DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1

CHAPTER 3

2
3
4
5
6

REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

7
8

Coordinating Lead Authors

9

Dominique Blain (Canada) and Daniel Murdiyarso (CIFOR)

10
11

Lead Authors

12
13
14

John Couwenberg (EC/WI/Germany/Netherlands), Osamu Nagata (Japan), Florence Renou-Wilson (Ireland),
Andrey Sirin (Russian Federation), Maria Strack (Canada), Eeva-Stiina Tuittila (Finland), and David Wilson(Ireland)15
16

Contributing Authors

17

Christopher David Evans (UK), Faizal Parish (Malaysia), and Maya Fukuda (TFI TSU)

18
19

Review Editors

20

Jens Leifeld (Switzerland) and Maria Jose Sanz Sanchez (FAO)

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.1

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

Contents

21

22

Rewetted Organic soils ................................................................................................................................... 4

3

23

3.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4

24

3.2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals ............................................................................................. 5

25

3.2.1

CO2 Emissions/Removals from Rewetted Organic Soils ................................................................... 6

26

3.2.2

CH4 Emissions/Removals from Rewetted Organic Soils ................................................................. 14

27

3.2.3

N2O Emissions from Rewetted Organic Soils .................................................................................. 18

28

3.2.4

Choice of Activity Data.................................................................................................................... 18

29

3.2.5

Sources of Uncertainty ..................................................................................................................... 20

30

3.3

Completeness, Time series, consistency, and QA/QC.......................................................................... 21

31

3.3.1

Completeness ................................................................................................................................... 21

32

3.3.2

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) ........................................................................... 21

33

References ............................................................................................................................................................. 22

34

Annex 3A.1

35
36

Annex 3A.2 Estimation of default emission factors for off-site CO2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses(CO2-DOC) from rewetted organic soils ............................................................................................................... 38

37

Annex 3A.3

Estimation of default emission factors for CO2-C in rewetted organic soils ................................ 32

Estimation of default emission factors for CH4-C in rewetted organic soils ................................ 41

38

39

Equations40

Equation 3.1 Net C flux from rewetted organic soils .............................................................................................. 6

41

Equation 3.2 Net CH4 flux ...................................................................................................................................... 642

Equation 3.3 CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils.................................................................... 643

Equation 3.4 Annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils ........................................... 844

Equation 3.5 Annual off-site CO2-C emissions due to DOC losses from rewetted organic soils ........................... 845

Equation 3.6 Emission factor for annual CO2 emissions due to doc export from rewetted organic soils ............. 1246

Equation 3.7 CH4-C emissions/Removals from rewetted organic soils ................................................................ 14

47

Equation 3.8 Annual CH4-C emissions from rewetted organic soils ................................................................... 1548

Equation 3.9 N2O-N emissions from rewetted organic soils ................................................................................. 18

49

3.2

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

Figures

50

51

Figure 3.1

Decision tree to estimate CO2-C and CH4-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils ....... 10

52
53
54
55

Figure 3A.1 Distribution of CO2 flux values (g CO2 m-2 yr-1) found in the published literature fornatural/undrained and rewetted organic soils in (a) boreal and (b) temperate climate zones. Positive flux values
indicate CO2 emissions from the ecosystem to the atmosphere and negative flux values indicate removal of CO2
from the atmosphere by the ecosystem. References used to compile graph are to be found in Table 3.1............. 33

56
57

Figure 3A.2 Relationship between annual CO2 fluxes and mean annual water table (cm) for both undrained
and rewetted organic soils in (a) boreal and (b) temperate climate zones ............................................................. 35

58
59

Figure 3A.3 Subsidence rates as measured in drained tropical organic soils in relation to water table depth.
From Hooijer et al. 2012. ...................................................................................................................................... 37

60
61

Figure 3A.4 Methane flux from boreal and temperate rewetted and undrained organic soils in relation to meanannual water table. Fluxes are expressed as 10log(1+measured flux) [kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1]. .................................. 41

62
63

Figure 3A.5 Methane flux from boreal and temperate, poor and rich, rewetted (rw) and undrained (un) organicsoils. Fluxes (in kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1) are expressed on a logarithmic scale. .......................................................... 4264

65

Tables

66
67

Table 3.1 Default emission factors (EFCO2) and associated uncertainty, for CO2-C by rewetted organic soils (allvalues in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1). ......................................................................................................................... 1168

Table 3.2 Default DOC emission factors (EFDOC_REWETTED in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1) for rewetted organic soils 13

69

Table 3.3 Default emission factors for CH4 from rewetted organic soils (all values in kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1) ........ 1770
71

Table 3A.1 Default emission factors (EFCO2) and associated uncertainty, for CO2-C by rewetted organic soils (allvalues in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1). ......................................................................................................................... 36

72
73

Table 3A.2 DOC concentration (above) or flux (below) comparisons between drained and rewetted organic soils
with changes in DOC following rewetting ............................................................................................................ 3974
75

Table 3A.3 Annual DOC flux estimates from natural/undrained and rewetted organic soils used to derive default
values for DOCflux ................................................................................................................................................ 39

76

Table 3A.4 CH4-C flux data from wet swamp forest on organic soils .................................................................. 43

77

78

Box

79

Box 3.1 Controls on CH4 emissions from rewetted organic soils ......................................................................... 1680

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.3

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
81

3 REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

82

3.1

INTRODUCTION

83
84
85
86
87
88

What is rewetting, restoration, rehabilitation and how rewetting affects GHG

89
90
91
92

Rewetting is the deliberate action of raising the water table on drained soils to re-establish water saturated
conditions, e.g. by blocking drainage ditches or disabling pumping facilities. Rewetting can have several
objectives, such as wetland restoration or allowing other management practices on saturated organic soils such as
paludiculture.

93
94
95
96
97

Wetland restoration aims to permanently re-establish the pre-disturbance wetland ecosystem, including thehydrological and biogeochemical processes typical of water saturated soils, as well as the vegetation cover that
pre-dated the disturbance (FAO 2005, Nellemann & Corcoran 2010). Normally, the restoration of previously
drained wetlands is accompanied by rewetting, while the restoration of undrained, but otherwise disturbed
wetlands may not require rewetting.

98
99
100

Rehabilitation, as defined by FAO (2005) and Nellemann & Corcoran (2010), can involve a large variety ofpractices on formerly drained organic soils, which may or may not include rewetting. The re-establishment of avegetation cover on a drained site without rewetting is a form of site rehabilitation.

101
102
103
104

The focus of this chapter is the rewetting of organic soils; restoration and other management practices onrewetted organic soils are not specifically addressed. Rehabilitation as an activity separate from rewetting is notcovered by this chapter. This chapter does not provide default guidance for the management of undrained inland
organic soils or for restoration that does not necessitate rewetting.

105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115

The position of the water table is a major control of the biogeochemical processes responsible for GHG fluxes
from wetlands (Reddy & DeLaune 2008, pages 162-163). Generally, rewetting decreases CO2 emissions fromorganic soils compared to the drained condition, and under certain conditions leads to the recovery of a net
ecosystem CO2 sink (Komulainen et al., 1999, Tuittila et al., 1999, Waddington et al., 2010). Re-establishing thevegetation cover on rewetted organic soils is necessary to reinstate the carbon sink function that ultimately leads
to soil C sequestration. After a vegetation succession promoted by rewetting, the CO2 sink may reach the leveltypical of undrained ecosystems. However, during the first years after rewetting a site can remain a large CO2
source (Petrone et al. 2003); upon restoration the ecosystem sink can temporarily be significantly larger (Soini etal., 2010,Wilson et al., 2013). The time needed for the recovery of the sink function may vary from years toseveral decades (Tuittila et al. 1999, Samaritani et al. 2011) depending on restoration methods and pre-rewetting
and climate conditions.

116
117
118
119
120
121

Rewetting generally increases CH4 emissions (e.g. Augustin & Chojnicki 2008, Waddington & Day 2007),
although in some cases lower emissions have been measured (Tuittila et al., 2000, Juottonen et al., 2012)
compared to the drained state. If all the other conditions (e.g., vegetation composition, site fertility) are equal,
CH4 emissions from rewetted sites are generally comparable to undrained sites after the first years following
rewetting as shown later in this chapter. In temperate regions N2O emissions are found to rapidly decrease close
to zero after rewetting (Augustin & Merbach, 1998; Wilson et al., 2013).

122
123
124

Carbon is also lost from rewetted organic soils via water mainly in a form of dissolved organic carbon (DOC).
Most of this carbon is eventually released into the atmosphere as CO2. Rewetting is thought to decrease DOC
leaching to a level comparable with undrained organic soil.

125
126
127

Generally the likelihood of fire occurrence in rewetted ecosystems is low, but real. The reader is referred to thedefault approach provided in Chapter 2 of this supplement to quantify this source of emissions for all greenhousegases.

128
129
130
131
132

High spatial variation in microtopography, water level and vegetation cover is typical of undrained organic soils
and is also observed in GHG fluxes (Strack et al., 2006, Laine et al., 2007, Riutta et al., 2007, Maanavilja et al.,2011). Rewetting recreates this natural heterogeneity with blocked ditches forming the wetter end of thevariation (Strack & Zuback 2013, Maanavilja et al., submitted). For this reason, in this chapter, (and in contrast
to the approach in Chapter 2), former ditches are included as a part of rewetted sites and not treated separately.

Definitions of wetlands, organic soils and peatlands are provided elsewhere in this supplement (Chapter 1 andGlossary), and will not be repeated here. As in the remainder of this supplement, this chapter considers peatlands
to be included in ‘(land with) organic soil’. Unless stated otherwise, statements referring to organic soils will
include soils made of peat; in some instances, examples are provided that are specific to peat soils or peatlands
and in such cases peatlands will be mentioned specifically.

133

3.4

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

134
135
136
137
138

Scope of this guidance: wetland types covered, gases, pools

139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147

The distinction between C pools in some wetland ecosystems can be difficult, especially between the herbaceous
biomass (mosses, sedges, grasses), the dead organic matter derived from this biomass and soil pools. For
example, the dead portion of mosses characteristic of many peatlands could be included in the dead organic
matter or soil pool. The non-woody biomass on rewetted organic soils cannot be ignored as it is essential in therestoration of the carbon sink function that in turn results in the sequestration over time of large quantities of soil
carbon. Because the default emission factors in this chapter were all derived from flux measurements overwetlands on organic soils with moss and/or herbaceous vegetation and/or dwarf shrubs, these default EFs
integrate all C fluxes from the soil and the above- and belowground vegetation components other than trees. In
all cases the guidance in this chapter will clarify which C pools are included in default EFs.

148
149
150

In this chapter boreal and temperate organic soil wetlands are divided into “nutrient poor” and “nutrient rich”
categories (Rydin & Jeglum 2006). Most nutrient poor wetlands, whether undrained or rewetted, receive waterand nutrients from precipitation only, while nutrient rich wetlands also receive water from their surroundings.

151
152
153

Tropical wetlands on organic soils include a great variety of contrasting ecosystems, from papyrus dominatedsites in Africa to peat swamp forests in South East Asia. In general much less information is available forwetlands on organic soils in tropical regions than in temperate or boreal regions.

154
155
156
157
158
159
160

Rewetting activities in (sub-)tropical regions have been reported from the USA, South Africa and Indonesia.
Southeast Asia harbours the largest extent of tropical peatlands (Page et al., 2011) and several attempts at large
scale rewetting have been undertaken here. Although successful rewetting of organic soils in (sub-)tropicalregions has been demonstrated, flux data from such sites are lacking. Therefore, a default EF for rewetted
tropical organic soils was developed based on surrogate data. It is good practice, where significant areas oftropical or sub-tropical organic soils have been rewetted, to develop science-based, documented, country-specificemission factors for CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions.

161

As in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, guidance is provided for three GHGs: CO2, CH4 and N2O.

This chapter provides guidance on rewetting of organic soils, with a focus on the soil pool. Organic soils can also
support perennial woody vegetation. To avoid repeating guidance already provided, wherever appropriate thereader will be referred to existing guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, especially on C stock changes in the
woody biomass and dead wood pools.

162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170

How to use guidance in this chapter and relationship to reporting categories
Depending on circumstances and practices, rewetting may or may not involve a change in land use. Hence preand post-rewetting land use of organic soils can vary according to national circumstances, and be reported as
Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands or Settlements. The guidance in this chapter should be applied
regardless of the reporting categories. In particular, no recommendation is provided in relation to transition
periods between land-use categories; countries can apply the existing transition period of appropriate land-use
categories to rewetted organic soils. Because the functioning of these ecosystems has already been deeply altered
due to management, reporting rewetted organic soils as unmanaged land is not consistent with good practice.

171
172
173

3.2

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANDREMOVALS

174
175
176
177
178
179
180

Equation 2.3 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines illustrates how in general carbon-containing
GHGs from an ecosystem can be calculated from the sum of C stock changes in each of the ecosystem carbon
pools. This chapter provides additional guidance specifically for the soil pool term ΔCso of equation 2.3 - inparticular for saturated organic soils. When practices for the rewetting of organic soils also involve C stockchanges in woody biomass or dead organic matter (DOM) pools, the appropriate default assumptions will be
provided along with references to existing equations in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for the Tier 1 estimation of C
stock changes for these pools.

181
182
183

With respect to the soil pool, this chapter elaborates on the estimations of CO2 emissions or removals and CH4
emissions from organic soils, regardless of the ultimate goal of the rewetting activity (e.g. restoration or otherland management practices).

184
185

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.5Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
186
187
188
189
190
191
192

In the context of this chapter, Equation 3.1 below replaces Equations 2.24 and 2.26 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines; Equations 2.24 and 2.26 implicitly assumed that organic soils can only lose carbon,
while in fact undrained or rewetted organic soils can accumulate soil organic carbon if covered with vegetation.
Assuming that rewetting is successful in establishing the C sink function, the rewetted organic soils can gain
substantial quantities of carbon. Equation 3.1 reflects the fact that the net C stock change of rewetted organicsoils results from net gains or losses of C resulting from the balance between CO2 and CH4 emissions andremovals.

193
194
195
196
197

In large carbon pools, such as organic soils, net CO2 emissions (or removals via uptake by vegetation) are moreaccurately measured directly as a CO2 flux (an emission is a positive flux, a removal a negative flux), as opposed
to being derived from a change in C stocks. Likewise, CH4 emissions are generally measured as fluxes. In thischapter these fluxes are denoted CO2-C and CH4-C, for the net C flux as CO2 and as CH4 respectively. This
notation is consistent with that used in Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

198
199
200

EQUATION 3.1
NET C FLUX FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILSΔC rewetted org soil = CO2-Crewetted org soil + CH4-Crewetted org soil

201

Where:202

ΔC rewetted org soil = Net C flux to or from rewetted organic soils (tonnes C yr-1)

203
204

CO2-Crewetted org soil = Net flux of CO2 -C (emissions or removals) from the rewetted organic soil (tonnes C
yr-1)

205
206

CH4-Crewetted org soil = Net flux of CH4 -C (commonly emissions) from the rewetted organic soil (tonnes C
yr-1)

207
208
209
210
211

The notations CO2-C and CH4-C will facilitate reconciling net fluxes with C stock changes for estimation
purposes. However, the reporting convention remains that used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, where emissions
and removals of CO2 are reported as C stock changes, and emissions and removals of CH4 in tonnes of CH4.
CH4-C is converted to CH4 using Equation 3.2.

212
213

EQUATION 3.2
NET CH4 FLUX
CH4 rewetted org soil = CH4 -Crewetted org soil · 16/12

214
215

Where:

216

CH4 rewetted org soil = net flux of CH4 from the rewetted organic soil (tonnes CH4 yr-1)

217

CH4-Crewetted org soil = flux of CH4 -C from the rewetted organic soil (tonnes C yr-1)

218
219

3.2.1

220
221

CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils have the following components:

222
223
224
225

CO 2 Emissions/Removals from Rewetted Organic
Soils
EQUATION 3.3
CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
CO2-Crewetted org soil = CO2-Ccomposite+ CO2-CDOC+ Lfire-CO2-C

Where:

226

CO2-Crewetted org soil = CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

227

CO2- Ccomposite = CO2-C emissions/removals from the soil and non-tree vegetation, tonnes C yr-1

228
229

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

230

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

3.6

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

On-site emissions/removals: CO 2 - C c o m p o s i t e

231
232
233
234
235
236
237

Since the default CO2-C EFs in this chapter are all derived from flux measurements (see Annex 3A.1), the CO2Ccomposite results from the net flux, emissions or removals, from the soil and non-tree vegetation taken together.
CO2 emissions are produced during the decomposition of the organic soil by heterotrophic organisms and arestrongly controlled by oxygen availability within the soil and by soil temperature. The contribution from nontree vegetation occurs via the two processes of photosynthesis (CO2 uptake) and above- and below-groundautotrophic respiration (CO2 emissions).

238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245

Consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the Tier 1 or default approaches assume that the woody biomass andwoody DOM stocks and fluxes are zero on all lands except on Forest Land and on Cropland with perennial
woody biomass. For rewetting on Forest Land or on Cropland with woody crops, the woody biomass and woody
DOM pools are potentially significant and should be estimated in a way consistent with the guidance provided in
Chapters 2 (generic methods), 4 (Forest Land) and 5 (Cropland) in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Inventory compilers are directed to Equations 2.7, 2.8 and the subsequent equations in Chapter 2 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines which split the C stock changes in the biomass pool or ΔCB into the various gains and losses
components, including harvest and fires.

246
247
248
249
250
251
252

If rewetting is accompanied by a change in land use that involves Forest Land or Cropland with perennial woody
biomass, changes in C stocks in biomass and dead wood and litter pools are equal to the difference in C stocks inthe old and new land-use categories (see Section 2.3.1.2, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
These changes occur mostly in the year of the conversion (carbon losses), or are uniformly distributed over thelength of the transition period (carbon gains). Default values for C stocks in forest litter can be found in Chapter
4 (Forest biomass), Chapter 5 (Cropland) and Chapter 2 (Table 2.2 for forest litter) in Volume 4, of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

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

Off-site CO 2 emissions: CO 2 -C D O C

265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274

Emissions from burning: L f i r e -CO 2 -C

The importance of waterborne carbon export (in all its different forms) as a pathway linking the organic soil C
pool to the atmosphere is described in Chapter 2 of this supplement and the various sources, behaviour and fateof the different forms of waterborne C following rewetting can be found in Annex 3A.2. In all types of organicsoils, including natural and rewetted ones, DOC has been shown to be the largest component of waterborne
carbon loss that will be processed and almost entirely returned eventually to the atmosphere. It is therefore goodpractice to include DOC in flux-based carbon estimation methods to avoid under-estimation of soil C losses.
CO2- CDOC is produced from the decomposition of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) lost from organic soils via
aquatic pathways and results in off-site CO2 emissions; a Tier 1 methodology is described below. Other forms ofwaterborne carbon (Particulate Organic Carbon and dissolved CO2) may also be significant in the early years
following rewetting but few data exist (see Annex 3A.2). It should be noted also that although generally notsignificant, DOC imports (e.g. from precipitation) should in theory be removed from net DOC fluxes.
While the likelihood of fires on rewetted organic soils is considered low (particularly in comparison to drainedorganic soils), fire risk may still be real. Any emissions from the burning of biomass, dead organic matter as well
as from soil (Lfire-CO2-C) should be included. Generic methodologies for estimating CO2 emissions from theburning of vegetation and dead organic matter are provided in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
while methodologies specific to vegetation and DOM burning in Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland and Wetlands
are provided in Chapters 4-7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Emissions from the burning of organicsoils can be estimated following the methodologies in Equation 2.8 of Chapter 2 (this supplement) using the fuelconsumption values estimated for undrained organic soils given in Table 2.6 (same value for all climates) as wellas emission factors from Table 2.7

275
276

CHOICE OF METHOD

277
278

The decision tree in Figure 3.1 presents guidance in the selection of the appropriate Tier for the estimation ofgreenhouse gas emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils.

279
280
281
282
283
284

Tier 1

285

Tier 1 methodology is applicable from the year of rewetting.

Under Tier 1, the basic methodology for estimating annual C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils
was presented in Equation 3.3 and can be compiled using Equations 3.4 and 3.5 where the nationally derived
area of rewetted organic soils is multiplied by an emission factor, which is disaggregated by climate zone andwhere applicable by nutrient status (nutrient poor and nutrient rich).

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.7

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
286
287

EQUATION 3.4
ANNUAL ON-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

CO2 -Ccomposite=

A · EFCO2
c, n

288
289

Where:

290

CO2-Ccomposite = CO2-C emissions/removals from the soil and non-tree vegetation, tonnes C yr-1

291

Ac,n = area of rewetted organic soils in climate zone c and nutrient status n, ha

292
293

EFCO2 c,n = CO2-C emission factor for rewetted organic soils in climate zone c, nutrient status n, tonnes C
ha-1 yr-1

294
EQUATION 3.5
ANNUAL OFF-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC LOSSES FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

295
296

CO2 -CDOC =A · EFDOC_REWETTED
c

297
298

Where:

299
300

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

301

Ac = area of rewetted organic soils in climate zone c, ha

302
303

EFDOC_rewetted, c = CO2-C emission factor from DOC exported from rewetted organic soils in climate zone c
tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

304
305
306
307
308
309

Tier 2

310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322

Available datasets from rewetted organic soils generally cover a period of 10 years or less after rewetting; forthis reason it is difficult to identify clear temporal patterns in CO2 fluxes. Available data demonstrate that thestrength of the CO2 sink may vary over a number of years. In the period immediately following rewetting, it isexpected that soil oxidation rates are low as a consequence of the anoxic conditions, while most of the newly
sequestered C is still contained within the non-woody biomass pool (leaves, stems, roots). Over longer timeframes (a few decades) a decrease in the amount of CO2 that is sequestered annually might be expected as thebiomass pool eventually approaches a steady state C sequestration saturation point typical of natural, undrainedorganic soils. Countries are encouraged to develop more detailed EFs for rewetted organic soils that capture fully
the transient nature of CO2 fluxes in the time since rewetting and reflect the time needed for the ecosystem toreach CO2 dynamics typical of natural, undrained organic soils. In particular, countries with a significant nonvegetated (bare organic soil) component (e.g. industrial cutaways or cutovers) at the time of rewetting areencouraged to develop detailed EFs that capture the expected decline in CO2 emissions following rewetting (e.g.
Tuittila et al. 1999, Bortoluzzi et al. 2006, Kivimaki et al. 2008, Waddington et al. 2010, Wilson et al. 2013).

323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330

A Tier 2 methodology to derive an estimation of emissions from the decomposition of DOC should utilise
country-specific information if experimental data are available to refine the emission factor, especially withregard to different types of natural/undrained and rewetted organic soils (e.g. peatlands with various nutrient
status and development, such as raised bogs, blanket bogs, fens). Refined approaches to calculate EFDOC aresuggested below under Choice of EF: EF DOC_rewetted. On-site flux measurements will not capture C losses as
DOC so it is good practice to explicitly add C losses as DOC to flux-based C estimation methods. If a soil
subsidence approach is used to derive CO2-Ccomposite of Equation 3.3, DOC losses are included in the subsidence
data and should not be added a second time.

331
332

Tier 2 (as well as Tier 3) methodologies may capture changes in the woody biomass pool as fluxes instead of
separately reported stock changes; in such cases the woody biomass component is integrated with the other

A Tier 2 methodology uses country-specific emission factors and parameters, spatially disaggregated to reflect
regionally important practices and dominant ecological dynamics. It may be appropriate to sub-divide activity
data and emission factors according to the present vegetation composition which is a representation of the watertable depth and soil properties or by land use prior to rewetting (e.g. Forest, Grassland, Cropland, Wetland).

3.8

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

333
334
335
336
337

components of Equation 3.3. However, it is good practice to ensure that double counting does not take place inregard to the woody biomass and DOM pools on rewetted organic soils. Data collection using eddy covariancetechniques (EC tower) and chamber measurements are adequate at higher tiers; however when CO2 flux data
have been collected with such techniques the C stock changes in perennial woody biomass and woody DOM
may already be included and should not be added a second time.

338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348

Tier 3
A Tier 3 methodology involves a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2-C
emissions and removals on rewetted organic soils, including the effect of site characteristics, soil characteristics,
vegetation composition, soil temperature and mean water table depth. These could be integrated into a dynamic,
mechanistic-based model or through a measurement-based approach (see choice of EF, Tier 3 below for
examples of such models). These parameters, in addition to further parameters such as water flows and residence
time of water, could also be used to describe fluvial C (DOC) lost from the system using process-based models
that incorporate hydrology amongst other factors. A Tier 3 methodology might also include the entire DOC
export from rewetted sites and consideration of the temporal variability in DOC release in the years following
rewetting, which will also be dependent on the rewetting techniques used.

349

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.9Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
350
351

Figure 3.1

Decision tree to estimate CO 2 -C and CH 4 -C emissions/removals fromrewetted organic soils

352

353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364

Note:

1. Detailed information typically includes national area of rewetted organic soils disaggregated by climate and nutrient status,
complemented with documentation on previous land management and rewetting practices, and with associatedmeasurements of GHG emissions and removals at high spatial and temporal resolution.
2. A key source/sink category is defined in Chapter 4, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, “as one that is prioritised
within the national inventory system because its estimate has a significant influence on a country’s total inventory ofgreenhouse gases in terms of the absolute level, the trend, or the uncertainty in emissions and removals”. The 2006 IPCC
Guidelines recommend that the key category analysis is performed at the level of land remaining in or converted to a landuse category. If CO2 or CH4 emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils are subcategories to a key category, thesesubcategories should be considered as significant if they individually account for 25-30% of emissions/removals for theoverall key category (see Figures 1.2 and 1.3 in Chapter 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.)

365

3.10

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

366

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

367

EF C O 2

368
369
370
371

Tier 1

372
373
374
375

Nutrient poor organic soils predominate in boreal regions, while in temperate regions nutrient rich sites are morecommon. In some cases, nutrient poor soil organic layers are underlain by nutrient rich layers; in some situations,after industrial extraction of the nutrient poor top layers the rewetted residual soil layers may be considered
nutrient rich due to the influence of incoming water and the high nutrient status of the bottom layers.

376

If it is not possible to stratify by nutrient status, countries should use the EF for climate zone (Table 3.1).

377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385

The derivation of the default EF values for CO2 is fully described in Annex 3A.1, including the quality criteria
for data selection. In summary, robust data indicated that CO2 fluxes from both natural/undrained and rewettedorganic soils are correlated with mean water table depth. Furthermore, it was ascertained that, in temperate andboreal regions, these correlations were not significantly different between the natural/undrained group and therewetted group. These conclusions were also valid when the analysis was performed for sites under each of theseclimatic regions. Therefore in these regions CO2 fluxes from natural/undrained sites were used in addition to CO2
fluxes from rewetted sites to provide a robust estimation of the EFs shown in Table 3.1. There is currently
insufficient evidence to support the use of different default EF values for different site conditions, previous landuse or time since rewetting.

386
387
388
389

Since no data are available for rewetted tropical organic soils, a default EF of zero is provided; this value is
supported by observations in undrained sites and reflects the fact that successful rewetting effectively stops theoxidation of soil organic material, but does not necessarily re-establish a soil C sequestration function (seeAnnex 3A.1).

The implementation of the Tier 1 method requires the application of default EFs provided in Table 3.1, where
they are disaggregated by climate zone (boreal, temperate, tropical) and for boreal organic soils only, by nutrient
status (nutrient poor and nutrient rich).

TABLE 3.1
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (EFCO2) AND ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTY, FOR CO2-C BY REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS (ALL-1
-1
VALUES IN TONNES CO2-C HA YR ).
EFCO2

95% range-0.47 (n= 65)-0.63 – -0.30

Temperate**

0 (n=61)-0.45 – +0.37

Tropical***0

Climate zone
Boreal*Nutrient status

EFCO2

95% range

Poor-0.34 (n=26)-0.59 – -0.09

Rich-0.55 (n=39)-0.77 – -0.34

Note: Negative values indicate removal of CO2-C from the atmosphere. n = number of sites. 95% confidence interval isused to give the 95% range.
*
Emission factors for boreal rewetted organic soils derived from the following source material (see Annex 3 A.1 fordetails): Bubier et al. 1999, Komulainen et al. 1999, Soegaard & Nordstroem 1999, Tuittila et al. 1999, Waddington &Price 2000, Waddington & Roulet 2000, Alm et al. 1997, Laine et al. 1997, Suyker et al. 1997, Whiting & Chanton
2001, Heikkinen et al. 2002, Harazono et al. 2003, Nykänen et al. 2003, Yli-Petäys et al. 2007, Kivimäki et al. 2008,
Nilsson et al. 2008, Sagerfors et al. 2008, Aurela et al. 2009, Drewer et al. 2010, Soini et al. 2010, Maanavilja et al
2011.
**
Emission factor for temperate rewetted organic soils derived from the following source material but is not significantly
different from zero (see Annex 3 A.1 for details): Shurpali et al. 1995, Lafleur et al. 2001, Wickland 2001, Aurela et al.
2002, Schulze et al. 2002, Waddington et al. 2002, Roehm & Roulet 2003, Billett et al. 2004, Drösler 2005, Nagata etal. 2005, Bortoluzzi et al. 2006, Hendriks et al. 2007, Jacobs et al. 2007, Lund et al. 2007, Riutta et al. 2007, Roulet
et al. 2007, Wilson et al. 2007, Augustin & Chojnicki 2008, Cagampan & Waddington 2008, Golovatskaya &Dyukarev 2009, Kurbatova et al. 2009, Drewer et al. 2010, Waddington et al. 2010, Adkinson et al. 2011, Augustin etal. in Couwenberg et al. 2011, Koehler et al. 2011, Christensen et al 2012, Urbanová 2012, Beetz et al. 2013, Strack &Zuback 2013, Drösler et al. 2013, Herbst et al. 2013, Wilson et al. 2013.
***

For tropical rewetted organic soils where organic material is not oxidised due to saturated conditions

390

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.11

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
391
392
393
394

Given the limitations in the available scientific literature, the Tier 1 basic methodology assumes that there is notransient period and that rewetted organic soils immediately behave like undrained/natural organic soils in termsof CO2 flux dynamics. Combining observations in the temperate and boreal regions soon after rewetting withlong-term ones was the simplest way to avoid any bias.

395
396
397
398
399

The default EF of rewetted tropical organic soils applies to sites where water saturation prevents furtheroxidation of the soil organic matter. Due to the lack of published scientific literature on CO2 fluxes fromrewetted tropical organic soils, the emission factor was derived from undrained tropical organic soils (Annex
3A.1). When rewetted tropical organic soils are a significant component of a key category, it is good practice touse country-specific EFs as opposed to the default EF in Table 3.1.

400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408

Tier 2 and 3

409
410
411
412

Countries where perennial woody biomass plays a significant role in the net CO2-C exchange between rewettedorganic soils and the atmosphere should develop country-specific methods that reflect C stock changes in thetree biomass and tree DOM pools under typical management practices and their interaction with the soil pool.
Guidance can be found in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423

Tier 3 methods involve a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2
emissions/removals in rewetted organic soils, including the impacts of management practices. The methodology
includes the fate of C in all pools and C transfers between pools upon conversion. In particular, the fate of the C
contained within the biomass pool must also be taken into account, including its eventual release on-site throughthe decay of DOM, or off-site following harvest of woody biomass (e.g. paludiculture). Woody biomass is notaccounted for in this chapter and care should be taken to avoid double-counting when using whole ecosystemdata (e.g. eddy covariance measurements). Tier 3 methodologies may also distinguish between immediate anddelayed emissions following rewetting. A Tier 3 approach could include the development of flux based
monitoring systems and the use of advanced models which require a higher level of information of processes
than required in Tier 2 and it is good practice to ensure that the models are calibrated and validated against fieldmeasurements (Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

Countries applying Tier 2 methods should use country-specific emission factors. Empirical flux measurements(eddy covariance or chamber methods) should be carried out at temporal resolutions sufficiently defined tocapture as wide a range as possible of the abiotic (e.g. irradiation, soil properties including soil temperature,mean water table depth) and biotic (e.g. vegetation composition) factors that drive CO2 dynamics in rewettedorganic soils. Subsidence measurements can also be used to determine the medium to long term losses/gains
from rewetted organic soils. Emission factors could be developed further by taking into account other factors,
such as ‘previous land-use’ or current vegetation composition as well as disaggregation by ‘time since rewetting’.

424
425

EF D O C _ r e w e t t e d

426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433

Tier 1
Data show that natural/undrained organic soils export some DOC and these fluxes increase following drainage(see Chapter 2, this supplement). Available data from rewetted sites is scant but suggest that the level of DOC
reduction after rewetting approximately equates to the DOC increase after drainage (Glatzel et al. 2003; O’Brienet al. 2008; Waddington et al. 2008; Armstrong et al. 2010, Strack and Zuback 2013,Turner et al. 2013).
Consequently, it is assumed that rewetting leads to a reversion to natural DOC flux levels (see Annex 3A.2).
Therefore, to make best use of available data, EFs for rewetted organic soils have been calculated using datafrom natural/undrained sites as well as from rewetted ones following Equation 3.6:
EQUATION 3.6
EMISSION FACTOR FOR ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC EXPORT FROM REWETTED

434
435
436

ORGANIC SOILSEFDOC_REWETTED =DOCFLUX · FracDOC-C

437
438

Where:

439

EFDOC_REWETTED = Emission factor for DOC from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

440

DOCFLUX = Net flux of DOC from natural (undrained) and rewetted organic soils , tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

441

FracDOC_CO2 = Conversion factor for proportion of DOC converted to CO2 following export from site and442

equates to 0.9

3.12

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

443
444
445
446
447

A detailed description of the derivation of default values for Tier 1 is provided in Annex 2A.3. In summary, data
show clear differentiation of natural DOC fluxes between boreal, temperate and tropical organic soils. Therefore,
the DOCFLUX values were calculated for each climate zone integrating data from rewetted sites where available(all DOC fluxes measured from rewetted sites were located in the temperate zone). The current data did notsupport disaggregation by nutrient status. The parameter FracDOC_CO2 sets the proportion of DOC exported from

448
449
450
451
452
453
454

organic soils that is ultimately emitted as CO2. An understanding of the fate of DOC export, i.e. whether it isreturned to the atmosphere as CO2 (or CH4), is still poor but the form and amount are of significance in terms of
GHG reporting. A value of zero would coincide with all the DOC export being deposited in stable forms in lakeor marine sediments; as this would simply represent a translocation of carbon between stable stores, it would notneed to be estimated. However, most data on DOC processing do indicate that a high proportion is converted to
CO2 in headwaters, rivers, lakes and coastal seas (see Annex 2A.3 for discussion). Reflecting this current
scientific uncertainty, a Tier 1 default FracDOC_CO2 value of 0.9 is proposed, with an uncertainty range of 0.8 to 1.

455
456

EF DOC_REWETTED values are provided in Table 3.2 and the derivation of these values is fully described in Annex
3A.2.
TABLE 3.2
DEFAULT DOC EMISSION FACTORS (EFDOC_REWETTED IN TONNES CO2-C HA-1 YR-1) FOR REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
Climate zone

DOCFLUX(tonnes C ha-1 yr -1)

Number of sites

EFDOC_REWETTED(tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr -1)

Boreal*Temperate**

0.08 (0.06 – 0.11)

10 undrained

0.08 (0.05 – 0.11)

0.26 (0.17 – 0.36)

12 undrained and 3
rewetted

0.24 (0.14 – 0.36)

Tropical***0.57 (0.49 – 0.64)

4 undrained

0.51 (0.40 – 0.64)

Values in parentheses represent 95% confidence intervals.
*Derived from the following source material (see Annex 3 A.2 for details): Koprivnjak & Moore 1992, Moore et al. 2003,
Kortelainen et al. 2006, Agren et al. 2007, Nilsson et al. 2008, Jager et al. 2009, Rantakari et al. 2010, Juutinen et al. 2013.
**Derived from the following source material (see Annex 3 A.2 for details): Urban et al. 1989, Kolka et al. 1999, Clair et al. 2002,
Moore et al. 2003, Dawson et al. 2004, Roulet et al. 2007, O’Brien et al., 2008, Strack et al. 2008, Waddington et al. 2008, Koehler
et al. 2009, 2011, Billett et al. 2010, Dinsmore et al. 2011, Di Folco & Kirkpatrick 2011, Turner et al. 2013, Strack & Zuback 2013.
***Derived from the following source material (see Annex 3 A.2 for details): Zulkifli 2002, Alkhatib et al. 2007, Baum et al, 2008,
Yule et al. 2009, Moore et al. 2013.
Note that all references above are listed in Chapter 2 – References.

457
458
459
460
461

Tier 2

462
463
464
465
466



Use of country-level measurements from natural and rewetted organic soils to obtain more accurate
values of DOCFLUX for that country. Since DOC production has been observed to vary with different
vegetation composition and productivity as well as soil temperature, it would be important to develop
specific values for different types of natural and rewetted organic soils (nutrient rich versus nutrient
poor and for example raised bogs as well as blanket bogs).

467
468
469
470
471



Use of country-level measurements from rewetted organic soils with various restoration techniques andinitial status (peat degradation, previous land use) as well as time since rewetting. When sufficient longterm direct measurements of DOC fluxes from rewetted organic soils have been gathered, this could be
used solely in Equation 3.6 to replace DOCFLUX values with DOCFLUX REWETTED thus replacing thedefault assumption that rewetted organic soils revert to pre-drainage DOC fluxes).

472

Use of alternative values for the conversion factor FracDOC_CO2 where evidence is available to estimate

473
474

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 as well as the conversion factor.
Refinements could entail greater disaggregation as follows:

the proportion of DOC exported from rewetted organic soils that is transferred to stable long-term
carbon stores, such as lake or marine sediments.

475
476

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.13

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485

Tier 3
A Tier 3 methodology might include the use of process models that describe DOC release as a function ofhydrology (in particular discharge), vegetation composition, nutrient levels, water table level, as well as temporalvariability in DOC release in the years following rewetting and on-going management activity. Differences in
DOC fluxes between undisturbed and rewetted organic soils could occur due to the presence or absence ofvegetation on rewetted sites; the land-use category prior to rewetting; soil properties (fertility); vegetation
composition that differs from the undisturbed organic soils or factors associated with restoration techniques, suchas the creation of pools, the application of mulch to support vegetation re-establishment, or the use of biomass toinfill ditches

486
487

3.2.2

488

CH 4 Emissions/Removals from Rewetted Organic
Soils

489
490
491

CH4 emissions and removals from the soils of rewetted organic soils result from 1) the balance between CH4
production and oxidation and 2) emission of CH4 produced by the combustion of soil organic matter during fire
(Equation 3.7).

492
493
494

EQUATION 3.7
CH4-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
CH4-Crewetted org soil = CH4-Csoil + Lfire-CH4-C

495

Where:

496

CH4-Crewetted org soil = CH4-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

497

CH4-Csoil = emissions/removals of CH4-C from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

498

Lfire-CH4-C = emissions of CH4-C from burning of rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

499
500
501
502

The default EFs provided in this section will only cover CH4-Csoil. These CH4 emissions result from thedecomposition of the organic soil by microbes under anaerobic conditions and are strongly controlled by oxygen
availability within the soil and by soil temperature. Methane emissions also originate from the decay of non-tree
vegetation; since these pools cannot be easily separated on organic soils they are combined here as CH4-Csoil.

503
504
505
506
507
508
509

The probability of fire occurrence in rewetted organic soils is likely small if water table position is near thesurface, but possible soil emissions from fires are included here for completeness. If rewetting or restoration
practices involve biomass burning, CH4 emissions from biomass burning must be estimated in a way consistent
with the guidance provided in Chapters 2 (generic methods), 4 (Forest Land) and 5 (Cropland), Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. Emissions from soil burning (Lfire-CH4-C) should be estimated using the guidance
provided in Section 2.2.2.3 of this supplement applying the fuel consumption value for wildfire on undrainedorganic soil (Table 2.6) and CH4 emission factors given in Table 2.7.

510
511

Care should be taken to account for fire emissions under only one land-use category to avoid double-counting
fire emissions.

512
513

CHOICE OF METHOD

514
515

Refer to Figure 3.1 for the decision tree to select the appropriate Tier for the estimation of CH4 emissions or
removals from rewetted organic soils.

516
517

Tier 1

518
519
520
521

As in Section 3.2.1, the basic approach makes no distinction on the basis of the objectives of site rewetting(restoration or other management activities). In addition, as in Section 3.2.1 the Tier1 methodology assumes
there is no transient period for rewetted organic soils and therefore default EFs are applicable from the year ofrewetting.

The default methodology covers CH4 emissions from rewetted organic soils (Equation 3.7).

522

3.14

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

523
524

EQUATION 3.8
ANNUAL CH4-C EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

CH4 -Csoil=
525
526∑c, n A · EFCH4 soil

c, n

1000

Where:

527

CH4-Csoil = CH4 -C emissions from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

528

Ac,n = area of rewetted organic soils in climate zone c and nutrient status n, ha

529
530

EFCH4 soil = emission factor from rewetted organic soils in climate zone c and nutrient status n, kg CH4-C
ha-1 yr-1

531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540

Rewetted areas should be subdivided by climate zone (boreal, temperate or tropical) and the appropriate
emission factors should be applied. Thus far flux data on CH4-C emissions from successfully rewetted tropicalsites are lacking. Thus, the default EF has been developed from data on undrained tropical peat swamp forests in
SE Asia which represent the largest extent of peatland in the tropics (Joosten 2009, Page et al., 2010). The
representativeness of this default EF should be assessed prior to its application outside peat swamp in Southeast
Asia. Annex 3A.3 describes the derivation method. Data on methane fluxes from other tropical organic soils, likefor example the Papyrus marshes of Africa or the peatlands of Panama and the Guianas and other parts of theAmericas, are lacking. When information is available on the nutrient status of the organic soil, it isrecommended to further subdivide the rewetted area into nutrient-poor and nutrient-rich, multiply each one by
the appropriate emission factor and sum the products for the total CH4 emissions.

541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553

Tier 2 and 3
Tier 2 calculations use country-specific emission factors and parameters, spatially disaggregated to reflect
regionally important ecosystems or practices such as papyrus, Sago palm or reed cultivation, and dominantecological dynamics. In general, CH4-C fluxes from wet organic soils are extremely skewed, approaching a lognormal (right-tailed) distribution (see Annex 3A.3). This asymmetry towards rare, but high efflux values causes
high mean values compared to the most likely encountered median values. Nevertheless, use of the mean value
will give an unbiased estimate of total emissions from the area in question. For countries where rewetted organicsoils are a significant component of a key category it is good practice to develop EFs based on measurements orexperiments within the country and thus contribute to better scientific understanding of CH4 effluxes fromrewetted organic soils. Possible factors to consider for disaggregation of rewetted organic soil area include watertable depth, the prior land use, time since rewetting, the presence/absence of a vegetation cover and of ditches(see Box 3.1).

554

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.15

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
555
556

BOX 3.1
CONTROLS ON CH4 EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

557
558
559
560
561
562

CH4 fluxes from organic soils strongly depend on the depth of the water table (Annex 3A.3). Bothlow and high flux values have been observed from saturated organic soils (Augustin & Chojnicki
2008; Couwenberg & Fritz 2012; Glatzel et al., 2011). It is good practice, when developing andusing country-specific CH4 emission factors, to examine their relationship with water table
position. In this case, activity data on mean annual water table position and its distribution in space
would also be required.

563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570

Prior land use (e.g. agriculture, peat extraction, forestry) can influence CH4 fluxes from rewettedorganic soils. For example, CH4 emissions following the flooding of some agricultural land withnutrient enriched top-soil appear higher compared to average emission factors (Augustin &Chojnicki, 2008; Glatzel et al., 2011) whereas rewetted boreal cutover peatlands may have CH4
emissions below the average emission factors (Waddington and Day, 2007). It may therefore
increase accuracy to subdivide activity data and emission factors according to previous land-use.
The influence of previous land use may diminish over time and countries are encouraged tomonitor emissions/removals of CH4 from rewetted organic soils to evaluate this effect.

571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579

As noted in Chapter 2, emissions of CH4-C from drainage ditches can be much higher than thesurrounding drained fields. Few data are available on CH4-C emissions from ditches of rewettedorganic soils and in some cases ditches are filled during rewetting activities. Moreover, rewetting
reduces the hydrological differences between fields and neighboring ditches creating a morehomogeneous surface from which CH4 is emitted/removed. In some cases rewetting practices may
retain ditches (e.g. Waddington et al., 2010) and when ditches remain, it is good practice toinclude estimates of CH4-C ditch emissions using methodology provided in Chapter 2 (Equation
2.6) and country-specific emission factors. Table 2A.1 can also be consulted for guidance onemission factors for remaining ditches.

580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588

The number of long-term rewetting studies is limited and changes in CH4 flux over time remain
unclear. Research on restored cutover peatlands in Canada indicates a steady increase in CH4emissions in the years immediately after rewetting as the emerging vegetation cover provides fresh
substrates for CH4 production (Waddington and Day, 2007). In contrast, rewetting of intensively
used grassland on fen peat suggests that CH4 emissions may decline over time as litter inundated
during rewetting activities is rapidly decomposed in the first few years (Limpens et al. 2008).
Changes in CH4 emissions and removals over time appear to be linked to vegetation succession(e.g. Tuittila et al., 2000) and thus understanding the pattern of emissions over time would require
the inclusion of vegetation information.

589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604

Several studies in both undisturbed and rewetted organic soils indicate the important role thatvegetation may play for providing substrate for CH4 production and for transporting CH4 from thesaturated soil to the atmosphere (e.g. Bubier 1995; Shannon et al., 1996; Marnier et al., 2004;
Tuittila et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 2009; Dias et al., 2010 ;). Species known to transport CH4 fromthe soil to the atmosphere include, but are not limited to Alnus, Calla, Carex, Cladium, Eleocharis,
Equisetum, Eriophorum, Glyceria, Nuphar, Nymphaea, Peltandra, Phalaris, Phragmites,
Sagittaria, Scheuchzeria, Scirpus, Typha and various peat swamp forest trees (Sebacher et al.,
1985, Brix et al., 1992; Chanton et al., 1992, Schimel 1995, Shannon et al., 1996, Frenzel &Rudolph 1998, Rusch & Rennenberg 1998, Verville et al., 1998, Yavitt & Knapp 1998, Grünfeld& Brix 1999, Frenzel & Karofeld 2000, Tuittila et al., 2000, Arkebauer et al., 2001, Gauci et al.,2010, Armstrong & Armstrong 2011, Askaer et al., 2011; Konnerup et al., 2011; Pangala et al.,2012). The presence of these aerenchymous shunt species has a significant effect on CH4 efflux
from organic soils (Couwenberg & Fritz 2012). Countries are encouraged to develop nationallyspecific emission factors that address vegetation composition (see Riutta et al., 2007, Dias et al.,2010, Couwenberg et al., 2011; Forbrich et al., 2011). The effect of biomass harvesting on CH4fluxes from rewetted organic soils has thus far remained unstudied.

605
606
607
608
609
610
611

A Tier 3 approach involves a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CH4 emissions
on rewetted organic soils, including the representation of interactions between the dominant drivers of CH4
dynamics, as described above and potentially addressing different flux pathways, including ebullition (Strack et
al. 2005). Possible methods include detailed country-specific monitoring of CH4-C emissions/removals acrossrewetted organic soils representing a variety of water table positions, prior land use and time since rewetting.
CH4 emissions/removals could also be estimated using process-based models including factors described above

3.16

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

612
613

(see e.g. Walter et al., 2001, Frolking et al., 2002, Van Huissteden et al., 2006, Baird et al., 2009, Li et al., 2009,
Meng et al., 2012).

614
615

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623

Tier 1
The implementation of the Tier 1 method requires the application of default emission factors EFCH4 provided inTable 3.3, where they are disaggregated by climate zone (boreal, temperate, tropical) and nutrient status (nutrient
poor, rich). The emission factor for rewetted tropical organic soils assumes a near surface water table throughout
the year. For tropical areas experiencing a distinct dry season, where water tables drop below 20 cm below
surface, the emission factor in Table 3.3 should be multiplied by the number of wet months divided by 12.
Annex 3A.3 provides more details on the derivation of the default EFs and references used for theirdetermination.
TABLE 3.3
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR CH4 FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS(ALL VALUES IN KG CH4-C HA-1 YR-1)
EFCH4

95% range

Boreal*80 (n= 85 sites)0 – 420

Temperate**

142 (n=86 sites)

0 – 795

Tropical***

41 (n=11 sites)

7 - 134

Climate zone

Nutrient
StatusEFCH4

95% rangePoor

41 (n=39 sites)

0.5 – 246Rich

137 (n=35 sites)0 – 493Poor

92 (n=42 sites)

3 – 445Rich

216 (n=37 sites)0 – 856* Derived from the following source material (see Annex 3 A.3 for details): Alm et al., 1997; Bubier et al., 1993; Clymo & Reddaway,
1971; Drewer et al., 2010; Gauci & Dise 2002; Juottonen et al., 2012; Komulainen et al., 1998; Laine et al., 1996 ; Nykänen et al., 1995;
Tuittila et al., 2000; Urbanová et al., 2012; Verma et al., 1992; Waddington & Roulet 2000; Whiting & Chanton 2001; Yli-Petäys et al.,2007; Strack & Zuback 2013.
** Augustin & Merbach 1998; Augustin 2003; Augustin et al., 1996; Augustin in Couwenberg et al., 2011; Bortoluzzi et al., 2006; Cleary
et al., 2005; Crill in Bartlett & Harris 1993; Dise & Gorham 1993; Drösler 2005; Drösler et al. 2013; Flessa et al., 1997; Glatzel et al., 2011;
Harriss et al., 1982; Hendriks et al., 2007; Jungkunst & Fiedler 2007; Koehler et al., 2011; Nagata et al., 2005; Nilsson et al., 2008; Roulet etal., 2007; Scottish Executive, 2007; Shannon & White 1994; Sommer et al., 2003; Tauchnitz et al., 2008; Von Arnold 2004; Waddington &Price 2000; Wickland, 2001; Wild et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 2009, 2013; Beetz et al. 2013.
*** Derived from the following source material from undrained sites (see Annex 3 A.3 for details): Furukawa et al., 2005; Hadi et al., 2001,
2005; Inubushi et al., 1998; Jauhiainen et al., 2001, 2004, 2005, 2008; Melling et al., 2012; Pangala et al., 2012.

624

Tier 2 and 3

625
626
627
628
629
630
631

It is good practice to develop country-specific emission factors for each climate zone and nutrient status.
Differences in water table position explain a large proportion of variation in annual CH4 flux between sites(Annex 3A.3). Thus, estimation of CH4-C emissions/removals using country-specific EFs related to water table
position will greatly improve estimation. Estimates of CH4-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils
can be further improved by implementing scientific findings relating CH4-C emissions to specific cropping
practices, prior land use, vegetation cover and time since rewetting.

632
633
634
635
636
637

Default emission factors are not provided for specific wet cropping practices, such as for Sago, Taro or reed
plantations on wet organic soils where the scientific evidence is insufficient to support a globally applicable EF.
Where such practices are nationally important, it is good practice to derive country-specific emission factors
from pertinent publications (e.g. Inubushi et al., 1998, Melling et al., 2005, Watanabe et al., 2009, Chimner &Ewel 2004), taking into account water table dynamics. Emission factors for rice cropping on organic soils should
follow the guidance provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

638
639
640

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.17

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
641

3.2.3

642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649

The emissions of N2O from rewetted organic soils are controlled by the quantity of N available for nitrificationand denitrification, and the availability of the oxygen required for these chemical reactions. Oxygen availability
is in turn controlled by the depth of the water table. Raising the depth of the water table will cause N2O
emissions to decrease rapidly, and fall practically to zero if the depth of the water table is less than 20cm below
the surface (Couwenberg et al., 2011). Saturated conditions may promote denitrification and the consumption of
N2O, but in practice this effect is very small and considered negligible in this chapter. This is because anoxic
conditions and low NH4+ availability reduce the rates of mineralisation and nitrification, two processes that are
prerequisites for denitrification.

650

Equation 3.9 includes the essential elements for estimating N2O emissions from rewetted organic soils:
EQUATION 3.9
N2O-N EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
N2O rewetted org soil-N = N2O soil-N + Lfire-N2O-N

651
652
653
654

N 2 O Emissions from Rewetted Organic Soils

Where:

655

N2Orewetted org soil-N = N2O-N emissions from rewetted organic soils, kg N2O-N yr-1

656

N2Osoil-N = N2O-N emissions from the soil pool of rewetted organic soils, kg N2O-N yr-1

657

Lfire-N2O-N = N2O-N emissions from burning of rewetted organic soils, kg N2O-N yr-1

658
659
660
661
662
663
664

Generic methodologies for estimating N2O emissions from the burning of vegetation and dead organic matter areprovided in Chapter 2, Volume 4 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, while methodologies specific to vegetation and
DOM burning in Forest land, Cropland, Grassland and Wetlands are provided in Chapters 4-7, Volume 4 in the2006 IPCC Guidelines. If rewetting practices involve burning, N2O emissions from the burning of organic soils
should in theory be estimated. Published data are insufficient to develop default N2O emission factors for theburning of organic soils (See Chapter 2 in this supplement); therefore Lfire-N2O-N of Equation 3.9 is notconsidered in this section.

665
666
667

Tier 1

668
669
670
671

Tier 2 & 3

Under Tier 1, emissions of nitrous oxides from rewetted soils are assumed to be negligible (Hendriks et al., 2007,
Wilson et al., 2013).
Countries where rewetted organic soils are a significant component of a key category should take into accountpatterns of N2O emissions from these sites, particularly where the nitrogen budget of the watershed is potentiallyinfluenced by significant local or regional N inputs such as in large-scale farmland development.

672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680

Country-specific emission factors should take into account fluctuations of the water table depth, which controls
oxygen availability for nitrification, and previous land use, which may have resulted in top soil enrichment(Nagata et al., 2005; 2010). The development of country-specific emission factors should take into considerationthat significant N inputs into rewetted ecosystems may originate from allochtonous (external) sources, such as
fertilizer use in the surrounding watershed. Measurement protocols should be designed in such a way as to allow
separating such inputs, to avoid double-counting N2O emissions that may already be reported as indirectemissions from anthropogenic N input within the watershed (Chapter 11, Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
N2O emissions from soil fires on rewetted organic soils should be estimated on the basis of scientific evidence.

681
682

3.2.4

683
684
685

All methodological Tiers require data on areas of rewetted organic soils, broken down by climate zone andnutrient status (nutrient poor or nutrient rich) as appropriate. This section clarifies further data requirements andsuggests potential data sources.

686
687
688
689

Activity data used in the calculations can be obtained from various sources: scientific publications, databases andsoil map references, reports on rewetting projects, official communications. This information may have beendeveloped in government agencies, conservation organizations, research institutions and industry, subject to any
confidentiality considerations. It is good practice, when collecting activity data, to also obtain protocols for data

3.18

Choice of Activity Data

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

690
691

collection (frequency, measurement methods and time span), estimation methods, and estimates of accuracy andprecision. Reasons for significant changes in activity data and inter-annual fluctuations should be explained.

692
693
694
695
696

Tier 1

697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709

The data can be obtained from domestic soil statistics and databases, spatial or not, land cover (in particularwetlands), land use and agricultural crops (for example specialty crops typically grown on organic soils); thisinformation can be used to identify areas with significant coverage of organic soils. Useful information on
existing or planned activities may be available from the domestic peat extraction industry, regional or national
forestry or agricultural agencies or conservation organisations. Agricultural, forestry or other type of government
extension services may be able to provide specific information on common management practices on organicsoils, for example for certain crop production, forest or plantation management or peat extraction. Information
relative to rewetting practices is more likely available from regional practitioners, either in extension services,
conservation organizations or environmental engineering firms. Data may also exist on water monitoring or
management, including water management plans, areas where water level is regulated, floodplains or
groundwater monitoring data. Such information could be available from government agencies involved in water
management or the insurance industry, and be used in the determination of areas where the water level isnaturally high, has been lowered or is managed for various purposes.

710
711
712
713

Remote sensing can also be used for wet area detection and mapping of vegetation type, biomass, and othercharacteristics. Time series of remotely-sensed imagery (e.g. aerial photography, satellite imagery etc.) can assist
in the detection of rewetted organic soils and in the determination of time since rewetting. Such imagery may be
produced either by research institutes, departments or agencies, universities or by the private sector.

714
715
716
717
718
719

In the absence of domestic data on soils, it is recommended to consult the International Soil Reference andInformation Centre (ISRIC; www.isric.org; FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, 2012. Harmonized World Soil
Database (version 1.2). FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria). Inventory compilers should also
investigate available documentation on rewetting or restoration projects with the International Peat Society(Commission V: Restoration, rehabilitation and after-use of peatlands, www.peatsociety.org), the International
Mire Conservation Group (www.imcg.net) and the Verified Carbon Standard (v-c-s.org).

720
721
722
723

When information is gathered from a variety of sources, cross-checks should be made to ensure complete andconsistent representation of land management practices and areas. For example, an area should not be counted
twice if it is subject to several management practices over the course of a year. Rather, the combined effect ofthese practices should be estimated as a single rewetting for the area in question.

The default methodology assumes that a country has data on the area of rewetted organic soils, the nutrient statusof organic soils in temperate and boreal climates, and basic information on rewetting practices – such as theduration of the phase without vegetation and any remnant ditches - consistent with the guidance above on theapplicability of default emission factors.

724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731

Tier 2

732
733
734
735

Domestic data sources are generally more appropriate than international ones to support higher tiered estimation
approaches. In some cases relevant information must be created; it is good practice to investigate potential
institutional arrangements to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of data creation efforts, as well as plan forregular updates and long-term maintenance of a domestic information system.

736
737
738
739
740
741

To make use of remote sensing data for inventories, and in particular to relate land cover to land use, it is goodpractice to complement the remotely sensed data with ground reference data (often called ground truth data).
Land uses that are rapidly changing over the estimation period or that are easily misclassified should be more
intensively ground-truthed than other areas. This can only be done by using ground reference data, preferablyfrom actual ground surveys collected independently. High-resolution aerial photographs or satellite imagery may
also be useful. Further guidance can be found in Chapter 3, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

742
743
744
745

More sophisticated estimation methodologies will require the determination of annual average water table depth;
land use and management practices prior to rewetting; and vegetation composition and the succession changes invegetation community composition and biomass with time since rewetting. This type of information can beobtained by long-term monitoring of rewetted sites under various conditions, and should be combined with an

Tier 2 mehodology is likely to involve a more detailed spatial stratification than in Tier 1, and further subdivisions based on time since rewetting, previous land use history, current land use and management practices aswell as vegetation composition. It is good practice to further sub-divide default classes based on empirical datathat demonstrate significant differences in GHG fluxes among the proposed categories. At Tier 2, higher spatial
resolution of activity data is expected and can be obtained by disaggregating global data in country-specificcategories, or by collecting country-specific activity data.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.19

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
746
747
748
749

enhanced understanding of the processes linking GHG emissions or removals to these factors. Depending on
climate and site conditions, it may be appropriate to assess variations in water table depth over annual, seasonal,
monthly or even weekly period; the development of cost-effective higher tier methods may involve bothmonitoring and modelling of water table variations over time.

750
751
752
753
754
755
756

Tier 3

757
758
759
760
761

Scientific teams are usually actively involved in the development of Tier 3 methods. The viability of advanced
estimation methodologies relies in part on well-designed information systems that are able to provide relevant
activity data with the appropriate spatial and temporal coverage and resolution, have well-documented datacollection protocols and quality control, and are supported with a long-term financial commitment for update andmaintenance.

For application of a direct measurement-based inventory in Tier 3, similar or more detailed data on the
combinations of climate, soil, topographic and management data are needed, relative to the Tier 1 and 2 methods.
Comprehensive field sampling, where appropriate combined with remote sensing systems repeated at regulartime intervals, will provide high spatial resolution on organic soils, time since rewetting, and land-use andmanagement activity data.

762
763

3.2.5

Sources of Uncertainty

764
765
766
767

Uncertainty in estimated GHG emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils will arise from uncertainties in
EFs and other parameters, uncertainties in activity data, and model structure/parameter error for Tier 3 modelbased methods. Further guidance on error estimation and the combination of errors is given in Volume 1,
Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777

For Tier 1, uncertainty level for default emission factors represent the 95% confidence interval for CO2-C and
DOC as presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Due to the skewed distribution of CH4-C emissions/removals data, theuncertainty is given as the (asymmetric) range of 95% of the data as outlined in Chapter 3, Volume 1 of the 2006
Guidelines. While there may be still considerable uncertainty around each datapoint used in the derivation of theEFs, the 95% confidence interval values presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 primarily reflect the uncertainty of
the use of a single default EF that has been derived from many rewetted and undrained sites that may varyconsiderably from each other in terms of (1) their current abiotic and biotic characteristics and (2) their land use
prior to rewetting. The confidence intervals also capture the uncertainty associated with the spatial variation
reported in fluxes from the various study sites. Uncertainty also arises from inter-annual variability, although it
has been reduced by using the mean of multi-year datasets from the same site).

778
779
780

Sources of uncertainty when using default emission factors also include under-represented environmental
conditions in the dataset (including initial conditions and rewetting practices), lack of data representative of
various phases and end-points of the rewetting process (e.g. a transient period).

781
782
783
784
785
786
787

Countries developing emission factors for their inventories at higher tiers should assess the uncertainty of thesefactors. Possible sources of uncertainty in country-specific emission factors include limited data for GHG
emissions/removals on rewetted organic soils in a given region, application of emission factors measured in asmall number of rewetted areas to wide areas with different land-use and rewetting histories, application ofemission factors derived from short duration studies regardless of the time since rewetting. It is good practice forcountries using numerical models for estimating GHG emissions/removals at Tier 3 to estimate uncertainty ofthese models.

788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796

Uncertainty in activity data will depend on its source. Aggregated land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g.
FAO), may require a correction factor to minimize possible bias. Sources of uncertainty about activity may
include the omission or duplication of rewetted areas, especially if data are gathered from a variety of sources,
missing historical data on rewetted organic soils, insufficient information on rewetting practices, post-rewetting
vegetation succession, variation on the water table depths, and on the end-point(s) of the rewetting process.
Accuracy can be improved by using country-specific activity data from various national, regional and local
institutions, with uncertainty estimated based on data collection method and expert judgment. When information
regarding activity data is gathered from a variety of sources, cross-checks should be made to ensure complete
and consistent representation of land management practices and areas.

797

3.20

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

3.3

COMPLETENESS, TIME SERIES,CONSISTENCY, AND QA/QC

800

3.3.1

Completeness

801
802
803

Complete greenhouse gas inventories will include estimates of emissions from all greenhouse gas emissions andremovals on rewetted organic soils for which Tier 1 guidance is provided in this chapter, for all types of organicsoils that occur on the national territory.

804
805
806

Not all drained soils in the national territory may have been rewetted, but all rewetted sites were drained at somepoint in the past. A complete inventory will include all drained organic soils, as well as those that have beensubsequently rewetted.

807
808
809

Information should be provided, for each land-use category, on the proportion of drained and rewetted areas withorganic soils. Overall, the sum of rewetted areas with organic soils reported under each land-use categories
should equal the total national area of rewetted organic soils.

798
799

810
811

3.3.2

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

812
813

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures should be developed and implemented as outlined in
Chapter 7 of this supplement.

814
815
816
817
818
819

It is good practice that countries using Tier 1 methods critically assess the applicability of the default
assumptions to their national circumstances. For example, countries are encouraged to determine in what way, ifany, drainage or rewetting with no change in land use affects biomass and dead-organic matter pools and adjust
assumptions or methods to incorporate their findings in estimates. In light of their strong influence on GHG
emissions, the frequency and any periodicity of possible water table fluctuations in rewetted ecosystems should
be factored into the assessment or development of emission factors.

820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832

Higher tier methods should be carefully designed to ensure that resulting estimates are compatible acrossdifferent pools. In particular, potential double-counting of emissions or removals could occur if estimatesderived from flux-based emission factors are combined to estimates calculated from stock change; this could
occur for example if C uptake by vegetation is included in both a net flux to/from the atmosphere and the stockchange in the biomass pool. Likewise, a net flux and the stock change of the dead organic matter pool could bothinclude emissions to the atmosphere as a result of DOM decay. Therefore scientific expertise must be actively
involved in the design of domestic methods and the development of country-specific parameter values to ensurethat C transfers to and from carbon pools, and between the biosphere and the atmosphere, are all captured to theextent possible and not double-counted. Where country-specific emission factors are being used, they should bebased on high quality field data, developed using a rigorous measurement programme, and be adequately
documented, preferably in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature. Documentation should be provided to establish
the representativeness and applicability of country-specific emission factors to the national circumstances,including regionally significant rewetting and restoration practices and relevant ecosystems.

833
834
835
836
837
838

It is good practice to develop additional, category-specific quality control and quality assurance procedures foremissions and removals in this category. Examples of such procedures include, but are not limited to, examining
the time series of the total area of managed land on organic soils across all land-use categories to ensure there isno unexplained gains or losses of land; conducting a comparative analysis of emission factors applied torewetted land on organic soils and fluxes from un-drained similar ecosystems; ensuring consistency of the areaand location of rewetted organic soils with the information provided on drained organic soils.

839

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.21

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
840

References

841
842
843

Adkinson A. C., Syed K. H. & Flanagan L. B. 2011. Contrasting responses of growing season ecosystem CO2
exchange to variation in temperature and water table depth in two peatlands in northern Alberta, Canada. J.
Geophys. Res. 116(G1): G01004.

844
845

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

846
847

Alm J., Saarnio S., Nykänen H., Silvola J. & Martikainen P. J. 1999. Winter CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes on somenatural and drained boreal peatlands. Biogeochemistry 44: 163-186.

848
849
850

Alm J., Shurpali N. J., Tuittila E.-S., Laurila T., Maljanen M., Saarnio S. & Minkkinen K. 2007. Methods fordetermining emission factors for the use of peat and peatlands -flux measurements and modelling. Boreal
Environment Research 12: 85-100.

851
852
853

Alm J., Talanov A., Saarnio S., Silvola J., Ikkonen E., Aaltonen H., Nykänen H. & Martikainen P. J. 1997.
Reconstruction of the carbon balance for microsites in a boreal oligotrophic pine fen, Finland. Oecologia
110: 423 - 431.

854
855
856
857

Anderson J., Beduhn R., Current D., Espeleta J., Fissore C., Gangeness B., Harting J., Hobbie S. E., Nater E. &Reich P. 2008. The potential for terrestrial carbon sequestration in Minnesota. . A report to the Department of
Natural Resources from the Minnesota Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Initiative. University of Minnesota,
St. Paul, Mn.,

858
859
860

Arkebauer, T.J., Chanton, J.P., Verma, S.B. & Kim, J. 2001 Field measurements of internal pressurization in
Phragmites australis (Poaceae) and implications for regulation of methane emissions in a midlatitude prairie
wetland. American Journal of Botany, 88, 653–658.

861
862

Armstrong, J. & Armstrong, W. 2011. Reasons for the presence or absence of convective (pressurized)
ventilation in the genus Equisetum. New Phytologist, 190, 387–397.

863
864
865

Armstrong A. T., Holdern J., Kay P., Francis B., Foulger M., Gledhill S., McDonald A. T. & Walker A. 2010.
The impact of peatland drain-blocking on dissolved organic carbon loss and discolouration of water; resultsfrom a national survey. Journal of Hydrology 381: 112-120.

866
867
868

Artz R. R. E., Chapman S. J., Jean Robertson A. H., Potts J. M., Laggoun-Défarge F., Gogo S., Comont L.,
Disnar J.-R. & Francez A.-J. 2008. FTIR spectroscopy can be used as a screening tool for organic matter
quality in regenerating cutover peatlands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40(2): 515-527.

869
870

Askaer, L., Elberling, B., Friborg, T., Jorgensen, C.J. & Hansen, B.U. 2011. Plant-mediated CH4 transport and C
gas dynamics quantified insitu in a Phalaris arundinacea-dominant wetland. Plant and Soil, 343, 287–301.

871
872
873
874
875

Augustin J. & Chojnicki B. 2008. Austausch von klimarelevanten Spurengasen, Klimawirkung undKohlenstoffdynamik in den ersten Jahren nach der Wiedervernässung von degradiertem
Niedermoorgrünland. . In: Gelbrecht J., Zak D. & Augustin J. (eds.), Phosphor- und Kohlenstoff-Dynamik
und Vegetationsentwicklung in wiedervernässten Mooren des Peenetals in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Status, Steuergrößen und Handlungsmöglichkeiten., Berichte des IGB Heft 26. IGB, Berlin pp. 50-67.

876
877
878

Augustin, J. & Merbach, W. 1998. Greenhouse gas emissions from fen mires in Northern Germany:
quantification and regulation. In: Merbach, W. & Wittenmayer, L. Beiträge aus der Hallenser
Pflanzenernährungsforschung, pp. 97-110

879
880

Augustin, J. 2003. Gaseous emissions from constructed wetlands and (re)flooded meadows. Publicationes
Instituti Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis 94: 3-8

881
882
883
884

Augustin, J., Merbach, W., Käding, H., Schmidt, W. & Schalitz, G. 1996. Lachgas- und Methanemission aus
degradierten Niedermoorstandorten Nordostdeutschlands unter dem Einfluß unterschiedlicher
Bewirtschaftung. In: Alfred-Wegener-Stiftun (ed.) Von den Ressourcen zum Recycling. Berlin, Ernst & Sohn.
pp 131-139.

885
886
887

Augustin, unpubl., cited in Couwenberg, J., Thiele, A., Tanneberger, F., Augustin, J., Bärisch, S., Dubovik, D.,
Liashchynskaya, N., Michaelis, D., Minke, M., Skuratovich, A. & Joosten, H. 2011. Assessing greenhousegas emissions from peatlands using vegetation as a proxy. Hydrobiologia, 674, 67–89.

888
889

Aurela M., Laurila T. & Tuovinen J.-P. 2002. Annual CO2 balance of a subarctic fen in northern Europe:
Importance of the wintertime efflux. J. Geophys. Res. 107(D21): 4607.

890
891

Aurela M., Lohila A., Tuovinen J., Hatakka J., Riutta T. & Laurila T. 2009. Carbon dioxide exchange on anorthern boreal fen. Boreal Environment Research 14: 699-710.

3.22

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

892
893
894
895

Baird, A.J., Belyea, L.R. & Morris, P.J. 2009. Upscaling of peatland-atmosphere fluxes of methane: small-scale
heterogeneity in process rates and the pitfalls of "bucket-and-slab" models. In: Baird, A.J., Belyea, L.R.,
Comas, X., Reeve, A. & Slater, L. (eds.) Carbon Cycling in Northern Peatlands, American GeophysicalUnion, Washington, 37–43.

896
897

Beetz, S., Liebersbach, H., Glatzel, S. Jurasinski, G., Buczko, U. & Höper, H. 2013. Effects of land use intensity
on the full greenhouse gas balance in an Atlantic peat bog. Biogeosciences, 10, 1067-1082.

898
899

Bellisario L. M., Moore T. R. & Bubier J. 1998. Net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland, northern
Manitoba. Ecoscience 5(4): 534-541.

900
901

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.

902
903
904

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

905
906
907

Billett M. F., Palmer 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): doi:10.1029/2003GB002058.

908
909

Bortoluzzi E., Epron D., Siegenthaler A., Gilbert D. & Buttler A. 2006. Carbon balance of a European mountainbog at contrasting stages of regeneration. New Phytologist 172(4): 708-718.

910
911

Brix, H., Sorrell, B.K. & Orr, P.T. 1992. Internal pressurization and convective gas flow in some emergent
freshwater macrophytes. Limnology and Oceanography, 37(7), 1420–1433.

912
913

Bubier J., Frolking S., Crill P. & Linder E. 1999. Net ecosystem productivity and its uncertainty in a diverse
boreal peatland. Journal of Geophysical Research 104(D22): 27683-27692.

914
915

Bubier J.L., Moore T.R., Roulet N.T. 1993. Methane emissions from wetlands in the midboreal region of
Northern Ontario, Canada. Ecology 74(8): 2240-2254.

916
917

Bubier, J.L. 1995. The relationship of vegetation to methane emission and hydrochemical gradients in northernpeatlands. Journal of Ecology, 83, 403–420.

918
919

Cagampan J. & Waddington J. M. 2008. Net ecosystem CO2 exchange of a cutover peatland rehabilitated with atransplanted acrotelm. Ecoscience 15(2): 258-267.

920
921
922

Chanton, J.P., Martens, C.S., Kelley, C.A., Crill, P.M. & Showers, W.J. 1992. Methane transport mechanisms
and isotopic fractionation in emergent macrophytes of an Alaskan tundra lake. Journal of GeophysicalResearch, 97(D15), 16681–16688.

923
924

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

925
926
927

Christensen T., R, Jackowicz-Korczyński M., Aurela M., Crill P., Heliasz M., Mastepanov M. & Friborg T. 2012.
Monitoring the Multi-Year Carbon Balance of a Subarctic Palsa Mire with Micrometeorological Techniques.
Ambio 41(3): 207-217.

928
929
930

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

931
932

Cleary J, Roulet NT, Moore TR. 2005. Greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian peat extraction, 1990-2000: A
life-cycle analysis, Ambio, 34, 456-461.

933
934
935

Clymo R.S., Reddaway E.J.F. 1971. Productivity of Sphagnum (Bog-moss) and peat accumulation.
Hidrobiologia 12: 181-192. (cited in: Bartlett K.B. & Harris R.C. 1993. Review and assessment of Methane
Emissions from Wetlands. Chemosphere. Vol.26, Nos. 1-4: 261-320.)

936
937
938

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., Middleburg J. J. & Melack J. 2007. Plumbing the global carbon cycle: Integrating inland
waters into the terrestrial carbon budget. Ecosystems 10: 171-184.

939
940

Couwenberg, J. 2011. Greenhouse gas emissions from managed peat soils: is the IPCC reporting guidance
realistic? Mires and Peat, 8, Article 2: 1-10.

941
942
943

Couwenberg J., Thiele A., Tanneberger F., Augustin J., Bärisch S., Dubovik D., Liashchynskaya N., MichaelisD., Minke M., Skuratovich A. & Joosten H. 2011. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands using
vegetation as a proxy. Hydrobiologia: DOI:10.1007/s10750-011-0729-x.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.23

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
944
945

Couwenberg, J., Dommain, R. & Joosten, H. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical peatlands in southeast Asia. Global Change Biology, 16: 1715–1732.

946
947

Couwenebrg, J. & Fritz, C. (2012) Towards developing IPCC methane ‘emission factors’for peatlands (organicsoils). Mires and Peat, 10, Article 3, 1-17.

948
949

Crill, unpublished data. (cited in: Bartlett K.B. & Harris R.C. 1993. Review and assessment of Methane
Emissions from Wetlands. Chemosphere. Vol.26, Nos. 1-4: 261-320.)

950
951

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.

952
953

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

954
955
956

Dias ATC, Hoorens B, Van Logtestijn RSP, Vermaat JE, Aerts R. 2010. Plant species composition can be used
as a proxy to predict methane emissions in peatland ecosystems after land-use changes. Ecosystems (N. Y.)
13(4): 526-538

957
958

Dinsmore K. J., Billet 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.

959
960
961

Dinsmore K. J., Smart R. P., Billett M. F., Holden J., Baird A. & Chapman P. J. 2011. Greenhouse gas losses
from peatland pipes: a major pathway for loss to the atmosphere? Journal of Geophysical Research
116(G0341):

962
963

Dise N.B., Gorham E. 1993. Environmental Factors Conrolling Methane Emissions from Peatlands in orthern
Minnesota. Journal of Geophysical Research 98 Nr. D6: 10583-10594.

964
965
966

Dommain R, Couwenberg J, and Joosten H. 2011. Development and carbon sequestration of tropical peat domes
in south-east Asia: links to post-glacial sea-level changes and Holocene climate variability. Quaternary
Science Reviews 30 (2011) 999e1010

967
968
969
970

Drewer J., Lohila A., Aurela M., Laurila T., Minkkinen K., Penttilä T., Dinsmore K. J., McKenzie R. M., HelfterC., Flechard C., Sutton M. A. & Skiba U. M. 2010. Comparison of greenhouse gas fluxes and nitrogenbudgets from an ombotrophic bog in Scotland and a minerotrophic sedge fen in Finland. European Journal of
Soil Science: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01267.x.

971
972

Drösler, M. 2005. Trace gas exchange and climatic relevance of bog ecosystems, southern Germany. PhD thesis,
Technische Universität München. 182p.

973
974
975
976
977
978

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

979
980

Evans, C., Worrell, F., Holden, J., Chapman, P., Smith, P. & Artz, R. 2011. A programme to address evidence
gaps in greenhouse gas and carbon fluxes from UK peatlands. JNCC Report No. 443

981
982

FAO.
2005
Helping
Forests
Take/www.fao.org/docrep/008/ae945e/ae945e05.htm.

983
984

Flessa, H., Wild, U., Klemisch, M. & Pfadenhauer, J. 1997. C- und N-Stoffflüsse auf
Torfstichsimulationsflächen im Donaumoos. Zeitschrift für Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung 38:11-17.

985
986
987
988

Forbrich, I., Kutzbach, L., Wille, C., Becker, T., Wu, J.B. & Wilmking, M. (2011) Cross-evaluationof measurements of peatland methane emissions on microform and ecosystem scales using highresolution landcover classification and source weight modelling. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
151, 864–874.

989
990

Frenzel, P. & Karofeld, E. 2000. CH4 emissions from a hollow-ridge complex in a raised bog: The role of CH4
production and oxidation. Biogeochemistry, 51, 91–112.

991
992

Frenzel, P. & Rudolph, J. 1998. Methane emission from a wetland plant: the role of CH4 oxidation in
Eriophorum. Plant and Soil, 202, 27–32.

993
994
995

Frolking, S., N.T. Roulet, T.R. Moore, P.M. Lafleur, J.L. Bubier & Crill, P.M. 2002. Modeling the seasonal toannual carbon balance of Mer Bleue Bog, Ontario, Canada. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16 doi
10.1029/2001GB0011457.

3.24

Cover.

RAP

Publication.

2005/13.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

996
997
998

Furukawa, Y., Inubushi, K., Ali, M., Itang, A.M. & Tsuruta, H. 2005. Effect of changing groundwater lavels
caused by land-use changes on greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peat lands. Nutrient Cycling inAgroecosystems 71: 81-91.

999
1000

Gauci V., Dise N. 2002. Controls on supression o methane flux from a peat bog subjected to simulated acid rain
sulfate deposition. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16 Nr. 1: 4-1 to 4-12.

1001
1002

Gauci V., Gowing, D.J.G., Hornibrook, E.R.C., Davis, J.M., Dise, N.B. 2010. Woody stem methane emission inmature wetland alder trees. Atmospheric Environment 44: 2157-2160.

1003
1004

Gibson H. S., Worrall F., Burt T. & Adamson J. K. 2009. DOC budgets of drained peat catchments Implications for DOC production in peat soils. Journal of Hydrology 23(13): 1901-1911.

1005
1006

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

1007
1008

Glatzel, S., Koebsch, F., Beetz, S., Hahn, J., Richter, P., Jurasinski, G., 2011. Maßnahmen zur Minderung derTreibhausgasfreisetzung aus Mooren im Mittleren Mecklenburg. Telma. 4: 85-106.

1009
1010

Golovatskaya E. & Dyukarev E. 2009. Carbon budget of oligotrophic mire sites in the Southern Taiga ofWestern Siberia. Plant and Soil 315(1): 19-34.

1011
1012

Grünfeld, S. & Brix, H. 1999. Methanogenesis and methane emissions: Effects of water table, substrate type andpresence of Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany, 64, 63–75.

1013
1014
1015

Haapalehto T. O., Vasander H., Jauhiainen S., Tahvanainen T. & Kotiaho J. S. 2010. The Effects of Peatland
Restoration on Water-Table Depth, Elemental Concentrations, and Vegetation: 10 Years of Changes.
Restoration Ecology: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00704.x.

1016
1017
1018

Hadi, A. Haradi, M., Inubushi, K., Purnomo, E., Razie, F. & Tsuruta, H. 2001. Effects of land-use change intropical peat soil on the microbial population and emmission of greenhouse gases. Microbes andEnvironments 16: 79-86.

1019
1020

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.

1021
1022

Harazono Y., Mano M., Miyata A., Zulueta R. & Oechel W. C. 2003. Inter-annual carbon dioxide uptake of awet sedge tundra ecosystem in the Arctic. Tellus 55B: 215-231.

1023
1024
1025

Harriss R.C., Sebacher D.I., Day F.P. 1982. Methane flux in the Great Dismal Swamp. Nature 297: 673-674.
(cited in: Bartlett K.B. & Harris R.C. 1993. Review and assessment of Methane Emissions from Wetlands.
Chemosphere. Vol.26, Nos. 1-4: 261-320.)

1026
1027

Heikkinen J. E. P., Elsakov V. & Martikainen P. J. 2002. Carbon dioxide and methane dynamics and annual
carbon balance in tundra wetland in NE Europe, Russia. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 16(4): 1115.

1028
1029

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

1030
1031
1032

Herbst M., Friborg T., Schelde K., Jensen R., Ringgaard R., Vasquez V., Thomsen A. G. & Soegaard H. 2013.
Climate and site management as driving factors for the atmospheric greenhouse gas exchange of a restored
wetland. Biogeosciences 10: 39-52.

1033
1034

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

1035
1036
1037

Hirano, T., Segah, H., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Takahashi, H. & Osaki, Mitsuru. 2012. Effects of disturbances on
the carbon balance of tropical peat swamp forests. Global Change Biology, doi: 10.1111/j.13652486.2012.02793.x

1038
1039

Hooijer A., Page S., Canadell J. G., Silvius M., Kwadijk J., Wösten H. & Jauhiainen J. 2010. Current and future
CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences 7: 1505-1514.

1040
1041

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

1042
1043
1044

Höll B. S., Fiedler S., Jungkunst H. F., Kalbitz K., Freibauer A., Drösler M. & Stahr K. 2009. Characteristics of
dissolved organic matter following 20 years of peatland restoration. Science of the Total Environment 408:
78-83.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.25

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1045
1046
1047

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

1048
1049
1050

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.

1051
1052
1053

IPCC 2011, Use of Models and Facility-Level Data in Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Report of IPCC Expert
Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in Greenhouse Gas Inventories 9-11 August 2010, Sydney,
Australia) eds: Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K., Baasansuren J., Fukuda M., Pub. IGES, Japan 2011

1054
1055
1056

Jacobs C. M. J., Jacobs A. F. G., Bosveld F. C., Hendriks D. M. D., Hensen A., Kroon P. S., Moors E., Nol l.,
Schrier-Uijl A. & Veenendaal E. M. 2007. Variability of annual CO2 exchange from Dutch grasslands.
Biogeosciences 4: 803-816.

1057
1058
1059

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

1060
1061
1062

Jauhiainen, J., Heikkinen, J., Martikainen, P.J. & Vasander, H. 2001. CO2 and CH4 fluxes in pristine peat swamp
forest and peatland converted to agriculture in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Peat Journal 11:
43-49.

1063
1064

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: 3505-3514.

1065
1066

Jauhiainen, J., Takahashi, H., Heikkinen, J.E.P., Martikainen, P.J. & Vasander, H. 2005. Carbon fluxes from a
tropical peat swamp forest floor. Global Change Biology 11: 1788-1797.

1067
1068
1069

Jauhiainen, J., Vasander, H., Jaya, A., Inoue, T., Heikkinen, J. & Martikainen, P. 2004. Carbon balance inmanaged tropical peat in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Päivänen, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 12th
International Peat Congress, Tampere 6 – 11.6

1070
1071

Jonsson A., Algesten G., Bergström A.-K., Bishop K., Sobek S., Tranvik L. & Jansson M. 2007. Integrating
aquatic fluxes in a boreal catchment carbon budget. Journal of Hydrology 334: 141-150.

1072
1073

Joosten, H. 2009. The Global Peatland CO2 Picture – Peatland status and drainage-related emissions in all
countries of the world. Wetlands International and University of Greifswald University.

1074
1075
1076

Jungkunst, H.F. & Fiedler, S. 2007. Latitudinal differentiated water table control of carbon dioxide, methane andnitrous oxide fluxes from hydromorphic soils: feedbacks to climate change. Global Change Biology 13:
2668-2683

1077
1078
1079

Juottonen, H., Hynninen, A., Nieminen, M., Tuomivirta, T., Tuittila, E-S., Nousiainen, H., Yrjälä, K.,
Tervahauta A., Fritze, H. 2012. Methane-cycling microbial communities and methane emission in natural andrestored peatland buffer areas. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78: 6386-6389

1080
1081
1082

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

1083
1084
1085

Kivimäki S. K., Yli-Petäys M. & Tuittila E.-S. 2008. Carbon sink function of sedge and Sphagnum patches in a
restored cut-away peatland: increased functional diversity leads to higher production. Journal of Applied
Ecology 45: 921-929.

1086
1087

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.

1088
1089

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.

1090
1091

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

1092
1093

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

1094
1095
1096

Komulainen, V.-M., H. Nykänen, P. J. Martikainen, Laine, J. 1998. Short-term effect of restoration on vegetation
change and methane emissions from peatlands drained for forestry in southern Finland. Canadian Journal ofForest Research 28: 402-411.

3.26

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1097
1098

Konnerup, D., Sorrell, B.K. & Brix, H. 2011. Do tropical wetland plants possess convective gas flowmechanisms? New Phytologist, 190, 379–386.

1099
1100

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.

1101
1102

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

1103
1104
1105

Kurbatova J., Li C., Tataronov F., Varlagin A., Shalukhina N. & Olchev A. 2009. Modeling of the carbon
dioxide fluxes in European Russia peat bogs. Environ. Res. Lett. 4: 045022, doi:10.1088/17489326/4/4/045022.

1106
1107

Lafleur P. M., Roulet N. T. & Admiral S. W. 2001. Annual cycle of CO2 exchange at a bog peatland. Journal ofGeophysical Research 106(D3): 3071 - 3081.

1108
1109
1110

Lähteenoja O, Reategui YR, Rasasen M, Torres DDC, Oinonen M, and Page S. 2011. The large Amazonian
peatland carbon sink in the subsiding Pastaza-Marañon foreland basin, Peru. Global Change Biology doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02504.x

1111
1112

Lähteenoja O, Ruokolainen K, Schulmanw L, and Oinonenz M. 2009. Amazonian peatlands: an ignored C sinkand potential source. Global Change Biology 15, 2311–2320

1113
1114
1115

Laine J., Minkkinen K., Sinisalo J., Savolainen I. & Martikainen P. J. 1997. Greenhouse impact of a mire afterdrainage for forestry. . In: Trettin C. C., Jurgensen M. F., Grigal D. F., et al. (eds.), Northern Forested
Wetlands, Ecology and Management. CRC Press, Baco Raton, Florida pp. 437-447.

1116
1117
1118

Laine J., Silvola J., Tolonen K., Alm J., Nykänen H., Vasander H., Sallantaus T., Savolainen I., Sinisalo J.,
Martikainen P.J. 1996. Effect of Water-level Drawdown on Global Climatic Warming: Northern Peatlands.
Ambio Vol. 25 No. 3: 179-184. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

1119
1120

Laine, A., Byrne, K., Kiely, G. Tuittila, E-S. 2007 Patterns in vegetation and CO2 dynamics of a lowland blanket
bog along a water level gradient. Ecosystems 10: 890–905.

1121
1122

Li, T., Huang, Y., Zhang, W. & Song, C. 2009. CH4MODwetland: A biogeophysical model for simulating
methane emissions from natural wetlands. Ecological Modelling, 221: 666–680.

1123
1124
1125

Limpens, J., Berendse, F., Blodau, C., Canadell, J.G., Freeman, C., Holden, J., Roulet, N., Rydin, H. &Schaepman-Strub, G. 2008. Peatlands and the carbon cycle: from local processes to global implications - asynthesis. Biogeosciences 5: 1475-1491

1126
1127

Lund M., Lindroth A., Christensen T. R. & Strom L. 2007. Annual CO2 balance of a temperate bog. Tellus B
59(5): 804-811.

1128
1129

Maanavilja L., Riutta T., Aurela M., Pulkkinen M., Laurila T. & Tuittila E. S. 2011. Spatial variation in CO2
exchange at a northern aapa mire. Biogeochemistry 104: 325-345.

1130
1131
1132

Maanavilja L., Urbanová Z., Picek T., Bárta J., Laiho R., Tuittila E-S. Effect of long-term drainage andhydrological restoration on peat biogeochemistry in spruce swamp forests. Submitted to Soil Biology &Biochemistry in July 2012.

1133
1134

Marinier, M., Glatzel, S. & Moore, T.R. 2004 . The role of cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum ) in CO2 andCH4 fluxes from restored peatlands, eastern Canada. Écoscience 11: 141-149.

1135
1136
1137

Melling, L., Goh, K.J., Kloni, A. & Hatano, R. (2012). Is water table the most important factor influencing soil
C flux in tropical peatland? Proceedings of the 14th International Peat Congress. Extended Abstract No. 330,
6 pp.

1138
1139

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

1140
1141
1142

Meng, L., Hess, P.G.M., Mahowald, N.M., Yavitt, J.B., Riley, W.J., Subin, Z.M., Lawrence, D.M., Swenson,
S.C., Jauhiainen, J., & Fuka, D.R. 2012. Sensitivity of wetland methane emissions to model assumptions:application and model testing against site observations, Biogeosciences, 9, 2793-2819.

1143
1144
1145

Miettinen J, Hooijer A, Shi CH, Tollenaar D, Vernimmen R, Liew SC , Malins C, and Page SE. 2012. Extent ofindustrial plantations on Southeast Asian peatlands in 2010 with analysis of historical expansion and future
projections. GCB Bioenergy, doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01172.x

1146
1147

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

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.27

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1148
1149

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

1150
1151
1152

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.

1153
1154

Moore, T.R., Matos, L., Roulet, N.T. 2003. Dynamics and chemistry of dissolved organic carbon in Precambrian
Shield catchments and an impounded wetland. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 612-623.

1155
1156

Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc'h K, and Verchot LV 2010. Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions intropical peatlands. PNAS. 107 (46):19655–19660

1157
1158

Nagata O., Takakai F. & Hatano R. 2005. Effect of sasa invasion on global warming potential in sphagnum
dominated poor fen in Bibai, Japan. Phyton, Annales Rei Botanicae, Horn 45(4): 299-307.

1159
1160

Nagata, O., Yazaki, T., Yanai, Y. 2010. Nitrous oxide emissions from drained and mineral soil-dressed peatland
in central Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 66:23-30

1161
1162
1163

Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E. (eds). 2010. Dead Planet, Living Planet –Biodiversity and Ecosystem Restorationfor Sustainable Development. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme,
GRID-Arendal. Birkeland Trykkeri AS, Norway.

1164
1165
1166

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 – a significant sink after
accounting for all C-fluxes. Global Change Biology 14, 2317–2332.

1167
1168

Nykänen H., Alm J., Lang K., Silvola J., Martikainen P. 1995. Emissions of CH4, N2O and CO2 from a virgin fen
and a fen drained for grassland in Finland. Journal of Biogeography 22: 351-357.

1169
1170
1171

Nykänen H., Heikkinen J. E. P., Pirinen L., Tiilikainen K. & Martikainen P. J. 2003. Annual CO2 exchange andCH4 fluxes on a subarctic palsa mire during climatically different years. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 17(1):1018,doi:10.1029/2002GB001861.

1172
1173

O'Brien H. E., Labadz J. C. & Butcher D. P. 2008. The role of blanket peat moorland management in thegeneration and amelioration of discolouration of surface water supplies. Nottimgham Trent University.

1174
1175

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

1176
1177

Pangala, S.R., Moore, S., Hornibrook, E.R.C. & Gauci, V. 2012. Trees are major conduits for methane egressfrom tropical forested wetlands. New Phytologist, 197, 524-531

1178
1179
1180

Pattey E., Edwards G., Strachan I. B., Desjardins R. L., Kaharabata S. and Wagner-Riddle C. 2006 Towards
standards for measuring greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural fields using instrumented towers Can.J. Soil
Sci. 86: 373–400.

1181
1182
1183

Petersen, S.O., Hoffmann, C.C., Schäfer, 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.

1184
1185

Petrone, R.M., Waddington, J.M. & Price, J.S. 2003. Ecosystem-scale flux of CO2 from a restored vacuum
harvested peatland. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 11, 419–432

1186
1187

Ramchunder S. J., Brown L. E. & Holden J. 2009. Environmental effects of drainage, drain-blocking andprescribed vegetation burning in UK upland peatlands. Progress in Physical Geography 33: 49-79.

1188
1189
1190

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

1191
1192

Reddy, K.R. and DeLaune, R.D. 2008. Biogeochemistry of wetlands, science and applications. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis group. Baca Raton, London, New York. 774 p.

1193
1194
1195

Riutta T., Laine J., Aurela M., Rinne J., Vesala T., Laurila T., Haapanala S., Pihlatie M. & Tuittila E. S. 2007.
Spatial variation in plant community functions regulates carbon gas dynamics in a boreal fen ecosystem.
Tellus 59B: 838-852.

1196
1197

Roehm C. L. & Roulet N. T. 2003. Seasonal contribution of CO2 fluxes in the annual C budget of a northern bog.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(1): 1029.

3.28

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1198
1199
1200

Roulet N. T., Lafleur P. M., Richard P. J. H., Moore T., Humphreys E. R. & Bubier J. 2007. Contemporary
carbon balance and late Holocene carbon accumulation in a northern peatland. Global Change Biology 13:
397-411, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01292.

1201

Rowan J. 2009. The boundless carbon cycle. Natural Geoscience 2: 598-600.

1202
1203

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.

1204
1205

Rusch, R. & Rennenberg, H. 1998. Black alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.) trees mediate methane and nitrous
oxide emission from the soil to the atmosphere. Plant and Soil, 201, 1–7.

1206

Rydin, H. & Jeglum, J. 2006. The biology of peatlands. Oxford University Press. 360 p.

1207
1208
1209

Saarnio S, Morero M, Shurpali NJ, Tuittila E-S, Mäkilä M, Alm J (2007) Annual CO2 and CH4 fluxes of pristine
boreal mires as a background for the lifecycle analyses of peat energy, Boreal Environment Research 12:
101-113.

1210
1211

Sagerfors J., Lindroth A., Grelle A., Klemedtsson L., Weslien P. & Nilsson M. 2008. Annual CO2 exchange
between a nutrient-poor, minerotrophic, boreal mire and the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 113(G1): G01001.

1212
1213
1214

Samaritani, E., Siegenthaler, A., Yli-Petäys, M., Buttler, A., Christin, P.-A. & Mitchell, E.A.D. 2011. Seasonal
net ecosystem carbon exchange of a regenerating cutaway bog: How long does it take to restore the Csequestration function, Restoration Ecology, 19, 480–489.

1215
1216

Schafer C.-M., Elsgaard L., Hoffmann C. C. & Petersen S. O. 2012. Seasonal methane dynamics in threetemperate grasslands on peat. Plant Soil 357: 339-353.

1217
1218

Schimel, J.P. 1995. Plant transport and methane production as controls on methane flux from arctic wet meadow
tundra, Biogeochemistry 28, 183–200.

1219
1220

Schulze E. D., Prokuschkin A., Arneth A., Knorre N. & Vaganov E. A. 2002. Net ecosystem productivity andpeat accumulation in a Siberian Aapa mire. Tellus 54B: 531-536.

1221
1222

Schumann,
M. & Joosten, H. (2008): Global
peatlandhttp://www.imcg.net/media/download_gallery/books/gprm_01.pdf.

1223
1224

Scottish Executive. 2007. Ecosse - Estimating Carbon in Organic Soils, Sequestration and emissions. Scottosh
Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/16170508 [febr. 2008]. 177 p.

1225
1226

Sebacher, D. I., Harriss, R. C. & Bartlett, K. B. 1985. Methane emissions to the atmosphere through aquaticplants. Journal of Environmental Quality 14: 40-46.

1227
1228

Shannon R.D., White J.R. 1994. A three-year study of controls on methane emissions from two Michigan
peatlands. Biogeochemistry 27: 35-60.

1229
1230

Shannon, R.D., White, J.R., Lawson, J.E. & Gilmour, B.S. 1996. Methane efflux from emergent vegetation in

1231
1232

Shurpali N. J., Verma S. B., Kim J. & Arkebauer T. J. 1995. Carbon dioxide exchange in a peatland ecosystem.
Journal of Geophysical Research 100(D7): 14,319-14,326.

1233
1234

Soegaard H. & Nordstroem C. 1999. Carbon dioxide exchange in a high-arctic fen estimated by eddy covariancemeasurements and modelling. Global Change Biology 5(5): 547-562.

1235
1236
1237

Soini P., Riutta T., Yli-Petäys M. & Vasander H. 2010. Comparison of vegetation and CO2 dynamics between arestored cut-way peatland and a pristine fen: evaluation of the restoration success. Restoration Ecology 18(6):894-903.

1238
1239
1240

Sommer, M., Fiedler, S., Glatzel, S. & Kleber, Markus. 2003. First estimates of regional (Allgäu, Germany) andglobal CH4 fluxes from wet colluvial margins of closed depressions in glacial drift areas. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment 103: 251-257

1241
1242

Strack, M. and Zuback, Y.C.A., 2013. Annual carbon balance of a peatland 10 yr following restoration.
Biogeosciences 10: 2885-2896.

1243
1244

Strack M., Toth K., Bourbonniere R. A. & Waddington J. A. 2011. Dissolved organic carbon production andrunoff quality following peatland extraction and restoration. Ecological Engineering 37: 1998-2008.

1245
1246
1247

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

restoration

manual.

peatlands. Journal of Ecology, 84, 239–246.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.29

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1248
1249
1250

Strack, M., Waddington, J.M., Rochefort, L. and Tuittila E.-S. 2006: Response of vegetation and net ecosystemcarbon dioxide exchange at different peatland microforms following water table drawdown. Journal ofGeophysical Research 111, G02006, doi:10.1029/2005JG000145.

1251
1252

Strack, M., Kellner, E., & Waddington, J.M. 2005. Dynamics of biogenic gas bubbles in peat and their effects on
peatland biogeochemistry. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19, GB1003, doi: 10.1029/2004GB002330.

1253
1254

Suyker A. E., Verma S. B. & Arkebauer T. J. 1997. Season-long measurement of carbon dioxide exchange in aboreal fen. Journal of Geophysical Research 102(D24): 29,021 - 29,028.

1255
1256

Tauchnitz, N., Brumme, R., Bernsdorf, S. & Meissner, R. 2008. Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes of a pristine
slope mire in the German National Park Harz Mountains. Plant and Soil 303, 131-138

1257
1258
1259

Trinder C. J., Artz R. R. E. & Johnson D. 2008. Contribution of plant photosynthate to soil respiration anddissolved organic carbon in a naturally recolonising cutover peatland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40(7):1622-1628.

1260
1261

Tuittila E.-S., Komulainen V.-M., Vasander H. & Laine J. 1999. Restored cut-away peatland as a sink foratmospheric CO2. Oecologia 120: 563 - 574.

1262
1263

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.

1264
1265

Turner E.K., Worrall F., Burt T.P. 2013. The effect of drain blocking on the dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
budget of an upland peat catchment in the UK. Journal of Hydrology, 479, 169-179

1266
1267

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

1268
1269

Urbanová Z. 2012. Vegetation and carbon gas dynamics under affected hydrological regime in central European
peatlands. Plant Ecology and Diversity URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tped:

1270
1271

Urbanová, Z., Picek, T., Hájek, T., Bufková, I., Tuittila, E-S. 2012. Impact of drainage and restoration onvegetation and carbon gas dynamics in Central European peatlands. Plant Ecology and Diversity. In press.

1272
1273
1274

van der Werf GR, Dempewolf J, Trigg SN, Randerson JT, Kasibhatla PS, Giglio L, Murdiyarso D, Peters W,
Morton DC, Collatz GJ, Dolman AJ, and DeFries RS. 2008. Climate regulation of fire emissions anddeforestation in equatorial Asia. PNAS 105 (51): 20350-20355

1275
1276

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. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 85, 3–18.

1277
1278
1279
1280

Verma S.B., Ullman F.G., Billesbach D., Clement R.J., Kim J., Verry E.S. 1992. Eddy correlation measurementsof methane flux in a northern peatland ecosystem. Bound. Layer Meteorol. 58:289-304. (cited in: Bartlett
K.B. & Harris R.C. 1993. Review and assessment of Methane Emissions from Wetlands. Chemosphere.
Vol.26, Nos. 1-4: 261-320.)

1281
1282

Verville, J.H., Hobbie, S.E., Chapin, F.S. & Hooper, D.U. 1998. Response of tundra CH4 and CO2 flux tomanipulation of temperature and vegetation. Biogeochemistry, 41, 215–235.

1283
1284

Von Arnold, K. 2004. Forests and greenhouse gases - fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O from drained forests onorganic soils. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science no 302. 48p.

1285
1286

Waddington J. M. & Price J. S. 2000. Effect of peatland drainage, harvesting and restoration on atmosphericwater and carbon exchange. Physical Geography 21(5): 433-451.

1287
1288

Waddington J. M. & Roulet N. T. 2000. Carbon balance of a boreal patterned peatland. Global Change Biology
6(1): 87- 97.

1289
1290
1291

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: G01008, doi:10.1029/2009JG001090.

1292
1293

Waddington J. M., Tóth K. & Bourbonniere R. A. 2008. Dissolved organic carbon export fom a cutover andrestored peatland. Hydrological Processes 22: 2215-2224.

1294
1295

Waddington J. M., Warner K. D. & Kennedy G. W. 2002. Cutover peatlands: a persistent source of atmosphericCO2. Global biogeochemical cycles 16(1): 21-27.

1296
1297

Waddington, J. M. & Day S. M. 2007. Methane emissions from a peatland following restoration, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, G03018, doi:10.1029/2007JG000400.

3.30

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1298
1299
1300

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.

1301
1302

Walter B.P., Heimann M., Matthews E., 2001, Modeling modern methane emissions from natural wetlands - 1.
Model description and results, Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(D104), 34189

1303
1304
1305

Watanabe, A., Purwanto, B.H., Ando, H., Kakuda, K. & 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 & Environment, 134: 14-18.

1306
1307

Whiting G. J. & Chanton J. P. 2001. Greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon
sequestration. Tellus 53B: 521-528.

1308
1309

Wickland K. 2001. Carbon gas exchange at a southern Rocky Mountain wetland, 1996-1998. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 15(2): 321-335.

1310
1311

Wickland K. P., Neff J. C. & Aiken S. N. 2007. Dissolved organic carbon in Alaskan boreal forest: sources,chemical characteristics and biodegradability. Ecosystems 10: 1323-1340.

1312
1313

Wild, U., Kamp, T., Lenz, A., Heinz, S. & Pfadenhauer, J. 2001. Cultivation of Typha spp. in constructedwetlands for peatland restoration. Ecological Engineering 17:49-54

1314
1315

Wilson D., Alm J., Laine J., Byrne K. A., Farrell E. P. & Tuittila E.-S. 2009. Rewetting of cutaway peatlands:
Are we re-creating hotpots of methane emissions? Restoration Ecology 17(6): 796-806.

1316
1317
1318

Wilson, D., Farrell, C., A., Muller, C., Hepp, S. and Renou-Wilson, F., 2013. Rewetted industrial cutaway
peatlands in western Ireland: prime location for climate change mitigation? Mires and Peat, 11: Article 01, 122. http://www.mires-and-peat.net/.

1319
1320

Wilson D., Tuittila E.-S., Alm J., Laine J., Farrell E. P. & Byrne K. A. 2007. Carbon dioxide dynamics of a
restored maritime peatland. Ecoscience 14(1): 71-80.

1321
1322
1323
1324

Wilson J.O., Crill P.M., Bartlett K.B., Sebacher D.I., Harriss R.C., Sass R.L. 1989. Seasonal variation of
methane emissions from a temperate swamp. Biogeochem. 8: 55-71. (cited in: Bartlett K.B. & Harris R.C.
1993. Review and assessment of Methane Emissions from Wetlands. Chemosphere. Vol.26, Nos. 1-4: 261320.)

1325
1326

Worrall F., Burt T. P., Rowson J. G., Warburton J. & Adamson J. K. 2009. The multi-annual carbon budget of apeat-covered catchment. Science of the Total Environment 407: 4084-4094.

1327
1328

Worrall F., Gibson H. S. & Burt T. P. 2007. Modelling the impact of drainage and drain-blocking on dissolved
organic carbon release from peatlands. Journal of Hydrology 338: 15-27.

1329
1330

Yavitt, J.B. & Knapp, A.K. 1998. Aspects of methane flow from sediment through emergent cattail (Typha
latifolia) plants. New Phytologist, 139, 495–503.

1331
1332

Yli-Petäys M., Laine J., Vasander H. & Tuittila E.-S. 2007. Carbon gas exchange of a re-vegetated cut-away
peatland five decades after abandonment. Boreal Environment Research 12: 177-190.

1333
1334

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

1335
1336
1337
1338

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

1339
1340

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.31

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1341

Annex 3A.1

1342

Estimation of default emission factors for CO2-C inrewetted organic soils

1343

Methodologies

1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349

An extensive literature review was conducted to collate all CO2 studies that are currently available for (1)rewetted organic soils (as defined in the Introduction of this Chapter and including rewetted, restored and wet
managed sites) and (2) natural/undrained organic soils. Literature sources included both published and non-peer
reviewed (grey literature) studies. In the case of the latter the study was reviewed by all Lead Authors in this
Chapter and expert judgement was exercised as to whether the study was scientifically acceptable for inclusion.
In total, 3 non-peer reviewed studies were included.

1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360

All studies included in the database reported CO2 flux based estimation methodologies using either the chamberor eddy covariance (EC) techniques. The chamber method involves the measurement of gas fluxes at high spatial
resolution and is widely employed in conditions where the vegetation is either low or absent. The EC towers are
typically used at sites that are relatively flat and homogeneous which includes open and treed organic soils. For a
more detailed description of both methodologies see Alm et al. (2007). A detailed database of annual CO2 fluxes
was then constructed to determine the main drivers (if any) of CO2 dynamics in rewetted organic soils. Whenavailable, the following parameters were extracted from the literature source and included in the database foranalysis: climate zone (see Table 4.1, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), nutrient status, meanannual water table depth (WTD), median annual water table (as well as minimum and maximum), soil pH,
thickness of the organic soil layer, C/N ratio, degree of humification, soil moisture, soil bulk density, plant coverand species, previous land-use and time since rewetting.

1361
1362
1363
1364

The CO2 flux database initially contained a total of 216 annual flux estimates taken from 52 locations. At eachstudy location a number of sites could be identified with similar dominant vegetation and hydrology, and each as
such represented an entry in the database. For multi-year studies from the same site, annual flux estimates wereaveraged over the years. The final number of entries came to 126 and was distributed as follows:

1365(i) Degradation status (Natural/undrained = 80; Rewetted= 46)

1366(ii) Climate zone (Boreal = 65; Temperate = 61)

1367(iii) Nutrient status (Nutrient rich = 54; Nutrient poor = 72).

1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385

The criteria for inclusion in the database were as follows: (1) the study reported CO2 fluxes from either rewetted
or natural, undrained organic soils. All natural sites that had a water table deeper than 30 cm were not includedin the final database to calculate the EF, as these were assessed as not being ‘wet’. In other words, only naturalsites with a WTD of -30 cm (negative values indicate a mean WTD below the peat/soil surface) or shallower (i.e.
close to or above the soil surface) were deemed suitable as a proxy for rewetted sites since the mean water table
depths recorded at all the rewetted sites in our database was always at, or shallower than – 30 cm. (2) The study
had to report either seasonal or annual CO2 fluxes. Studies in the database that reported daily CO2 flux values
were not used as upscaling to an annual flux value would have led to very high under- or over-estimations.
Seasonal CO2 fluxes (typically reported for the snow free May to October growing period) were converted toannual fluxes using 15% of the seasonal ecosystem respiration data from each study to estimate CO2 fluxes fromthe non-growing season, although this may represent a slight overestimation given that photosynthesis (andhence C uptake) may have occurred for a short time following the ending of those seasonal studies. For studies
where such data were not available, a value of 30g CO2-C m-2 for non-growing season fluxes was used. (3)Studies had to indicate a mean WTD for each annual CO2 flux reported. In some cases, this information wasavailable from other publications and the CO2 flux value was accepted for inclusion. (4) For studies using the EC
technique, care was taken not to use annual CO2 fluxes that included a woody biomass pool (e.g. treed organicsoils) as this would have resulted in double accounting at the Tier 1 level. Calculated default EFs for CO2
exclude woody biomass.

1386

Results1387
1388

To determine Tier 1 CO2-C EFs, descriptive statistics allowed the data to be grouped by (1) climate zone and insome cases by (2) nutrient status (poor or rich) and descriptive analysis for each group was computed.

13891) Temperate and boreal sites

1390
1391
1392
1393

A comparison was made between individual annual net CO2 fluxes from rewetted sites and natural/undrained
sites as found in the literature (see reference list in footnote of Table 3.1 in the main text). The wide range offluxes recorded in rewetted sites can be explained by a number of factors such as 1) vegetation cover (includes
non-vegetated surfaces), 2) average annual water table depth, 3) restoration practices (other than rewetting).

3.32

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1394
1395

While noting this large variation, especially within the temperate climate zone (-2115 to 2786 g CO2-C m-2 yr-1),
the array from both groups, natural/undrained vs rewetted is analogous (Figure 3A.1a and b).

1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402

Figure 3A.1

Distribution of CO 2 flux values (g CO 2 m -2 yr -1 ) found in the publishedliterature for natural/undrained and rewetted organic soils in (a) boreal and(b) temperate climate zones. Positive flux values indicate CO 2 emissions fromthe ecosystem to the atmosphere and negative flux values indicate removal of
CO 2 from the atmosphere by the ecosystem. References used to compile
graph are to be found in Table 3.1.

1403

1404
1405
1406
1407
1408

Mean water table (WT) was plotted against annual CO2 flux. The fitted regression lines (CO2 flux = a+b1*WT)
were compared between rewetted and natural/undrained organic soils for each climate zone (see Figures 3A.2a

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.33

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414

and b). The groups were treated as being non-significantly different when it was ascertained statistically that b1±S.E. (rewetted) fitted within b1-S.E. and b1+S.E for the natural/undrained group. This was the case for bothboreal and temperate organic soils (Table 3A.1). Therefore, EFs were calculated using rewetted andnatural/undrained data points for each climatic zone. Means of fluxes with their 95% confidence interval were
calculated for each of the categories.. In the case of temperate sites, the 95% confidence interval included thezero value and the mean EF for temperate sites was not statistically different from the value ‘zero’ (p = 0.61).

1415

3.34

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1416
1417
1418

Figure 3A.2

Relationship between annual CO 2 fluxes and mean annual water table (cm)for both undrained and rewetted organic soils in (a) boreal and (b) temperate
climate zones

1419a) Boreal climate zone

1420
1421

b) Temperate climate zone

1422
1423

Note:

1424

1. fitted regression line is CO2 flux = a+b1*WT.

1425
1426

2. Negative water table values indicate a mean water table position below the soil surface and positive values indicate a meanwater table position above the soil surface.

1427
1428

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.35

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1429
TABLE 3A.1
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (EFCO2) AND ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTY, FOR CO2-C BY REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS (ALL-1
-1
VALUES IN TONNES CO2-C HA YR ).
Climate zone

EFCO2

95% range*

Temperate-0.04 (n=61)-0.45 – +0.37

Nutrient status

EFCO2

95% range

Nutrient poor

-0.30 (n=46)-0.68 – +0.07

Nutrient rich

+0.50 (n=15)-0.71 – +1.71

Note: Negative values indicate removal of CO2-C from the atmosphere.
*

95% confidence interval

Source:Emission factors derived from the following source material: Shurpali et al. 1995, Alm et al. 1997, Laine et al. 1997,
Suyker et al. 1997, Bubier et al. 1999, Komulainen et al. 1999, Soegaard & Nordstroem 1999, Tuittila et al. 1999,
Waddington & Price 2000, Waddington & Roulet 2000, Lafleur et al. 2001, Whiting & Chanton 2001, Wickland 2001,
Aurela et al. 2002, Heikkinen et al. 2002, Schulze et al. 2002, Waddington et al. 2002, Harazono et al. 2003, Nykänen
et al. 2003, Roehm & Roulet 2003, Billett et al. 2004, Drösler 2005, Nagata et al. 2005, Bortoluzzi et al. 2006,
Hendriks et al. 2007, Jacobs et al. 2007, Lund et al. 2007, Riutta et al. 2007, Roulet et al. 2007, Wilson et al. 2007, YliPetäys et al. 2007, Augustin & Chojnicki 2008, Cagampan & Waddington 2008, Kivimäki et al. 2008, Nilsson et al.
2008, Sagerfors et al. 2008, Aurela et al. 2009, Golovatskaya & Dyukarev 2009, Kurbatova et al. 2009, Drewer et al.
2010, Soini et al. 2010, Waddington et al. 2010, Adkinson et al. 2011, Couwenberg et al. 2011, Koehler et al. 2011,
Maanavilja et al 2011, Christensen et al 2012, Urbanová 2012, Beetz et al. 2013, Strack & Zuback 2013, Drösler et al2013, Herbst et al. 2013. Wilson et al. 2013.

1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437

Nutrient rich sites generally display a wider range of flux values than nutrient-poor sites. This wider range can be
explained by the higher diversity of nutrient rich sites. For example, plant associations in rich fens are diverse,
commonly dominated by brown mosses, sedges and grasses. The majority of the nutrient rich organic soils usedin the calculation of the EF for the boreal zone are sedge rich fens which are known to be highly productive
ecosystems (Bellisario et al., 1998, Alm et al., 1997, Bubier et al., 1999, Yli-Petäys et al., 2007). The wider
range of flux values can also be explained by the diversity of previous land-uses as nutrient rich organic soils
have been used more intensively than nutrient poor sites, especially across the temperate zone.

1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445

Some studies on natural/undrained nutrient rich organic soils in the temperate zone have reported net annual
carbon sources (Nagata et al. 2005, Wickland 2001, Drösler et al 2013), although this may appear inconsistent
with the fact that they hold large, long-term stores of carbon. Considerable uncertainty is attached to individual
data points used in the derivation of the default EF, as the studies are generally of a short duration (1-2 years)
and do not take into account the longer-term natural variation. It should be re-affirmed that over longer timescales, natural and successfully rewetted nutrient rich organic soils (i.e. with vegetation that accumulates SOM)
are CO2 sinks unless another anthropogenic activity is impacting on the site (e.g. pollution, atmosphericdeposition, climate change).

1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452

By contrast, nutrient poor organic soils displayed less variation in CO2 fluxes across both boreal and temperatezones; the associated EFs suggest that for both boreal (Table 3.1) and temperate (Table 3A.1), they are net longterm sinks for atmospheric CO2, confirming that natural/undrained and rewetted nutrient poor organic soils playas important a role in the contemporary global C cycle as they have in the past. While no default EFs were
provided for nutrient poor and nutrient rich organic soils in the Temperate zone, Table 3A.1 demonstrates thatcountries with high proportion of temperate nutrient poor organic soils should aim to report under higher Tiers inorder to reduce estimate uncertainty.

1453
1454

2) Tropical sites

1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462

Data on net CO2-C fluxes from successfully rewetted tropical organic soils are lacking. Subsidence
measurements provide a good measure of carbon losses from drained organic soils (see Chapter 2 of this
supplement) and in tropical organic soils subsidence is near zero when the water table approaches the surface(Figure 3A.3; Hooijer et al. 2012, see also Couwenberg et al. 2010). In undrained/natural conditions tropicalorganic soils constitute a CO2-C sink of 0.3 – 1.1 t CO2-C ha-1 y-1 (Lähteenoja et al. 2009, 2011; Dommain et al.
2011). In light of the available evidence the Tier1 default EF is set at 0 t CO2-C ha-1 y-1. This value is consistent
with the default EFs for temperate and boreal organic soils presented in Table 3.1, assuming that rewetting
effectively stops soil organic matter oxidation but does not necessarily re-establish the soil C sink function.

1463

3.36

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1464
1465

Figure 3A.3

Subsidence rates as measured in drained tropical organic soils in relation towater table depth. From Hooijer et al. 2012.

1466

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.37

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft

1469

Annex 3A.2
Estimation of default emission factors for off-site
CO2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses (CO2-DOC)
from rewetted organic soils

1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475

Waterborne carbon export has been found to be an important pathway linking the organic soils carbon pool tothe atmosphere as there is a growing evidence that aquatic system is characterised by high levels of
allochthonous Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) , a high proportion of which is processed and converted to CO2.
A full characterisation of waterborne C losses comprises not only DOC, but also particulate organic carbon(POC), the dissolved gases CO2 and CH4 and the dissolved carbonate species: HCO3- and CO32-. Particulate
inorganic carbon (PIC) losses are considered negligible from all types of organic soils.

1476
1477
1478
1479
1480

The various sources, behaviour and fate of these different forms of waterborne C within organic soil systems arefurther described in Chapter 2 (Annex 2A.3). However, in temperate and boreal, natural/undrained sites, as well
as rewetted organic soils, DOC has been found to be by far the major component of fluvial C export, while POC,
DIC and dissolved CO2 are minor components of the total land-atmosphere CO2 exchange and are therefore notestimated here .

1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487

Very little data exist pertaining to POC losses from rewetted organic soils and these losses are likely to be sitespecific. However, while in-stream processing of POC (respiration/evasion) may be occurring, the greater
proportion may be simply translocated from the rewetted organic soil to other stable C stores, such as freshwateror marine sediments where it will not lead to CO2 emission. Therefore, due to current scientific uncertainty of
the ultimate fate of POC export, no estimation methodology is presented here for emissions produced from thedecomposition of POC lost from rewetted organic soils (see Appendix 2a.1 for future methodologicaldevelopment to estimate POC).

1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493

This section describes the methodology that has been used to derive emission factors for DOC losses fromrewetted organic soils as this has been shown to be the largest component of waterborne carbon loss from alltypes of organic soils (see Chapter 2). Collated data from seven rewetting studies suggest a median DOC
reduction of 36%, with a range of 1-83% (Table 3A.2). While the number of studies is limited, and results arevariable, the median reduction is almost exactly equivalent to the observed increase following drainage (a 33%
decrease in DOC would be required to fully reverse a 50% increase).

1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499

Some studies observed similar DOC concentrations in rewetted and restored bogs (previously used for peat
extraction) as in a nearby intact reference bog. Therefore, there is some evidence to suggest that rewetting will
return DOC loss fluxes to natural levels. It should be noted here that this reversal is likely to occur after an initial
pulse of DOC associated with disturbance during the rewetting process, depending on the techniques used. Thishypothesis is proposed as an explanation behind the variability shown in Table 3A.2, where some measurements
were made less than a year or during the first two years after rewetting.

1500
1501
1502

While there are a limited number of published studies of rewetting impact on DOC loss, a larger number ofstudies are available that provide reliable DOC flux estimates from natural/undrained organic soils. These werecombined with rewetted sites to derive best estimates of the DOC flux (Table 3A.3).

1503
1504

Finally, the proportion of DOC exported from organic soils which is ultimately converted to CO2, called here
(FracDOC_CO2) is also explained in Annex 2A.3 of Chapter 2.

1467
1468

1505

3.38

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1506
TABLE 3A.2
DOC CONCENTRATION (ABOVE) OR FLUX (BELOW) COMPARISONS BETWEEN DRAINED AND REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS WITH
CHANGES IN DOC FOLLOWING REWETTING
DOC (mg l-1)

∆DOCRewetting

Previous land-use

Climate
zone

Study

DrainedRewetted(%)

Peat extraction bog

BorealGlatzel et al.(2003)

110

70

-36%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

Wallage et al. (2006)

43

13

-69%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

Armstrong et al. (2010)

34

30

-10%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

Gibson et al. (2009)

39

39

-1%

Drained agricultural fen

Temperate

Höll et al. (2009)

86

57

-34%

Drained extraction bog

Temperate

Strack & Zuback (2013)

100

86

-14%

-2

-1

DOC (g C m yr )Peat extraction bog

Temperate

DrainedRewetted

Waddington et al.,(2008)
Strack & Zuback (2013)

7.5

3.5

-53%

29

5

-83%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

O’Brien et al. (2008)

7.0

4.1

-41%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

Turner et al., (2013)

79

61

-23%

1507
TABLE 3A.3
ANNUAL DOC FLUX ESTIMATES FROM NATURAL/UNDRAINED AND REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS USED TO DERIVEDEFAULT VALUES FOR DOCFLUX
StatusClimate zone

Country

BorealFinland

Juutinen et al (2013)

Natural/undrained

0.037

BorealCanadaMoore (2003)

Natural/undrained

0.043

BorealCanadaKoprivnjak & Moore (1992)

Natural/undrained

0.052

BorealCanadaMoore (2003)

Natural/undrained

0.060

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al (2006)

Natural/undrained

0.060

BorealFinland

Jager et al (2009)

Natural/undrained

0.078

BorealSwedenAgren et al (2007)

Natural/undrained

0.099

BorealFinland

Rantakari et al (2010)

Natural/undrained

0.120

BorealSwedenNilsson et al (2008)

Natural/undrained

0.130

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al (2006)

Natural/undrained

0.159

Temperate

CanadaStrack et al (2008)

Natural/undrained

0.053

Temperate

CanadaRoulet et al (2007)

Natural/undrained

0.164

Temperate

USA

Urban et al (1989)

Natural/undrained

0.212

Temperate

USA

Kolka et al (1999)

Natural/undrained

0.235

Temperate

CanadaMoore et al (2003)

Natural/undrained

0.290

Temperate

CanadaClair et al (2002)

Natural/undrained

0.360

Temperate

UK

Dawson et al (2004)

Natural/undrained

0.194

Temperate

UK

Dinsmore et al (2011)

Natural/undrained

0.260

Temperate

UK

Billett et al (2010)

Natural/undrained

0.234

Temperate

UK

Billett et al (2010)

Natural/undrained

0.276

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Study

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

3.39

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
Temperate

Ireland

Koehler et al (2009,2011)

Natural/undrained

0.140

Temperate

Australia

Di Folco & Kirkpatrick (2011)

Natural/undrained

0.134

Temperate

CanadaWaddington et al (2008), Strack& Zuback (2013)

Rewetted

TemperateUK

O’Brien et al (2008)

Rewetted

0.041

Temperate

UK

Turener et al (2013)

Rewetted

0.609

TropicalIndonesia

Baum et al (2008)

Natural/undrained

0.470

TropicalIndonesia

Alkhatib et al (2007)

Natural/undrained

0.549

TropicalMalaysia

Yule et al (2009), Zulkifli (2002)

Natural/undrained

0.632

TropicalIndonesia

Moore et al (2013)

Natural/undrained

0.625

0.043

1508

3.40

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1510

Annex 3A.3
Estimation of default emission factors for CH4-C
in rewetted organic soils

1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518

The same literature database and general approach were used to develop default CH4 emission factors as was
described in Annex 3A.1. A detailed database of annual CH4 fluxes was constructed to determine the main
drivers (if any) of CH4 emissions in rewetted organic soils. The collated data are based on closed chamber andeddy covariance flux measurements with a temporal coverage of at least one measurement per month during thesnow-free period. Seasonal fluxes (typically May to October) were converted to annual fluxes by assuming that
15% of the flux occurs in the non-growing season (Saarnio et al., 2007). For tropical Southeast Asia, annual data
are scarce and direct, non-annualized measurement values were used. Similar to CO2 flux measurements, datafrom undrained organic soils only were available and used as proxy for rewetted organic soils.

1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524

Where possible, the analysis considered the same parameters as those described in Annex 3A.1: climate zone
(latitude), nutrient status, mean annual water table, median annual water table (as well as minimum andmaximum), soil pH, organic soil thickness, soil C/N ratio, degree of humification, soil moisture, soil bulk density,
plant cover and species, previous land-use and time since rewetting. For all subsets mentioned below thecollected data show a near log-normal distribution, which, however, did not allow for derivation of standard
deviation as a measure of variance. Variance pertains to the 95% interval of the observed data.

1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533

Methane fluxes from rewetted boreal organic soils (mean 76.3 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance -0.1 – 338.7; n=171)
are not significantly different from undrained sites (mean 80.6 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0.3 – 420.0; n=682).
The increase in efflux with rising water table (Figure 3A.4) does not differ significantly between undrained(n=41 data pairs) and rewetted sites (n= 11 pairs). Methane efflux from rewetted nutrient rich organic soils(mean 161.6 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance -0.1 – 338.7; n=6) is half an order of magnitude higher than efflux
from rewetted nutrient poor organic soils (mean 36.5 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 3.6 – 155; n=8), which ismirrored by efflux values from undrained nutrient rich organic soils (mean 131.5 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance
0.2 – 492.8; n=29) and poor organic soils ( 42.5 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0.3 – 245.9; n=31). The derived
emission factors for nutrient rich (n=35) and poor sites (n=39) are based on the total respective datasets.

1509

1534
1535
1536
1537

Figure 3A.4

methane flux

3,0

Methane flux from boreal and temperate rewetted and undrained organicsoils in relation to mean annual water table. Fluxes are expressed as10log(1+measured flux) [kg CH 4 -C ha -1 yr -1 ].

Borealrewetted

Temperate
rewetted

undrained

undrained

2,0

1,0

0,0

-30

-20

-10

0

10

mean annual water table [cm]

1538

20

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

mean annual water table [cm]

1539

1

Juottonen et al., 2012; Komulainen et al., 1998; Tuittila et al., 2000 ; Urbanová et al., 2012 ; Yli-Petäys et al., 2007 ; Strack& Zuback 2013

2

Alm et al., 1997; Bubier et al., 1993; Clymo & Reddaway, 1971; Drewer et al., 2010; Gauci & Dise 2002; Laine et al.,1996 ; Nykänen et al., 1995 ; Verma et al., 1992 ; Waddington & Roulet 2000 ; Whiting & Chanton 2001 ; Strack &Zuback, 2013

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.41

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Final Draft
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553

Whereas methane fluxes from rewetted temperate organic soils (mean 173.8 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0 –856.3; n=38) 3 ) are considerably higher than from undrained organic soils (mean 117.6 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1;
variance 0 – 528.4; n=48)4), this finding is based mainly on inclusion of sites that were slightly flooded during
rewetting. Extremely high efflux values from sites on enriched agricultural soil that were turned into shallow
lakes during rewetting are not included (Augustin & Chojnicki 2008; Glatzel et al., 2011). The increase in efflux
with rising water table is not significantly different between undrained (n=33 pairs) and rewetted sites (n=33
pairs). Methane effluxes from rewetted temperate nutrient poor organic soils (mean 69.1 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1;
variance 3.5 – 444.5; n=15) are lower than from rewetted nutrient rich organic soils (mean 242.2 kg CH4-C ha-1
yr-1; variance -0.5 – 1027.5; n=23). Combined, the increase in efflux with rising water table in undrained andrewetted sites does not show a significant difference between nutrient poor organic soils (n=32 pairs) andnutrient rich ones (n=33 pairs). The emission factors presented are based on the total dataset of rewetted andundrained nutrient poor (n=28) and nutrient rich sites (n=33). Because nutrient poor sites have more relatively
dry microsites and the dataset for nutrient rich sites includes the high values mentioned above, the EF for
temperate nutrient poor sites is lower than for nutrient rich sites.

1554
1555
1556
1557

Figure 3A.5

Methane flux from boreal and temperate, poor and rich, rewetted (rw) andundrained (un) organic soils. Fluxes (in kg CH 4 -C ha -1 yr -1 ) are expressed ona logarithmic scale.
Boreal103

Temperate

poor

rich

poor

rich

rw

rw

rw

rw

un

un

un

un

102
methane flux

10
1
10-1
10-2
10-3

1558
1559

Note:

1560

1.

Negative and zero flux values are not included in the graph (n=9).

1561

2.

Bars indicate mean values.

1562

3.

Note that in derivation of EFs, data for rewetted and undrained sites were lumped.

1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569

Similar to boreal and temperate organic soils, methane fluxes from tropical swamp forest organic soils inSoutheast Asia depend on water table with high methane efflux restricted to high water tables (Couwenberg et al.,2010). To derive the emission factor for rewetted swamp forest peat in Southeast Asia, flux data were compiled
from literature. Data were limited to measurements associated with wet conditions (water table ≤30 cm below
surface), either based on actual water table data or if wet conditions could reasonably be assumed (Table 3A.4).
Flux data from rice paddy on organic soil are comparable to current IPCC estimates (Couwenberg 2011) and3

Augustin & Merbach 1998; Augustin 2003; Augustin in Couwenberg et al., 2011; Cleary et al., 2005; Drösler 2005;
Drösler et al. 2013; Flessa et al., 1997; Glatzel et al., 2011; Hendriks et al., 2007; Jungkunst & Fiedler 2007; Waddington& Price 2000; Wild et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2013

4

Augustin & Merbach 1998; Augustin 2003; Augustin et al., 1996; Augustin in Couwenberg et al., 2011; Bortoluzzi et al.,2006; Crill in Bartlett & Harris 1993; Dise & Gorham 1993; Drösler 2005; Drösler et al. 2013; Harriss et al., 1982; Koehler
et al., 2011; Nagata et al., 2005; Nilsson et al., 2008; Roulet et al., 2007; Scottish Executive, 2007; Shannon & White 1994;
Sommer et al., 2003; Tauchnitz et al., 2008; Von Arnold 2004; Waddington & Price 2000; Wickland, 2001; Wilson et al.,
1989

3.42

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Chapter 3: Rewetted organic soils
Final Draft

1570
1571
1572
1573

were excluded from the analysis. Methane flux data from tropical organic soils outside Southeast Asia are
currently not available. Because of the recalcitrance of the woody peat, methane fluxes from tropical swamp
forest organic soils in Southeast Asia are considerably lower than from boreal and temperate organic soils(Couwenberg et al., 2010).

1574
TABLE 3A.4
CH4-C FLUX DATA FROM WET SWAMP FOREST ON ORGANIC SOILS
mg CH4-C m-2 h-1 (range)nReference

S1 (drained forest)

0.13 (0 – 0.35)

9*

Furukawa et al., 2005

S6 (swamp forest)

0.67

1

S7/S8 (swamp forest)

0.74 (0.58 – 0.91)

2

A1 (secondary forest)

0.14

1

Hadi et al., 2001

A1 (secondary forest)

0.46 (0 – 2.29)

13

Hadi et al., 2005

0.85

1

Inubushi et al., 1998

Site

Secondary forest
Conservation swamp forest

0.22 (0.03 – 0.70)

20*Jauhiainen et al., 2001, 2005

Drained and selectively logged forest

0.05 (-0.09 – 0.38)

76*Jauhiainen et al., 2004, 2008

Young secondary forest

0.19 (0.10 – 0.26)

6*Jauhiainen et al., 2004

Tropical peat swamp forest

1.53 (1.28 – 1.78)

2Melling et al., 2012

Conservation swamp forest

0.14

1

Pangala et al., 2012

Mean

0.47 (0.05 – 1.53)
kg CH4-C ha-1 y-1)

Annual flux

41.2 (7.0 – 134.0)

Note:
n denotes number of observations*only measurements pertaining to wet site conditions (water table ≤30 cm below the surface) are considered

1575
1576

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.43