemissions of pollutants by advanced very high resolution radiometer satellite data. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 107: D24. doi: 10.1029/2001JD001078.
Kakuda, K.-I., Watanabe, A., Ando, H. & Jong, F.S. (2005) Effects of fertilizer application on the root andaboveground biomass of sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) cultivated in peat soil. Japanese Journal of
Tropical Agriculture 49(4): 264–269.
Kane, E.S., Turetsky, M.R., Harden, J.W., McGuire, A.D. & Waddington, J.M. (2010) Seasonal ice andhydrologic controls on dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a boreal-rich fen. Journal ofGeophysical Research 115: G04012. doi: 10.1029/2010JG001366.
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 Management 13: 245–250.
Kasimir-Klemedtsson, Å., Weslien, P. & Klemedtsson, L. (2009) Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from a
farmed Swedish Histosol. European Journal of Soil Science 60: 321–331.
Kasischke, E.S. (2000) Boreal ecosystems in the carbon cycle. In: Fire, Climate Change and Carbon Cycling in
the North American Boreal Forest, ed. E.S. Kasischke & B.J. Stocks, pp. 19–30. New York, NY, USA:
Springer-Verlag.
Kasischke, E.S. & Bruhwiler, L.P. (2003) Emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane fromboreal forest fires in 1998. Journal of Geophysical Research 108: 8146. doi: 8110.1029/2001JD000461.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.69

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Kasischke, E.S., Bourgeau-Chavez, L.L., Rober, A.R., Wyatt, K.H., Waddington, J.M. & Turetsky, M.R. (2009)
Effects of soil moisture and water depth on ERS SAR backscatter measurements from an Alaskan wetlandcomplex. Remote Sensing of Environment 113: 1868–1873.
Kasischke, E.S., Christensen, N.L. & Stocks, B.J. (1995) Fire, global warming, and the carbon balance of boreal
forests. Ecological Applications 5: 437–451.
Kasischke, E.S., Loboda, T., Giglio, L., French, N.H.F., Hoy, E.E., de Jong, B. & Riaño, D. (2011) Quantifying
burned area from fires in North American forests: implications for direct reduction of carbon stocks. Journalof Geophysical Research 116: G4. doi: 10.1029/2011JG001707.
Keeney, D.R., Fillery, I.R. & Marx, G.P. (1979) Effect of temperature on the gaseous nitrogen products ofdenitrification in a silty loam soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43: 1124–1128.
Koehler, A.-K., Murphy, K., Kiely, G. & Sottocornola, M. (2009) Seasonal variation of DOC concentration andannual loss of DOC from an Atlantic blanket bog in South Western Ireland. Biogeochemistry 95: 231–242.
Koehler, A.-K., Sottocornola, M. & Kiely, G. (2011) How strong is the current carbon sequestration of an
Atlantic blanket bog? Global Change Biology 17: 309–319.
Köhler, S., Buffam, I., Jonsson, A. & Bishop, K. (2002) Photochemical and microbial processing of stream andsoil water dissolved organic matter in a boreal forested catchment in northern Sweden. Aquatic Science 64:
1–13.
Kolka, R.K., Grigal, D.F., Verry, E.S. & Nater, E.A. (1999) Mercury and organic carbon relationships in streams
draining forested upland peatland watersheds. Journal of Environmental Quality 28: 766–775.
Komulainen, V.M., Nykänen, H., Martikainen, P.J. & Laine, J. (1998) Short-term effect of restoration onvegetation change and methane emissions from peatlands drained for forestry in southern Finland. Canadian
Journal of Forestry Research 28: 402–411.
Koprivnjak, J.F. & Moore, T.R. (1992) Sources, sinks and fluxes of dissolved organic carbon in subarctic fen
catchments. Arctic and Alpine Research 24: 204–210.
Kortelainen, P., Mattsson, T., Finér, L., Ahtiainen, M., Saukkonen, S. & Sallantaus, T. (2006) Controls on theexport of C, N, P and Fe from undisturbed boreal catchments, Finland. Aquatic Science 68: 453–468.
Kreshtapova, V.N. & Maslov, B.S. (2004) Contents of carbon compounds in reclaimed peat soils as a function of
the properties of peat organic matter. In: Proceedings of 12th International Peat Congress, Vol. 2, ed. J.
Päivänen, pp. 988–992. Tampere, Finland, 6–11 June.
Kroon, P.S., Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Hensen, A., Veenendaal, E.M. & Jonker, H.J.J. (2010) Annual balances of CH4
and N2O from a managed fen meadow using eddy covariance flux measurements. European Journal of Soil
Science 61: 773–784.
Kuhry, P. (1994) The role of fire in the development of Sphagnum-dominated peatlands in western boreal
Canada. Journal of Ecology 82: 899–910.
Kuntze, H. (1992) Peat losses by liming and fertilization of peatlands used as Grassland. In: Proceedings of the
9th International Peat Congress, Vol. 2, pp. 306–314.
Laine, J., Minkkinen, K., Sinisalo, J., Savolainen, I. & Martikainen, P.J. (1996) Greenhouse impact of a mire
after drainage for forestry. In: Northern Forested Wetlands, Ecology and Management, ed. C.C. Trettin, M.F.
Jurgensen, D.F. Grigal, M.R. Gale & J.K. Jeglum, pp. 437–447. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Lewis
Publishers.
Lamade, E. & Bouillet, J.-P. (2005) Carbon storage and global change: the role of oil palm. OCL: Oléagineux,
Corps Gras, Lipides 12: 154–160.
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. European Journal of
Agriculture 7: 35–42.
Lapina, K., Honrath, R.E., Owen, R.C., Val Martin, M., Hyer, E.J. & Fialho, P. (2008) Late-summer changes inburning conditions in the boreal regions and their implications for NOx and CO emissions from boreal fires.
Journal of Geophysical Research 113: D11304. doi: 11310.11029/12007JD009421.
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. & Vesala, T. (2007) Ecosystem-level carbon sink measurements on forested
peatlands. In: Greenhouse Impacts of the Use of Peat and Peatlands in Finland, ed. S. Sarkkola, pp. 38–40.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 11a/2007.

2.70

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Leifeld, J., Müller, M. & Fuhrer, J. (2011) Peatland subsidence and carbon loss from drained temperate fens. Soil
Use and Management 27: 170–176.
Lloyd, C.R. (2006) Annual carbon balance of a managed wetland meadow in the Somerset Levels, UK.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 138: 168–179.
Lohila, A., Aurela, M., Tuovinen, J.-P. & Laurila, T. (2004) Annual CO2 exchange of a peat field growing springbarley or perennial forage. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: D18116. doi: 10.1029/2004JD004715.
Lohila, A., Laurila, T., Aro, L., Aurela, M., Tuovinen, J.-P., Laine, J. & Minkkinen, K. (2007) Carbon dioxide
exchange above a 30-year-old Scots pine plantation established on organic-soil Cropland. Boreal
Environment Research 12: 141–157.
Lohila, A., Minkkinen, K., Aurela, M., Tuovinen, J.-P., Penttilä, T. & Laurila, T. (2011) Greenhouse gas flux
measurements in a forestry-drained peatland indicate a large carbon sink. Biogeosciences Discussions 8:5787–5825.
Lorenz, W.D., Sauerbrey, R., Eschner, D., Lehrkamp, H. & Zeitz, J. (1992) Zustand der landwirtschaftlich
genutzten Niedermoore in der ehemaligen DDR. Wasser und Boden 44: 58–61.
Lucas, R.E. (1982) Organic Soils (Histosols): Formation, Distribution, Physical and Chemical Properties andManagement for Crop Production. East Lansing, MI, USA: Michigan State University Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Mäkiranta, P., Hytönen, J., Aro, L., Maljanen, M., Pihlatie, M., Potila, H., Shurpali, N.J., Laine, J., Lohila, A.,
Martikainen, P.J. & Minkkinen, K. (2007) Soil greenhouse gas emissions from afforested organic soil
Croplands and peat extraction peatlands. Boreal Environment Research 12: 159–175.
Malhi, Y, Aragão, L.E.O.C., Metcalfe, D.B., Paiva, R., Quesada, C.A., Almeida, S., Anderson, L., Brando, P.,
Chambers, J.Q., da Costa, A.C.L., Hutyra, L.R., Oliveira, P., Patiño, S., Pyle, E.H., Robertson, A.L. &Teixeira, L.M. (2009) Comprehensive assessment of carbon productivity, allocation and storage in three
Amazonian forests. Global Change Biology 15: 1255–1274.
Maljanen, M., Alm, J., Martikainen, P.J. & Repo, T. (2010a) Prolongation of soil frost resulting from reduced
snow cover increases nitrous oxide emissions from boreal forest soil. Boreal Environment Research 15: 34–
42.
Maljanen, M., Hytönen, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (2001b) Fluxes of N2O, CH4 and CO2 on afforested boreal
agricultural soils. Plant and Soil 231: 113–121.
Maljanen, M., Hytönen, J., Mäkiranta, P., Alm, J., Minkkinen, K., Laine, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (2007)
Greenhouse gas emissions from cultivated and abandoned organic Croplands in Finland. Boreal Environment
Research 12: 133–140.
Maljanen, M., Hytönen, J. & Martikalnen, P.J. (2010b) Cold-season nitrous oxide dynamics in a drained boreal
peatland differ depending on land-use practice. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 565-572.
Maljanen, M., Komulainen, V.-M., Hytönen, J., Martikainen, P.J. & Laine, J. (2004) Carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide and methane dynamics in boreal organic agricultural soils with different soil management. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry 36: 1801–1808.
Maljanen, M., Liikanen, A., Silvola, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (2003a) Methane fluxes on agricultural and forested
boreal organic soils. Soil Use Management 19: 73–79.
Maljanen, M., Liikanen, A., Silvola, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (2003b) Nitrous oxide emissions from boreal organic
soil under different land-use. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 35: 689–700.
Maljanen, M., Martikainen, P.J., Walden, J. & Silvola, J. (2001a) CO2 exchange in an organic field growing
barley or grass in eastern Finland. Global Change Biology 7: 679–692.
Maljanen, M., Nykänen, H., Moilanen, M. & Martikainen, P.J. (2006) Greenhouse gas fluxes of coniferous
forest floors affected by wood ash fertilization. Forest Ecology and Management 237: 143–149.
Maljanen, M., Sigurdsson, B.D., Guomundsson, J., Oskarsson, H., Huttunen, J.T. & Martikainen, P.J. (2010c)
Greenhouse gas balances of managed peatlands in the Nordic countries - preesent knowledge and gaps.
Biogeosciences 7: 2711-2738.
Maljanen, M., Virkajärvi, P., Hytönen, J., Öquist, M., Sparrman, T. & Martikainen, P.J. (2009) Nitrous oxide
production in boreal soils with variable organic matter content at low temperature snow manipulation
experiment, Biogeosciences 6: 2461–2473.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.71

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Marsden, K. & Ebmeier, S. (2012) Peatlands and climate change. SPICe briefing 12/28 [www document] URL
www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_12-28.pdf.
Martikainen, P.J., Nykänen, H., Alm, J. & Silvola, J. (1995a) Change in fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane andnitrous oxide due to forest drainage of mire sites of different trophy. Plant and Soil 168–169: 571–577.
Martikainen, P.J., Nykänen, H., Crill, P. & Silvola, J. (1992) The effect of changing water table on methane
fluxes at two Finnish mire sites. Suo 43: 237–240.
Martikainen, P.J., Nykänen, H., Crill, P. & Silvola, J. (1993) Effect of a lowered water table on nitrous oxide
fluxes from northern peatlands. Nature 366: 51–53.
Martikainen, P.J., Nykänen, H., Regina, K., Lehtonen, M. & Silvola, J. (1995b) Methane fluxes in a drained andforested peatland treated with different nitrogen compounds. In: Northern Peatlands in Global Climatic
Change: Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Hyytiälä, Finland, 1/96, ed. R. Laiho, J. Laine& H. Vasander, pp. 105–109. Academy of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. (2013) Is CO2 flux from oil palm plantations on peatland controlled by water table, soil
moisture, day/night rhythm and/or temperature? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change doi
10.1007/s11027-013-9518-3.
Matthews, R.B., Wassmann, R., Buendia, L.V. & Knox, J.W. (2000) Using a crop/soil simulation model and
GIS techniques to assess methane emissions from rice fields in Asia: II. Model validation and sensitivity
analysis. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 58: 161–177.
McNamara, N. (2013) CH4 emissions from ditches in a drained lowland peat Grassland, Somerset, UK. In:
Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters. Report to Defra under project
SP1205: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with non-gaseous losses of carbon from peatlands – fate ofparticulate and dissolved carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
McNeil, P. & Waddington, J.M. (2003) Moisture controls on Sphagnum growth and CO 2 exchange on a cutover
bog. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 354–367.
Melling, L., Chaddy, A., Goh, K.J. & Hatano, R. (2013) Soil CO2 fluxes from different ages of oil palm in
tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia as influenced by environmental and soil properties. Acta
Horticulturae 982: 25–35.
Melling, L., Goh, K.J., Beauvais, C. & Hatano, R. (2007a) Carbon flow and budget in a young mature oil palm
agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical Peatland,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 27–31 August.
Melling, L., Hatano, R. & Goh, K.J. (2005a) Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of
Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus 57B: 1–11.
Melling, L., Hatano, R. & Goh, K.J. (2005b) Methane fluxes from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of
Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 1445–1453.
Melling, L., Hatano, R. & Goh, K.J. (2007b) Nitrous oxide emissions from three ecosystems in tropical peatlandof Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 53: 792–805.
Meyer, K., Höper, H. & Blankenburg, J. (2001) Spurengashaushalt und Klimabilanz von Niedermooren unterdem Einfluß des Vernässungsmanagements. In: Ökosystemmanagement für Niedermoore. Strategien und
Verfahren zur Renaturierung, ed. R. Kratz & J. Pfadenhauer, pp. 104–111. Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer.
Milner, L., Boom, A., Page, S.E., Moore, S. & Matthews, R. (forthcoming) Effects of fire on the organic mattercomposition of a tropical peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of Organic Geochemistry.
Minkkinen, K. & Laine, J. (1998) Long-term effect of forest drainage on the peat carbon stores of pine mires inFinland. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 28: 1267–1275.
Minkkinen, K. & Laine, J. (2006) Vegetation heterogeneity and ditches create spatial variability in methane
fluxes from peatlands drained for forestry. Plant and Soil 285: 289–304.
Minkkinen, K., Laine, J., Shurpali, N., Mäkiranta, P., Alm, J. & Penttilä, T. (2007b) Heterotrophic soil
respiration in forestry drained peatlands. Boreal Environment Research 12: 115–126.
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.
Minkkinen, K., Vasander, H., Jauhiainen, S., Karsisto, M. & Laine, J. (1999) Post-drainage changes invegetation composition and carbon balance in Lakkasuo mire, Central Finland. Plant and Soil 207: 107–120.

2.72

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Moore, S., Evans, C.D., Page, S.E., Garnett, M.G., Jones, T.G., Freeman, C., Hooijer, A., Wiltshire, A., Limin, S.
& Gauci, V. (2013) Deep instability of deforested tropical peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon
fluxes. Nature 493: 660–664.
Moore, T.R. (2003) Dissolved organic carbon in a northern boreal landscape. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17:1109. doi: 10.1029/2003GB002050.
Moore, T.R. & Clarkson, B.R. (2007) Dissolved organic carbon in New Zealand peatlands. New Zealand
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41: 137–141.
Moore, T.R. & Knowles, R. (1990) Methane emissions from fen, bog and swamp peatlands in Quebec.
Biogeochemistry 11: 45–61.
Moore, T.R., Matos, L. & Roulet, N.T. (2003) Dynamics and chemistry of dissolved organic carbon in
Precambrian Shield catchments and an impounded wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 60: 612–623.
Morrison, R., Cumming, A., Taft, H., Page, S., Kaduk, J., Harding, R., Jones, D. & Balzter, H. (2013) Carbon
dioxide budget of a drained and intensively cultivated lowland fen in the East Anglian fen. In: Emissions ofgreenhouse gases from UK managed lowland peatlands. Report to Defra under project SP1210: Lowland
peatland systems in England and Wales – evaluating greenhouse gas fluxes and carbon balances. Report to
the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
NCDENR (1998) Smoke from peat fire could pose health concerns in Craven County. [www document] URL
http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/newsrels/presrels.htm.
Nieveen, J.P., Campbell, D.I., Schipper, L.A. & Blair, I.J. (2005) Carbon exchange of grazed pasture on adrained peat soil. Global Change Biology 11: 607–618.
Nilsson, M., Sagerfors, J., Buffam, I., Laudon, H., Eriksson, T., Grelle, A., Klemedtsson, L., Weslien, P. &Lindroth, A. (2008) Contemporary carbon accumulation in a boreal oligotrophic minerogenic mire – asignificant sink after accounting for all C-fluxes. Global Change Biology 14: 2317–2332.
Nouvellon, Y., Laclau, J.-P., Epron, D., Le Maire, G., Bonnefond, J.-M., Gonçalves, J.L.M. & Bouillet, J.-P.
(2012) Production and carbon allocation in monocultures and mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus
grandis and Acacia mangium in Brazil. Tree Physiology 32: 680–695.
Nykänen, H., Alm, J., Lang, K., Silvola, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (1995) Emissions of CH4, N2O and CO2 from avirgin fen and a fen drained for Grassland in Finland. Journal of Biogeography 22: 351–357.
Nykänen, H., Alm, J., Silvola, J., Tolonen, K. & 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. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 12: 53–69.
Nykänen, H., Silvola, J., Alm, J. & 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: Proceedings of theInternational Workshop Held in Hyytiälä, Finland, 1/96, ed. R. Laiho, J. Laine & H. Vasander, pp. 141–147.
Academy of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K., Alm, J. & Penttilä, T. (2010) Soil-atmosphere CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes in boreal
forestry-drained peatlands. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 411–421.
Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K., Lohila, A., Badorek, T. & Penttilä, T. (2012) Chamber measured soil respiration: auseful tool for estimating the carbon balance of peatland forest soils? Forest Ecology and Management 277:
132–140.
Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K. & Penttilä, T. (2013) The current greenhouse impact of forestry-drained peatlands.
Forest Ecology and Management 289: 201–208.
Okruszko, H. (1989) Wirkung der Bodennutzung auf die Niedermoorentwicklung. Ergebnisse eines längjährigen
Feldversuches. Z f Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung 30: 167–176.
Opsahl, S. & Benner, R. (1997) Distribution and cycling of terrigenous dissolved organic matter in the ocean.
Nature 386: 480–482.
Opsahl, S. & Benner, R. (1998) Photochemical reactivity of dissolved lignin in river and ocean waters.
Limnology and Oceanography 43: 1297–1304.
Page, S.E., Rieley, J.O. & Banks, C.J. (2011) Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon
pool. Global Change Biology 17: 798–818.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.73

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Page, S.E., Siegert, F., Rieley, J.O., Bohm, H.-D.V., Jaya, A. & Limin, S. (2002) The amount of carbon released
from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420: 61–65.
Pawson, R.R., Lord, D.R., Evans, M.G. & Allott, T.E.H. (2008) Fluvial organic carbon flux from an eroding
peatland catchment, southern Pennines, UK. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 12: 625–634.
Petersen, S.O., Hoffmann, C.C., Schafer, C.-M., Blicher-Mathiesen, G., Elsgaard, L., Kristensen, K., Larsen,
S.E., Torp, S.B. & Greve, M.H. (2012) Annual emissions of CH4 and N2O, and ecosystem respiration, fromeight organic soils in Western Denmark managed by agriculture. Biogeosciences 9: 403–422.
Pihlatie, M., Rinne, J., Lohila, A., Laurila, T., Aro, L. & Vesala, T. (2004) Nitrous oxide emissions from anafforested peat field using eddy covariance and enclosure techniques. In: Proceedings of 12th International
Peat Congress Vol. 2, ed. J. Päivänen, pp. 1010–1014. Tampere, Finland, 6–11 June.
Pitkänen, A., Turunen, J. & Tolonen, K. (1999) The role of fire in the carbon dynamics of a mire, eastern
Finland. Holocene 9: 453–462.
Poulter, B., Christensen, N.L. & Halpin, P.N. (2006) Carbon emissions from a temperate peat fire and its
relevance to interannual variability of trace atmospheric greenhouse gases. Journal of Geophysical Research
111: D06301. doi: 06310.01029/02005JD006455.
Rahajoe, J.S., Kohyama, T. & Limin, S.H. (2000) Litter decomposition process in two contrastive nutrient
limited forest types in central Kalimantan. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on TropicalPeatlands, ed. T. Iwakuma, pp. 223–231. Bogor, Indonesia, 22–23 November 1999. Hokkaido University
and Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Bogor, Indonesia.
Ramadan, Z., Song, X.H. & Hopke, P.K. (2000) Identification of sources of Phoenix aerosol by positive matrix
factorization. Journal of Air Waste Management 50: 1308–1320.
Rantakari, M., Mattsson, T., Kortelainen, P., Piirainen, S., Finér, L. & Ahtiainen, M. (2010) Organic andinorganic carbon concentrations and fluxes from managed and unmanaged boreal first-order catchments.
Science of the Total Environment 408: 1649–1658.
Raymond, P.A. & Bauer, J.E. (2001) Riverine export of aged terrestrial organic matter to the North Atlantic
Ocean. Nature 497: 497–500.
Regina, K., Nykänen, H., Maljanen, M., Silvola, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (1998) Emissions of N2O and NO and net
nitrogen mineralization in a boreal forested peatland treated with different nitrogen compounds. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 28: 132–140.
Regina, K., Nykänen, H., Silvola, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (1996) Fluxes of nitrous oxide from boreal peatlands asaffected by peatland type, water table level and nitrification capacity. Biogeochemistry 35: 401–418.
Regina, K., Pihlatie, M., Esala, M. & Alakukku, L. (2007) Methane fluxes on boreal arable soils. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 119: 346–352.
Regina, K., Syväsalo, E., Hannukkala, A. & Esala, M. (2004) Fluxes of N2O from farmed peat soils in Finland.
European Journal of Soil Science 55: 591–599.
Rein, G., Cleaver, N., Ashton, C., Pironi, P. & Torero, J.L. (2008) The severity of smouldering peat fires anddamage to the forest soil. Catena 74: 304–309.
Roulet, N.T. & Moore, T.R. (1995) The effect of forestry drainage practices on the emission of methane from
northern peatlands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25: 491–499.
Roulet, N.T., LaFleur, P.M., Richards, P.J., Moore, T.R., Humphreys, E.R. & Bubier, J. (2007) Contemporary
carbon balance and late Holocene carbon accumulation in a northern peatland. Global Change Biology 13:
397–411.
Rowson, J.G., Gibson, H.S., Worrall, F., Ostle, N., Burt, T.P. & Adamson, J.K. (2010) The complete carbon
budget of a drained peat catchment. Soil Use and Management 26: 261–273.
Roy, D.P., Boschetti, L., Justice, C.O. & Ju, J. (2008) The collection 5 MODIS burned area product—Global
evaluation by comparison with the MODIS active fire product. Remote Sensing of Environment 112: 3690–
3707.
Ruser, R., Flessa, H., Schilling, R., Beese, F. & Munch, J.C. (2001) Effect of crop-specific field management
and N fertilization on N2O emissions from a fine-loamy soil. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 59: 177–
191.
Ryden, J.C. & Lund, L.J. (1980) Nitrous oxide evolution from irrigated land. Journal of Environmental Quality 9:
387–393.

2.74

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Saari, P., Saarnio, S., Kukkonen, J.V.K., Akkanen, J., Heinonen, J., Saari, V. & Alm, J. (2009) DOC and N2O
dynamics in upland and peatland forest soils after clear-cutting and soil preparation. Biogeochemistry 94:
217–231.
Saarnio, S., Morero, M., Shurpali, N.J., Tuittila, E.-S., Makila, M. & Alm, J. (2007) Annual CO2 and CH4 fluxesof pristine boreal mires as a background for lifecycle analyses of peat energy. Boreal Environmental
Research 12: 101–113.
Sah, S.P., Jungner, H., Oinonen, M., Kukkola, M. & Helmisaari, H.-S. (2011) Does the age of fine root carbon
indicate the age of fine roots in boreal forests? Biogeochemistry 104: 91–102.
Saharjo, B.H. & Munoz, C.P. (2005) Controlled burning in peat lands owned by small farmers: a case study inland preparation. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13: 105–110.
Saharjo, B.H. & Nurhayati, A.D. (2005) Changes in chemical and physical properties of hemic peat under firebased shifting cultivation. Tropics 14: 263–269.
Schothorst, C.J. (1977) Subsidence of low moor peat soils in the Western Netherlands. In: Proceedings of the 5thInternational Peat Congress, Poznan, Vol. 1, pp. 206–217.
Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Hendriks, D.M.D., Kroon, P.S., Hensen, A., van Huissteden, J., Leffelaar, P.A., Nol, L.,
Veenendaal, E.M. & Berendse, F. (2010c) Flushing meadows: the influence of management alternatives on
the greenhouse gas balance of fen meadow areas [Academic thesis]. Wageningen University, Wageningen,
The Netherlands.
Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Kroon, P.S., Hensen, A., Leffelaar, P.A., Berendse, F. & Veenendaal, E.M. (2010a)
Comparison of chamber and eddy covariance based CO2 and CH4 emission estimates in a heterogeneous
grass ecosystem on peat. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150: 825–831.
Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Kroon, P.S., Leffelaar, P.A., van Huissteden, J.C., Berendse, F. & Veenendaal, E.M. (2010b)
Methane emissions in two drained peat agro-ecosystems with high and low agricultural intensity. Plant andSoil 329: 509–520.
Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Veraart, A.J., Leffelaar, P.J., Berendse, F. & Veenendaal, E.M. (2011) Release of CO2 andCH4 from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry 102: 265–279.
Shimamura, T. & Momose, K. (2005) Organic matter dynamics control plant species coexistence in a tropicalpeat swamp forest. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272: 1503–1510.
Shurpali, N.J., Hyvönen, N.P., Huttunen, J.T., Biasi, C., Nykänen, H., Pekkarinen, N. & Martikainen, P.J. (2008)
Bare soil and reed canary grass ecosystem respiration in peat extraction sites in Eastern Finland. Tellus 60B:
200–209.
Shurpali, N.J., Hyvönen, N., Huttunen, J.T., Clement, R., Reichestein, M., Nykänen, H., Biasi, C. & Martikainen,
P.J. (2009) Cultivation of perennial grass for bioenergy use on a boreal organic soil – carbon sink or source?
Global Change Biology Bioenergy 1: 35–50.
Sikström, U., Björk, R.G., Ring, E., Ernfors, M., Jacobson, S., Nilsson, M. & 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 (inSwedish).
Simola, H., Pitkänen, A. & Turunen, J. (2012) Carbon loss in drained forestry peatlands in Finland, estimated byre-sampling peatlands surveyed in the 1980s. European Journal of Soil Science 63: 798–807.
Simon, M., Plummer, S., Fierens, F., Hoelzemann, J.J. & Arino, O. (2004) Burnt area detection at global scaleusing ATSR-2: the GLOBSCAR products and their qualification. Journal of Geophysical Research 109:
D14S02. doi: 10.1029/2003JD003622.
Sinsabaugh, R.L. & Findlay, S. (1995) Microbial production, enzyme activity, and carbon turnover in surface
sediments of the Hudson River estuary. Microbes and Ecology 30: 127–141.
Sirin, A.A., Suvorov, G.G., Chistotin, M.V. & Glagolev, M.V. (2012) Values of methane emission fromdrainage ditches. Environmental Dynamics and Climate Change 3(2(6)): 1–10. [www document] URL
www.ugrasu.ru/uploads/files/EDCC_3_2_Sirin.pdf (in Russian).
Sobek, S., Algesten, G., Bergström, A.-K., Jansson, M. & Tranvik, J. (2003) The catchment and climate
regulation of pCO2 in boreal lakes. Global Change Biology 9: 630–641.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.75

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Stehfest, E. & Bouwman, L. (2006) N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under naturalvegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modelling of global annual emissions. Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems 74: 207–228.
Stephens, J.C., Allen, L.H. & Chen, E. (1984) Organic soil subsidence. Reviews in Engineering Geology 6: 107–
122.
Strack, M. & Zuback, Y.C.A. (2013) Annual carbon balance of a peatland 10 yr following restoration.
Biogeosciences 10: 2885–2896.
Strack, M., Waddington, J.M., Bourbonniere, R.A., Buckton, L., Shaw, K., Whittington, P. & Price, J.S. (2008)
Effect of water table drawdown on peatland dissolved organic carbon export and dynamics. Hydrological
Processes 22: 3373–3385.
Strack, M., Waddington, J.M. & Tuittila, E.-S. (2004) Effect of water table drawdown on northern peatland
methane dynamics: implications for climate change. Global Biogeochemistry Cycles 18: GB4003. doi:
10.1029/2003GB002209.
Stutter, M.I., Baggaley, N., Barry, C., Chapman, S., Dawson, J.J.C., Helliwell, R.C., Higgins, A., Howden, L.,
Jackson-Blake, L., Lumsdon, D.G., Malcolm, I., Sample, J., Potts, J. & Worrall, F. (2011) Assessment of thecontribution of aquatic carbon fluxes to carbon losses from UK peatlands. SNIFFER Report, Project ER18.
James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, UK.
Sulistiyanto, Y. (2004) Nutrient dynamics in different sub‐types of peat swamp forest in central Kalimantan,
Indonesia [PhD thesis]. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Sundari, S., Hirano, T., Yamada, H., Kusin, K. & Limin, S. (2012) Effects of groundwater level on soil
respiration in tropical peat swamp forests. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology 68: 121–134.
Sundh, I., Nilsson, M., Mikkelä, C., Granberg, G. & Svensson, B.H. (2000) Fluxes of methane and carbon
dioxide on peat-mining areas in Sweden. Ambio 29: 499–503.
Swetnam, T.W. (1993) Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. Science 262: 885–889.
Taft, H., Cross, P. & Jones, D. (2013) Annual emission cycle of greenhouse gases from peat soils managed for
horticultural production. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases from UK managed lowland peatlands. Report to
Defra under project SP1210: Lowland peatland systems in England and Wales – evaluating greenhouse gas
fluxes and carbon balances. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
Takakai, F., Morishita, T., Hashidoko, Y., Darung, U., Kuramochi, K., Dohong, S., Limin, S.H. & Hatano, R.
(2006) Effects of agricultural land use change and forest fire on N2O emission from tropical peatlands,
Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 53: 662–674.
Tansey, K., Grégoire, J.-M., Defourny, P., Leigh, R., Pekel, J.-F., van Bogaert, E. & Bartholomé, E. (2008) A
new, global, multi-annual (2000–2007) burnt area product at 1 km resolution. Geophysical Research Letters
35: L01401. doi: 01410.01029/02007GL031567.
Teh, Y.A., Silver, W.L., Sonnentag, O., Detto, M., Kelly, M. & Baldocchi, D.D. (2011) Large greenhouse gas
emissions from a temperate peatland pasture. Ecosystems 14: 311–325.
Treat, C.C., Bubier, J.L., Varner, R.K. & Crill, P.M. (2007) Timescale dependence of environmental and plantmediated controls on CH4 flux in a temperate fen. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 112:
G01014. doi: 10.1029/2006JG000210.
Tuittila, E.-S. & Komulainen, V.-M. (1995) Vegetation and CO2 balance in an abandoned harvested peatland in
Aitoneva, southern Finland. Suo 46: 69–80.
Tuittila, E.S., Komulainen, V.M., Vasander, H., Nykänen, H., Martikainen, P.J. & Laine, J. (2000) Methane
dynamics of a restored cut-away peatland. Global Change Biology 6: 569–581.
Tuittila, E.-S., Vasander, H. & Laine, J. (2004) Sensitivity of C sequestration in reintroduced sphagnum towater-level variation in a cutaway peatland. Restoration Ecology 12: 483–493.
Turetsky, M.R. & Wieder, R.K. (2001) A direct approach to quantifying organic matter lost as a result ofpeatland fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 363–366.
Turetsky, M.R., Donahue, W.F. & Benscoter, B.W. (2011b) Experimental drying intensifies burning and carbon
losses in a northern peatland. Nature Communications 2: 514. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1523.
Turetsky, M.R., Kane, E.S., Harden, J.W., Ottmar, R.D., Manies, K.L., Hoy, E. & Kasischke, E.S. (2011a)
Recent acceleration of biomass burning and carbon losses in Alaskan forests and peatlands. Nature
Geoscience 4: 27–31.

2.76

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Turunen, J., Roulet, N.T. & Moore, T.R. (2004) Nitrogen deposition and increased carbon accumulation in
ombrotrophic peatlands in eastern Canada. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: GB3002. doi:
10.1029/2003GB002154.
Urban, N.R., Bayley, S.E. & Eisenreich, S.J. (1989) Export of dissolved organic carbon and acidity frompeatlands. Water Resources Research 25: 1619–1628.
Urbanová, Z., Picek, T. & Bárta, J. (2011) Effect of peat re-wetting on carbon and nutrient fluxes, greenhousegas production and diversity of methanogenic archaeal community. Ecological Engineering 37: 1017–1026.
Usup, A., Hashimoto, Y., Takahashi, H. & Hayasaka, H. (2004) Combustion and thermal characteristics of peatfire in tropical peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Tropics 14: 1–19.
Val Martin, M., Honrath, R.E., Owen, R.C., Pfister, G., Fialho, P. & Barata, F. (2006) Significant enhancementsof nitrogen oxides, black carbon, and ozone in the North Atlantic lower free troposphere resulting from North
American boreal wildfires. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: D23S60. doi: 10.1029/2006JD007530.
van Beek, C.L., Pleijter, M., Jacobs, C.M.J., Velthof, G.L., van Groenigen, J.W. & Kuikman, J. (2010)
Emissions of N2O from fertilized and grazed Grassland on organic soil in relation to groundwater level.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 86: 331–340.
van den Bos, R.M. (2003) Restoration of former wetlands in the Netherlands: effect on the balance between CO 2
sink and CH4 source. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 82: 325–332.
van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., van Beusichem, M.L. & Oenema, O. (1997) Effects of grassland management on
the emission of methane from intensively managed grasslands on peat soil. Plant and Soil 189: 1–9.
van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., van Beusichem, M.L. & Oenema, O. (1999a) Methane emissions from wet
Grasslands on peat soil in a nature preserve. Biogeochemistry 44: 205–220.
van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., van Beusichem, M.L. & Oenema, O. (1999b) Determinants of spatial variabilityof methane emissions from wet Grasslands on peat soil. Biogeochemistry 44: 221–237.
van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., van Beusichem, M.L. & Oenema, O. (1999c) Effects of nitrogen input andgrazing on methane fluxes of extensively and intensively managed Grasslands in the Netherlands. Biology
and Fertility of Soils 29: 24–30.
van Huissteden, J., van den Bos, R. & Marticorena Alvarez, I. (2006) Modelling the effect of water-table
management on CO2 and CH4 fluxes from peat soils. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 85: 3–18.
van Wagtendonk, J.W., Root, R.R. & Key, C.H. (2004) Comparison of AVIRIS and Landsat ETM+ detection
capabilities for burn severity. Remote Sensing of Environment 92: 397–408.
Veenendaal, E.M., Kolle, O., Leffelaar, P.A., Schrier-Uijl, A.P., van Huissteden, J., van Walsem, J., Moller, F. &Berendse, F. (2007) CO2 exchange and carbon balance in two grassland sites on eutrophic drained peat soils.
Biogeosciences 4: 1027–1040.
Velthof, G.L., Brader, A.B. & Oenema, O. (1996) Seasonal variations in nitrous oxide losses from managed
grasslands in The Netherlands. Plant and Soil 181: 263–274.
Verchot, L.V., Davidson, E.A., Cattânio, J.H., Ackerman, I.L., Erickson, H.E. & Keller, M. (1999) Land-use
change and biogeochemical controls of nitrogen oxide emissions from soils in eastern Amazonia. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 13: 31–46.
Verchot, L.V., Hutabarat, L., Hairiah, K. & van Noordwijk, M. (2006) Nitrogen availability and soil N 2O
emissions following conversion of forests to coffee in southern Sumatra. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 20:
GB4008. doi: 10.1029/2005GB002469.
Vermaat, J.E., Hellmann, F., Dias, A.T.C., Hoorens, B., van Logtestijn, R.S.P. & Aerts, R. (2011) Greenhousegas fluxes from Dutch peatland water bodies: importance of the surrounding landscape. Wetlands 31: 493–
498.
von Arnold, K., Nilsson, M., Hånell, B., Weslien, P. & Klemedtsson, L. (2005a) Fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2Ofrom drained organic soils in deciduous forests. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 1059–1071.
von Arnold, K., Weslien, P., Nilsson, M., Svensson, B.H. & Klemedtsson, L. (2005b) Fluxes of CO2, CH4 andN2O from drained coniferous forests on organic soils. Forest Ecology and Management 210: 239–254.
Waddington, J.M. & Day, S.M. (2007) Methane emissions from a peatland following restoration. Journal ofGeophysical Research 112: G3. doi: 10.1029/2007JG000400.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.77

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Waddington, J.M., Strack, M. & Greenwood, M.J. (2010) Toward restoring the net carbon sink function of
degraded peatlands: short-term response in CO2 exchange to ecosystem-scale restoration. Journal ofGeophysical Research 115: G1. doi: 10.1029/2009JG001090.
Wallage, Z.E., Holden, J. & McDonald, A.T. (2006) Drain blocking: an effective treatment for reducing
dissolved organic carbon loss and water discolouration in a drained peatland. Science of the Total
Environment 367: 811–821.
Wallin, M.B., Öquist, M.G., Buffam, I., Billett, M.F., Nisell, J. & Bishop, K.H. (2011) Spatiotemporalvariability of the gas transfer coefficient (KCO2) in boreal streams; implications for large scale estimates of
CO2 evasion. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 25: GB3025. doi: 10.1029/2010GB003975.
Ward, D.E. & Hardy, C.C. (1984) Advances in the characterization and control of emissions from prescribedfires. 77th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ward, S.E., Bardgett, R.D., McNamara, N.P., Adamson, J.K. & Ostle, N.J. (2007) Long-term consequences ofgrazing and burning on northern peatland carbon dynamics. Ecosystems 10: 1069–1083.
Warren, M.W., Kauffmann, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Anshari, G., Hergoualc’h, K., Kurnianto, S., Purbopuspito, J.,
Gusmayanti, E., Afifudin, M., Rahajoe, J., Alhamd, L., Limin, S. & Iswandi, A. (2012) A cost-efficientmethod to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil. Biogeosciences 9: 4477–4485.
Watanabe, A., Purwanto, B.H., Ando, H., Kakuda, K.-i. & Jong, F.-S. (2009) Methane and CO2 fluxes from an
Indonesian peatland used for sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) cultivation: effects of fertilizer andgroundwater level management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 134: 14–18.
Weinzierl, W. (1997) Niedermoore in Baden-Würtemberg – Bilanzierung der CO2-Emission am Beispiel desDonaurieds. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft 85: 1059–1062.
Weslien, P., Kasimir-Klemedtsson, Å., Börjesson, G. & Klemedtsson, L. (2009) Strong pH influence on N2O
and CH4 fluxes from forested organic soils. European Journal of Soil Science 60: 311–320.
Wickland, K.P., Neff, J.C. & Aiken, G.R. (2007) Dissolved organic carbon in Alaskan boreal forest: sources,chemical characteristics, and biodegradability. Ecosystems 10: 1323–1340.
Wild, U., Kampp, T., Lenz, A., Heinz, S. & Pfadenhauer, J. (2001) Cultivation of Typha spp. in constructedwetlands for peatland restoration. Ecological Engineering 17: 49–54.
Worrall, F., Armstrong, A. & Adamson, J.K. (2007) The effects of burning and sheep-grazing on water table
depth and soil water quality in a upland peat. Journal of Hydrology 339: 1–14.
Worrall, F., Clay, G., Marrs, R. & Reed, M.S. (2010) Impacts of burning management on peatlands. Report to
IUCN UK Peatland Programme, Edinburgh.
Worrall, F., Moody, C., Jones, T. & Evans, C. (2013) Conversion of waterborne DOC to CO 2 – results of field
experiments. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters. Report to Defra
under project SP1205: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with non-gaseous losses of carbon frompeatlands – fate of particulate and dissolved carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food andRural Affairs, UK.
Worrall, F., Rowson, J.G., Evans, M.G., Pawson, R., Daniels, S. & Bonn, A. (2011) Carbon fluxes from eroding
peatlands – the carbon benefit of revegetation following wildfire. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
36: 1487–1498.
Wösten, J.M.H., Ismail, A.B. & van Wijk, A.L.M. (1997) Peat subsidence and its practical implications: a casestudy in Malaysia. Geoderma 78: 25–36.
Yallop, A.R., Clutterbuck, B. & Thacker, J. (2010) Increases in humic dissolved organic carbon export fromupland peat catchments: the role of temperature, declining sulfate deposition and changes in land
management. Climate Research 45: 43–56.
Yamulki, S., Anderson, R., Peace, A. & Morison, J.I.L. (2013) Soil CO 2, CH4 and N2O fluxes from an afforested
lowland raised peatbog in Scotland: implications for drainage and restoration. Biogeosciences 10: 1051–1065.
Yefremova, T.T. & Yefremov, S.P. (1996) Ecological effects of peat fire on forested bog ecosystems. In: Fire in
Ecosystems of Boreal Eurasia, ed. J.G. Goldammer & V.V Furyaev, pp. 350–357. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Yokelson, R.J., Burling, I.R., Gilman, J.B., Warneke, C., Stockwell, C.E., de Gouw, J., Akagi, S.J., Urbanski,
S.P., Veres, P., Roberts, J.M., Kuster, W.C., Reardon, J., Griffith, D.W.T., Johnson, D.T., Hosseini, S.,
Miller, J.W., Cocker III, D.R., Jung, D. & Weise, D.R. (2013) Coupling field and laboratory measurements to

2.78

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

estimate the emission factors of identified and unidentified trace gases for prescribed fires. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics 13: 89–116.
Yokelson, R.J., Karl, T., Artaxo, P., Blake, D.R., Christian, T.J., Griffith, D.W.T., Guenther, A. & Hao, W.M.
(2007) The tropical forest and fire emissions experiment: overview and airborne fire emission factor
measurements. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 7: 5175–5196.
Yokelson, R.J., Susott, R., Ward, D.E., Reardon, J. & Griffith, D.W.T. (1997) Emissions from smoldering
combustion of biomass measured by open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Journal ofGeophysical Research 102: 18865–18877.
Yule, C.M. & Gomez, L.N. (2009) Leaf litter decomposition in a tropical peat swamp forest in Peninsular
Malaysia. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17: 231–241.
Zoltai, S.C., Morrissey, L.A., Livingston, G.P. & de Groot, W.J. (1998) Effects of fires on carbon cycling inNorth American boreal peatlands. Environmental Reviews 6: 13–24.
Zulkifli, Y. (2002) Hydrological attributes of a disturbed peat swamp forest. In: Prevention and Control of Firein Peatlands: Proceedings of Workshop on Prevention and Control of Fire in Peatlands, ed. F. Parish, E.
Padmanabhan, C.L. Lee & H.C. Thang, pp. 51–55. Kuala Lumpur, 19–21 March. Global Environment
Centre and Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia, Cetaktama, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

2.79