DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft

1

2
3
4
5
6
7

CHAPTER 3

CROSS-CUTTING GUIDANCE ON
REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS ANDRESTORED PEATLANDS

8Coordinating Lead Author

9

Dominique Blain (Canada), Daniel Murdiyarso (CIFOR)

10

Lead Author

11
12John Couwenberg (EC/WI/Germany/Netherlands), Osamu Nagata (Japan), Florence Renou-Wilson (Ireland),
Andrey Sirin (Russia), Maria Strack (Canada), Helena Eeva-Stiina Tuittila (Finland), David Wilson (Ireland)

13

Contributing Author

14

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

15

Review Editor

16

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

17

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.1

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
18

Contents

19

20

Cross-cutting guidance on REWETTED PEATLANDS AND organic soils.................................................. 4

3

21

3.1

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

22

3.2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals from Rewetted Peatlands and Organic Soils ...................... 5

23

3.2.1

CO2 Emissions and Removals by Rewetted Peatlands and Organic Soils ......................................... 6

24

3.2.2

CH4 Emissions from Rewetted Peatlands and Organic Soils .......................................................... 15

25

3.2.3

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

26

3.3

Completeness, Time series, consistency, and QA/QC.......................................................................... 20

27

3.3.1

Completeness ................................................................................................................................... 20

28

3.3.2

Developing a consistent time series ................................................................................................. 20

29

3.3.3

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

30

3.3.4

Reporting and Documentation ......................................................................................................... 21

31

Annex 3A.1

Estimation of default emission factors for CO2-C in rewetted peatlands and organic soils ......... 31

32

Annex 3A.2

Estimation of default emission factors for CO2-DOC in rewetted peatlands and organic soils ... 35

33

Annex 3A.3

Estimation of default emission factors for CH4-C in rewetted peatlands and organic soils ......... 37

34
35

Appendix 3.1
CO2 emissions/removals from rewetted peatlands and organic soils in Tropical climate: a basis
for future methodological develpment .................................................................................................................. 41

36

37

Equations38

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

39

Equation 3.2 CO2-C emissions/removals by rewetted peatlands and organic soils................................................. 640

Equation 3.3 Annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted peatlands and organic soils .................... 7

41

Equation 3.4 Annual CO2-C emissions due to DOC export from rewetted peatlands and organic soils ................ 84243

Equation 3.5 Emission factor for annual CO2 emissions due to doc export from rewetted peatlands and organicsoils ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1244

Equation 3.6 CH4-C emissions from rewetted peatlands and organic soils .......................................................... 1545

Equation 3.7 Annual CH4-C emissions from rewetted peatlands and organic soils .............................................. 1546

Equation 3.8 N2O-N emissions from rewetted peatlands and organic soils .......................................................... 18

47
48

3.2

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
49

Figures

50

51
52

Figure 3.1 Decision tree to estimate CO2-C and CH4-C emissions/removals from rewetted peatlands andorganic soils. ........................................................................................................................................... 953
54

Figure 3A.1
Distribution of CO2 flux values (g CO2 m-2 yr-1) found in the published literature fornatural/undrained and rewetted peatlands in (a) boreal and (b) temperate climate zones. .................... 32

55
56

Figure 3A.2
Relationship between annual CO2 fluxes and mean annual water table (WT) in cm for bothundrained and rewetted peatland groups in (a) boreal and (b) temperate climate zones ...................... 33

57
58
59

Figure 3A.2
Methane flux from boreal and temperate rewetted and undrained peat and organic soils in
relation to mean annual water table. Fluxes are expressed as 10log(1+measured flux) [kg CH4-C ha-1 yr1
].
37

60
61

Methane flux from boreal and temperate, poor and rich, rewetted (rw) and undrained (un)Figure 3A.3
peat and organic soils. ........................................................................................................................... 39

Tables62

63
64

Table 3.1 Default emission factors (EFCO2) and associated uncertainty, for CO2-C by rewetted peatlands andorganic soils (all values in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1). .............................................................................. 1065
66

Table 3.2 Default DOC emission factors (EFDOC_REWETTED in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1) for rewetted peatlands
and organic soils (values in parentheses represent 95% confidence intervals) ..................................... 1267
68

Table 3.3 Default emission factors for CH4 from rewetted peatlands and organic soils (all values in kg CH4C ha-1 yr-1).............................................................................................................................................. 17

69
70
71

Table 3A.1 Relationship between CO2 fluxes and water table (WT) showing b1 parameter from the fitted
regression line (CO2 flux = a+b1*WT) for both the rewetted group and for the natural/undrained groupfor each climatic region ......................................................................................................................... 34

72

Table 3A.2 DOC concentration (above) or flux (below) comparisons between drained and rewetted peats 36

73

Table 3A.3 CH4-C flux data from wet swamp forest peatlands and organic soils ........................................ 4074
75

Table A3.1 Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from undrained peatlands with different vegetation cover or
sub category .......................................................................................................................................... 42

76

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.3

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft

78

3 CROSS-CUTTING GUIDANCE ON REWETTEDPEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS

79

3.1

80
81

What is rewetting, restoration, rehabilitation and how they affect GHG

82
83
84

Wetlands are lands characterised by water saturation of the soil dominating hydrological and biogeochemical
processes. Rewetting is the deliberate action of raising the water table on drained land to re-establish suchsaturated conditions, e.g. by blocking drainage ditches or disabling pumping facilities.

85
86
87
88
89
90

Rewetting may be accompanied by restoration, which is the permanent re-establishment of hydrological andbiogeochemical processes characteristics of saturated soils, as well as of the vegetation cover that pre-dated the
disturbance of these areas (FAO 2005, Nellemann & Corcoran 2010). Re-establishing the vegetation cover on
rewetted soils is necessary to reinstate the ecosystem sink functions that ultimately lead to soil C sequestration.
Although restoration, e.g. of vegetation cover, may take place on undrained sites, in the majority of cases
restoration is accompanied by rewetting.

91
92

While the focus of this chapter is on rewetted peatlands and organic soils, restoration and wet management
practices on undrained organic soils are also considered but no default guidance is provided.

93
94
95
96
97

Rehabilitation or reclamation is the re-establishment, on formerly drained sites, of some of – but not necessarily
all - the hydrological, biogeochemical and ecological processes and functions that characterized pre-drainage
conditions. As such, rehabilitation can involve a large variety of practices on formerly drained peatlands ororganic soils, which may or may not include rewetting. Rehabilitation as an activity separate from rewetting(with or without restoration) is not covered by this chapter (FAO 2005, Nellemann & Corcoran 2010).

98
99
100
101
102
103
104

The biogeochemical processes responsible for GHG fluxes from wetlands are controlled by water level position(Reddy & DeLaune 2008, pages 162-163); therefore rewetting leads to changes in GHG fluxes from peatlands
and organic soils. Generally rewetting decreases CO2 emissions compared to the drained state, and under certain
conditions leads to the recovery of a CO2 sink function (Komulainen et al., 1999, Tuittila et al., 1999,
Waddington et al., 2010). After a vegetation succession promoted by rewetting, CO2 sink may reach the leveltypical of undrained wetlands. However, during the first years after restoration the ecosystem sink can besignificantly larger (Soini et al., 2010, Wilson et al., 2012).

105
106
107
108
109

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. Everything else (vegetation composition, site fertility) being equal, generally CH4emissions from rewetted sites are comparable to undrained sites. N2O emissions in turn rapidly decrease close tozero after rewetting (Augustin et al., 1998; Wilson et al., in press).

110
111
112
113
114

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

115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123

Contrary to most ecosystems, the distinction between C pools in some peatlands can be difficult, especiallybetween 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 thedead organic matter or soil pool. This ecosystem component cannot be ignored as it is essential in the restorationof the ecosystem sink function that in turn results in the sequestration over time of very large quantities of carbon.
Because the default emission factors in this chapter were all derived from flux measurements over peatlands ororganic soils with moss and/or herbaceous vegetation, these default EFs integrate all C fluxes from the soil andthese non-woody vegetation components. In all cases the guidance in this chapter will clarify which C pools areincluded in default EFs.

124
125
126
127

In this chapter boreal and temperate peatlands are divided into nutrient poor and nutrient rich peatlands (Rydin &Jeglum 2006). Most nutrient poor peatlands, whether undrained or rewetted, receive water and nutrients mainly
from precipitation, while nutrient rich peatlands are generally also fed by water from the surrounding or
underlying mineral soil.

77

INTRODUCTION

For the purpose of this chapter, rewetting, restoration and rehabilitation are understood as follows:

The guidance provided in this chapter will include rewetting and restoration of wetlands on peat or organic soils,
with a focus on the soil pool. Peatlands and organic soils can also support perennial woody vegetation. To avoid
repeating guidance already provided, wherever appropriate the reader will be referred to existing guidance in the2006 IPCC Guidelines, especially on C stock changes in the woody biomass and dead wood pools.

3.4

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
128
129
130

Tropical peatlands include a great variety of different peatland ecosystems, from papyrus dominated sites inAfrica to peat swamp forests in South East Asia. In general much less information is available for tropicalpeatlands than for temperate or boreal ones.

131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141

Rewetting activities in (sub-)tropical regions have been reported from the USA, South Africa and Indonesia(Schumann & Joosten 2008). 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 ofpeatlands or organic soils in (sub-)tropical regions has been demonstrated, flux data from such sites are lacking.
Tropical peatland restoration is still in its infancy, and basic information is lacking on restoration practices andoutcome. Therefore, a default EF for rewetted tropical organic soils or peatlands was developed based on aconceptual approach. No default EF could be developed for restored tropical peatlands; flux values fromundrained (pristine) peatlands were compiled for limited sites in Southeast Asia and Latin America and areprovided in Appendix 3.1. It is good practice, where significant areas of tropical or sub-tropical peatlands ororganic soils have been rewetted or restored, to develop science-based, documented, country-specific emission
factors for CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions.

142
143
144
145
146

Generally the likelihood of fire occurrence in rewetted ecosystems is low. There continues to be insufficientscientific evidence to support the development of default factors for the emission of any greenhouse gas
specifically due to soil burning. The conceptual approach provided in this chapter identifies soil burning as anemission source for all greenhouse gases. Guidance recommends developing domestic emission factors where
soil burning is a non-negligible source of emissions.

147
148

In keeping with its focus, this chapter will provide generic guidance for higher tiered methodology on undrained
inland organic soils, peatlands undergoing wet management or restoration not necessitating rewetting.

149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157

How to use guidance in this chapter and relationship to reporting categories

158
159
160
161
162

In this chapter, unlike in drained peatlands of Chapter 2, former ditches are included as a part of rewetted sites
and not treated separately. High spatial variation in microtopography, water level and consequently in GHG
fluxes is typical to pristine peatlands (Strack et al., 2006, Laine et al., 2007, Riutta et al., 2007, Maanavilja et al.,2011). In rewetting this heterogeneity is recreated; in rewetted sites blocked ditches form the wetter end of thevariation (Strack & Zuback 2012, Maanavilja et al., submitted).

Depending on circumstances and practices, rewetting and restoration may or may not involve a change in landuse. Hence pre- and post-rewetting land use of peatlands and organic soils can vary according to national
circumstances, and be reported under forest land, cropland, grassland or wetlands. It is recommended to consider
this guidance as common to all reporting categories. In particular, the guidance in this chapter does notrecommend or involve specific transition periods; countries can apply the existing transition period of
appropriate land use categories to rewetted peatlands or organic soils. Because the functioning of theseecosystems has already been deeply altered, reporting rewetted peatlands or organic soils as unmanaged land is
not consistent with good practice.

163
164
165
166

3.2

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANDREMOVALS FROM REWETTED PEATLANDSAND ORGANIC SOILS

167
168
169
170
171
172
173

Equation 2.3 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines illustrates how emissions and removals ofcarbon-containing GHGs from an ecosystem can be calculated from the sum of C stock changes in each of theecosystem carbon pools. This chapter provides additional guidance specifically on the soil pool – term ΔCso of
equation 2.3 - in particular for organic soils or peat soils. When rewetting of organic soils or peatland restoration
practices also involve C stock changes in woody biomass or 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.

174
175
176

With respect to the soil pool, this chapter elaborates on the estimations of CO2 emissions or removals and CH4
emissions from organic or peat soils, which can occur simultaneously on rewetted organic soils or restored
peatlands, and be of comparable magnitude.

177
178
179
180

In the context of this chapter, equation 3.1 below replaces equations 2.24 and 2.26 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines; equations 2.24 and 2.26 implicitly assumed that organic soils can only lose carbon, while
in fact restored peatlands can accumulate soil organic carbon, as exemplified with the very large C stocks in

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.5Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
181
182
183

existing organic or peat soils. Equation 3.1 reflects the fact that the net C stock change of rewetted organic (orpeat) soils results from net gains (or losses) of C resulting from the balance between CO2 and CH4 emissions andremovals.

184
185
186
187
188
189

In large carbon pools such as organic or peat soils, net CO2 emissions or removals are more accurately 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 this chapter thesefluxes are denoted CO2-C and CH4-C, for the net C flux as CO2 and as CH4 respectively. This notation isconsistent with that used in Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. From here on equations will
generally use the form flux = activity data x emission factor.

190
191
192

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

193

Where:

194

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

195
196

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

197
198

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

199
200

3.2.1

201
202

CO2-C emissions/removals by rewetted peatlands and organic soils have the following components:

203
204
205
206

CO 2 Emissions and Removals by Rewetted Peatlands
and Organic Soils
EQUATION 3.2
CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS BY REWETTED PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS
CO2-Crewetted org soil = CO2-Ccomposite+ CO2-CDOC+ CO2-Csoil burn

Where:

207

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

208

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

209
210

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

211
212

CO2-Csoilburn = CO2-C emissions from soil or peat burning on rewetted peatlands or organic soils, tonnes C
yr-1

213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220

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-woody vegetation taken together .
CO2 emissions are produced during the decomposition of the peat/soil by heterotrophic organisms and arestrongly controlled by oxygen availability within the soil and by soil temperature. The contribution from nonwoody vegetation occurs via the two processes of photosynthesis (CO2 uptake) and autotrophic respiration (CO2emissions).

221
222
223
224
225
226
227

Consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the Tier 1 or default approaches assume that the woody biomass andDOM stocks and fluxes are zero on all lands except on forest land and on cropland with perennial woody
biomass. But for these exceptions, rewetting organic soils or peatlands with no land-use change do not involve
changes in woody biomass and DOM C. For rewetting or restoration on forest land or on cropland with woody
crops, the woody biomass and DOM pools pool 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 and 2.8 and theOn-site CO 2 emissions/removals

3.6

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
228
229

subsequent equations in that chapter which decompose C stock changes in the biomass pool or ΔCB into thevarious gains and losses components, including harvest and fires.

230
231
232
233
234
235
236

If re-wetting is accompanied by a change in land use that involves forests 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 Eq. 2.19, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Thesechanges occur in the year of the conversion (carbon losses), or are uniformly distributed over the length of thetransition 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.

237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245

Emissions from burning

246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254

Off-site CO 2 emissions: CO 2 -C D O CWhile the likelihood of fires on rewetted peatlands and organic soils is considered low (particularly incomparison to drained peatlands and organic soils), fire risk may still be considerable. Any emissions from theburning of biomass, dead organic matter as well as soil or peat (CO2-Csoilburn) should be included. Genericmethodologies for estimating CO2 emissions from the burning of vegetation and dead organic matter areprovided 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 3-6 in Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Emissions from the burning of soil or peat should be estimated using country-specificemission factors.
CO2-CDOC is produced from the decomposition of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) lost from the peatland via
aquatic pathways. In all types of peatlands and organic soils, including rewetted ones, DOC has been shown tobe the largest component of waterborne carbon loss, that will be processed and almost entirely returned
eventually to the atmosphere. There is some evidence to suggest that rewetting will return DOC fluxes to naturallevels (e.g. Glatzel et al., 2003, Wallage et al., 2006, Waddington et al., 2008). The importance of fluvial C
export as a pathway linking the peatland C pool to the atmosphere is described in Chapter 2 and the various
sources, behaviour and ultimate fate of the different forms of fluvial C following rewetting can be found in
Annex 3.A2.

255
256

CHOICE OF METHOD

257
258

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 peatlands and organic soils.

259
260
261
262
263

Tier 1

264
265
266

For temperate and boreal organic soils or peatlands, the basic approach makes no distinction between rewetted
and restored sites and therefore the term ‘rewetted peatlands and organic soils’ is used throughout the default
methodology to encompass both activities.

267
268

In addition, the basic methodology is based on the assumption of no transient period for rewetted peatlands andorganic soils.

Under Tier 1, the basic methodology for estimating annual C emissions/removals from rewetted peatlands andorganic soils was presented in Equation 3.2 and can be compiled using Equations 3.3 and 3.4 where thenationally derived area of rewetted peatlands and organic soils is multiplied by an emission factor, which isdisaggregated by climate region and where applicable by peatland nutrient status.

269
270
271
272

EQUATION 3.3
ANNUAL ON-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM REWETTED PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC
SOILS

CO2 -Ccomposite

A · EFCO2
,

273

,

Where:

274

CO2-Ccomposite = CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted peatlands and organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

275

A= land area of rewetted peatlands and organic soils in climate region c, peatland nutrient status p, ha

276
277

EFCO2 = CO2-C emission factor for rewetted peatlands and organic soils in climate region c, peatland
nutrient status p, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.7

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
278
279
280
281

EQUATION 3.4
ANNUAL CO2-C EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC EXPORT FROM REWETTED PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC
SOILS

CO2 -CDOC
282

A · EFDOC_rewetted

Where:

283

CO2-CDOC = CO2-C emissions from DOC from rewetted peatlands and organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

284

A= land area of rewetted peatlands and organic soils in climate region c, ha

285
286

EF DOC_rewetted = CO2-C emission factor from DOC, for rewetted peatlands and organic soils in climate
region c, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

287
288
289
290
291
292

Tier 2

293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303

Available datasets from rewetted peatlands and organic soils generally cover a period of 10 years or less after
rewetting; for this reason it is difficult to identify clear temporal patterns in CO2 fluxes. Available data
demonstrate that the strength of the CO2 sink may vary over a number of years. In the period immediately
following rewetting, it is expected that peat oxidation rates are low as a consequence of the anoxic soil
conditions, while most of the C sequestered is contained within the non-woody biomass pool (leaves, stems,roots). Over longer time frames (a few decades) a decrease in the amount of CO2 that is sequestered annually
might be expected (cf. Tuittila et al., 1999, Yli-Petäys et al., 2007, Soini et al., 2010) as the peatland biomasspool eventually approaches a steady state C sequestration saturation point (Anderson et al., 2008) typical ofnatural, undrained peatlands. Countries are encouraged to develop more detailed EFs for rewetted peatlands andorganic soils that capture fully the transient nature of CO2 fluxes in the time since rewetting and reflect the timeneeded for the ecosystem to reach CO2 dynamics typical of natural, undrained peatlands.

304
305
306
307
308
309
310

Higher tier approaches may address changes in the woody biomass pool as fluxes instead of stock changes andintegrate the woody biomass component with the other components of Equation 3.2. However, it is goodpractice to ensure that double counting does not take place in regard to the woody biomass and DOM pools on
rewetted peatlands and organic soils. Data collection using eddy covariance techniques (EC tower) and chamber
measurements are adequate at higher tiers; however when CO2 flux data have been collected with suchtechniques the C stock changes in perennial woody biomass and woody DOM may already be included andshould not be added a second time.

311
312
313
314
315
316
317

A Tier 2 approach to derive an estimation of emissions from the decomposition of DOC should utilise countryspecific information if experimental data is available to refine the emission factor, especially with regard tovarious peatland types (e.g. raised bogs, blanket bogs, fens) under different precipitation regimes. Refined
approaches to calculate EFDOC are suggested below under Choice of EF/ EF DOC_REWETTED /Tier 2&3. On-site flux
measurements will not capture C losses as DOC so these losses should be estimated and added to the C balance.
However if a stock difference method (such as soil subsidence) is used to derive CO2-Ccomposite of equation 3.2,
DOC losses are included in the subsidence data and should not be added a second time.

Tier 2 calculations use 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 (Couwenberg et al., 2011) or by land
use prior to rewetting (e.g. forest, grassland, cropland, peatland).

318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach involves a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2-C
emissions and removals on rewetted peatlands and organic soils, including the effect of site characteristics, peat
type and depth, 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). These parameters could also be used to describe fluvial C (DOC) lost from the system using processbased models. A Tier 3 approach might also include the entire DOC export from rewetted sites and considerationof the temporal variability in DOC release in the years following rewetting, which will also be dependent on therewetting or restoration techniques used.

328

3.8

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
329
330

Figure 3.1

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

Is detailed
Information1 available
on re-wetting of peatlands
or organic soils?

Yes

Estimate emissions using
country specificmethodology and emission
factors (Tier 2 or 3)
Box 3: Tier 2 or 3

No

Are historicaland current data
available on the area ofrewetted peatlands andorganic soils?

Yes

Were
domestic studies
done on GHG emissions/removals in rewetted
peatlands and organicsoils?

Yes

Estimate emissions using
default method and country
specific data (Tier 2)

NoNo

Box 2: Tier 2
Are rewetted
peatlands and organic soils
a key category?2

Yes

Collect or compile historicaland current data from domestic
or international sources,
conservation organisations,documentation of rewetting
projects

No

Estimate emissions using default
emission factors and activity
data (Tier 1).

Box 1: Tier 1

331
332

Note:

333
334

1. Detailed information typically includes national area of rewetted peatlands and organic soils disaggregated by ecosystemwith associated emission factors at high resolution.

335
336
337
338
339

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 land remaining in or converted to a land-use
category. If CO2 or CH4 emissions/remvoals from rewetted peatlands and organic soils are subcategories to a key category,

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.9Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
340
341

these subcategories should be considered as significant if they individually accounts for 25-30% of emissions/removals forthe overall key category (see Figures 1.2 and 1.3 in Chapter 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.)

342
343

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

344

EF C O 2

345
346
347
348

Tier 1

349
350
351
352

Nutrient poor peatlands predominate in boreal regions, while in temperate regions nutrient-rich peatlands are
more common. Some ombrotrophic bogs (nutrient poor) are underlain by minerotrophic peat layers; after
industrial peat extraction and subsequent rewetting, these peatlands could be considered nutrient-rich peatland
due to the influence of incoming water and the high nutrient status of the bottom peat.

353
354
355

If it is not possible to stratify by peatland nutrient status, countries should use the EF for climate region (Table
3.1). Countries with significant areas of rewetted peatlands and organic soils are encouraged to develop domestic
emission factors and develop estimates of emissions and/or removals using Tier 2 or 3 methodologies.

356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363

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 peatlands andrewetted peatlands are correlated with mean water table depth. Furthermore, it was ascertained that, in temperate
and boreal regions, these correlations were not significantly different between the natural/undrained peatlandgroup and the rewetted peatlands/organic soils group. These conclusions were also valid when the analysis was
performed for peatlands under each of these climatic regions. Therefore in these regions CO2 fluxes fromnatural/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.

364
365
366
367

Since no data are available for rewetted or restored tropical peatlands, a default EF of zero is provided; this value
reflects the fact that successful rewetting effectively stops the oxidation of soil organic material, but does notnecessarily reestablish a soil C sequestration function. No assumption was made regarding the GHG balance of
restored tropical peatlands; provisional guidance is available in Appendix 3.1.

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

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

EFCO2

95% range*

Boreal-0.49 (n= 64)-0.65 – -0.32

Temperate-0.15 (n=43)-0.62 – +0.31

Tropical**0

Peatland typeEFCO2

95% range

Nutrient poor

-0.34 (n=26)-0.59 – -0.09

Nutrient rich

-0.59 (n=38)-0.80 – -0.38

Nutrient poor

-0.26 (n=32)-0.64 – +0.13

Nutrient rich

+0.15 (n=11)-1.26 – +1.56

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

95% confidence interval**for fully rewetted tropical peatlands not allowing organic materials to be oxidized
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, Strack & Zuback 2012, Wilson et al. 2012, Herbst et al.
2013.

3.10

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
368
369
370
371

Given the limitations in the available scientific literature, the Tier 1 basic methodology assumes that there is notransient period and that restored peatlands and organic soils in the temperate and boreal regions behave likeundrained/natural peatlands in terms of CO2 flux dynamics. Combining observations from early in the restoration
process with long-term ones was the simplest way to avoid any bias.

372
373
374
375

While there may be still considerable uncertainty around each datapoint used in the derivation of the EFs, the
95% confidence interval values presented in Table 3.1 mainly reflects the spatial variation reported in CO2 fluxes
from the various study sites (inter-annual variation has been reduced by using the mean of multi-year datasetsfrom the same site).

376
377
378
379
380
381

Nutrient rich peatlands generally display a wider range of flux values than nutrient-poor peatlands . This can be
explained by the diversity of nutrient rich peatlands, especially across the temperate zone. For example, plant
associations in rich fens are diverse, commonly dominated by brown mosses although sedges can be abundant infens of intermediate fertility. The majority of the nutrient rich peatlands used in the calculation of the EF for theboreal 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-Petays et al., 2007).

382
383
384
385
386
387

Meanwhile, short term studies have suggested that natural temperate nutrient rich peatlands in the temperatezone are currently carbon sources, although this is clearly inconsistent with the fact that they hold large, longterm stores of carbon. Considerable uncertainty is attached to such individual data used in the derivation of thedefault EF, not taking into account the long-term natural variation. It should be re-affirmed that over longer timescales, natural and successfully rewetted/restored nutrient rich peatland (i.e with peat-forming vegetation) arelikely to be a CO2 sink.

388
389
390
391

By contrast, nutrient poor peatlands displayed less variation in CO2 fluxes across both boreal and temperatezones; the associated default EFs suggest that they are net long-term sinks for atmospheric CO2, comfirmingthat natural/undrained and rewetted/restored nutrient poor peatlands play as important a role in the contemporary
global C cycle as they have in the past.

392
393
394
395
396
397
398

The default EF of tropical peatlands applies to fully rewetted sites, where the high water table prevents furtheroxidation of the soil organic matter or peat. The lack of published scientific evidence on CO2 fluxes fromrestored tropical peatlands prevented any comparative analysis with measurements made over undrained tropicalpeatlands. Hence it was not possible to draw conclusions and develop a default emission factor on the carbon
balance of restored tropical peatlands. Where significant areas of such peatlands occur, it is good practice to use
country-specific EFs as opposed to the default one of Table 3.1. Preliminary data on the CO2 balance ofundrained tropical peatlands are tabulated in Appendix 3.1.

399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406

Tier 2 and 3
Countries applying Tier 2 methods can increase the accuracy of results by using country specific emission
factors. Empirical flux measurements (eddy covariance or chamber methods) should be carried out at temporal
resolutions sufficiently defined to capture as wide a range as possible of the abiotic (e.g. irradiation, soil
temperature, water table depth) and biotic (e.g. vegetation composition) factors that drive CO2 dynamics inrewetted peatlands and organic soils. Emission factors could be developed taking into account other factors, suchas ‘land-use prior to rewetting’ or current vegetation composition as well as disaggregation by ‘time since
rewetting’.

407
408
409
410

Countries where perennial woody biomass plays a significant role in the net CO2-C exchange between rewetted
peatlands or organic soils and the atmosphere should develop country-specific EFs that reflect C stock changes
in the CO2-Cwoody_biomass and CO2-Cwoody_DOM pools under typical management practices and their interaction withthe soil pool. Guidance can be found in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420

Tier 3 methods involve a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2
emissions/removals in rewetted peatlands and 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, thefate of the C contained within the biomass pool must also be taken into account, including its eventual releaseon-site through the decay of DOM, or off-site following harvest of woody biomass (e.g. paludiculture).
Methodology should also distinguish between immediate and delayed emissions following rewetting. A Tier 3
approach could include the development of flux based monitoring systems and the use of advanced models (e.g.
Holocene Peatland Model, ECOSSE, PEATLAND-VU) 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).

421

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.11

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
422

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

423
424
425
426
427
428
429

Tier 1
Robust data show that natural/undrained peatlands export some DOC and these fluxes increase following
drainage (see Chapter 2). Available data from rewetted sites suggest that the level of DOC reduction after
rewetting approximately equates to the DOC increase after drainage. 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 peatlands and organic soils have been calculated using data from natural/undrained peatlands
and following Equation 3.5:

430
431
432
433
434

EQUATION 3.5
EMISSION FACTOR FOR ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC EXPORT FROM REWETTEDPEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILSEFDOC_REWETTED = DOCFLUX-NATURAL · FracDOC-CO

2

Where:

435

EF DOC_REWETTED = emission factor for DOC from rewetted peatlands or organic soils, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

436

DOCFLUX-NATURAL = Flux of DOC from natural (undrained) peatlands, tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

437

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

438
439
440
441

EF DOC_REWETTED values are provided in Table 3.2 and the derivation of these values is fully described in Annex
3A.2. The DOCFLUX-NATURAL values for temperate and boreal peatlands and organic soils were derived based on
available data, grouped by broad precipitation class. Tropical peatland DOC fluxes are typically higher, and aseparate EF value was calculated. The current data did not support the disaggregation by peatland nutrient status.

442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449

An understanding of the ultimate fate of DOC export, i.e. whether it is returned to the atmosphere as CO2 (oreven CH4), is still poor and yet of significance in terms of GHG reporting. The parameter FracDOC-CO sets the2
proportion of DOC exported from peatlands and organic soils which is ultimately emitted as CO2. A value ofzero would coincide with all the DOC export being deposited in stable forms in lake or marine sediments; as thiswould simply represent a translocation of carbon between stable stores, it would not need 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.2). Reflecting this current scientific uncertainty, a Tier 1 default
FracDOC-CO value of 0.9 is proposed, with an uncertainty range of 0.8 to 1.

2

2

TABLE 3.2
DEFAULT DOC EMISSION FACTORS (EFDOC_REWETTED IN TONNES CO2-C HA-1 YR-1) FOR REWETTED PEATLANDS AND
ORGANIC SOILS (VALUES IN PARENTHESES REPRESENT 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS)
Climate zone
Temperate/boreal

TropicalPrecipitation regime
range (mm yr-1)

DOCFLUX-NATURAL(tonnes C ha-1 yr -1)

EF DOC_REWETTED(tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr -1)

Dry: < 600

0.05 (0.04 – 0.07)

0.05 (0.03 – 0.07)

Intermediate: 600-1000

0.16 (0.12 – 0.21)

0.15 (0.09 – 0.21)

Wet: > 1000

0.23 (0.17 – 0.29)

0.21 (0.14 – 0.29)

All

0.57 (0.49 – 0.64)

0.51 (0.40 – 0.64)

450
451
452
453
454

Tier 2

455
456
457
458



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:
Where precipitation measurements are available, DOCFLUX-NATURAL values for boreal/temperate raisedbogs and fens may be calculated from the empirical equation (note that this equation is not applicable toblanket bogs, which do not show a clear change in DOC flux as a function of rainfall, see Annex 3A.2
for detailed analysis):
DOCFLUX-NATURAL = (0.000317  Precipitation)a – 0.075

459
a

460

3.12

total precipitation (including snow) in mm yr-1 regardless of climatic zone

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
461
462
463
464
465



Use of country-level measurements from natural and rewetted peatlands to obtain more accurate valuesof DOCFLUX-NATURAL 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 peatland types (e.g. raised bogs and blanket bogs as well as poor,intermediate and rich fens), all under variable existing precipitation levels

466
467
468
469



Use of country-level measurements from rewetted peatlands with various restoration techniques andinitial status. Direct measurements of DOC fluxes from rewetted peats could replace the DOCFLUXNATURAL values used in the Tier 1 default approach, i.e. replacing the default assumption that rewetted
peatlands revert to pre-drainage DOC fluxes.

470
471
472



Use of alternative values for the conversion factor FracDOC-CO where evidence is available to estimate
2
the proportion of DOC exported from rewetted peatlands and organic soils that is transferred to stablelong-term carbon stores, such as lake or marine sediments.

473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach might include the use of process models that describe DOC release as a function of vegetation
composition, nutrient levels, water table height and hydrology, as well as temporal variability in DOC release in
the years following rewetting and on-going management activity. Differences between pre-drainage and rewetted
DOC fluxes could occur due to the presence or absence of vegetation on rewetted sites (Trinder et al., 2008); theland use category prior to rewetting; soil fertility; vegetation composition that differs from natural peatlands; , or
factors associated with peat restoration techniques, such as the creation of pools the application of mulch tosupport vegetation re-establishment (Artz et al., 2008), or the use of biomass to infill ditches.

482
483

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

484
485

All Tiers require data on areas of rewetted peatlands or organic soils, broken down by climate zone, type of
peatland or organic soils. This section clarifies data requirements and suggests several potential data sources.

486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495

Tier 1

496
497
498
499
500

Domestic 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 operation water management or the insurance industry, and be used in thedetermination of areas where the water level is naturally high, has been lowered or is managed for various
purposes.

501
502
503
504

In addition to the above information sources, time series of remotely-sensed imagery (e.g. aerial photography,
LIDAR etc.) can assist in the detection of rewetted and/or restored peatlands and in the determination of timesince rewetting. Such imagery may be produce either by government research institutes, departments or agencies,
by universities or by the private sector.

The default methodology requires data on the area of rewetted peatlands or organic soils and the type of peatlandor organic soils, consistent with the advice above on the selection of emission factors. Soil data can be obtained
from domestic statistics and databases, spatial or not, on soils, land cover (in particular wetlands), land use andagricultural crops (for example specialty crops typically grown on organic soils); this information can be used to
identify areas with significant coverage of organic soils and/or peatlands. Useful information on existing orplanned 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 organic soils, forexample for certain crop production, forest or plantation management or peat extraction.

505
506
507
508
509
510

In the absence of domestic data on soils, it is recommended to consult the International Soil Reference andInformation Centre (ISRIC; www.isric.org); inventory agencies 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).

511
512
513
514

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 for a single area.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.13

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
515
516
517
518
519
520
521

Tier 2Tier 2 approach is likely to involve a more detailed spatial stratification than in Tier 1, and further sub-divisions
based on time since rewetting, previous land use history, current land use and management practices as well as
vegetation composition. It is good practice to further sub-divide default classes based on empirical data that
demonstrates significant differences in CO2-C fluxes among the proposed categories. At Tier 2, higher spatial
resolution of activity data is required and can be obtained by disaggregating global data in country-specificcategories, or by collecting country-specific activity data.

522
523
524
525
526

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.

527
528
529
530
531
532
533

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 have vegetation cover known to be easily
misclassified should be more intensively ground-truthed than other areas. This can only be done by using groundreference data, preferably from actual ground surveys collected independently. High-resolution air photographs
or satellite imagery may also be useful. Further guidance can be found in Chapter 3, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

534
535
536
537
538
539

Tier 3

540
541
542
543
544

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 or peat soils, time since rewetting, and land-use
and management activity data.

545

3.14

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft

547

CH4 Emissions from Rewetted Peatlands andOrganic Soils

548
549
550

CH4 emissions and removals from the soils of rewetted peatlands and organic soils result from 1) emissions or
removals resulting from the balance between CH4 production and oxidation and 2) emission of CH4 produced by
the combustion of soil organic matter during fire (Equation 3.6).

551
552
553

EQUATION 3.6
CH4-C EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS
CH4-Crewetted org soil = CH4-Csoil + CH4-Csoil burn

546

554

3.2.2

Where:

555

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

556

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

557
558

CH4-Csoil burn = emissions of CH4-C from soil or peat burning on rewetted peatlands or organic soils,
tonnes C yr-1

559
560
561
562
563

The default EFs provided in this section will only cover CH4-Csoil. These CH4 emissions are produced during thedecomposition of the peat/soil by heterotrophic organisms under anaerobic conditions and are strongly controlledby oxygen availability within the soil and by soil temperature. Methane emissions are also originating from thedecay of non-woody vegetation; since these pools cannot be easily separated in peatlands they are combined here
as CH4-Csoil.

564
565
566
567
568
569

The area of rewetted and restored peatland and organic soils that burns is likely small if water table position isnear the surface, 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 the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Emissions from soil burning (CH4-Csoil burn) should be estimated using
country-specific (Tier 2 or 3) emission factors.

570
571

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

572
573

CHOICE OF METHOD

574
575

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

576
577

Tier 1

578
579
580

As in Section 3.2.1, the basic approach makes no distinction between rewetted and restored peatlands andtherefore the term ‘rewetted peatlands and organic soils’ is used throughout the default methodology toencompass both activities.

581
582

In addition, the basic methodology is based on the assumption of no transient period for rewetted peatlands andorganic soils.

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

583
584
585

586

EQUATION 3.7
ANNUAL CH4-C EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS∑ , A , ∙ EFCH4 soil ,CH4 Csoil
1000
Where:

587

CH4-Csoil = CH4 -Cemissions from rewetted peatlands and organic soils, tonnes C yr-1

588
589

Aij = total area of peatlands and organic soils that have been rewetted in i climate zone and j peatland type,ha

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.15

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
590
591

EFCH4 soil i,j = emission factor from rewetted peatland and organic soils in i climate zone and j peatland
type, kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1

592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601

Rewetted area should be subdivided by climate zone (boreal, temperate or tropical) and the appropriate emission
factors applied. Thus far flux data on CH4-C emissions from successfully rewetted tropical sites 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 peatlands, like for example the
Papyrus marshes of Africa or the peatlands of Panama and the Guianas and other parts of the Americas, arelacking. When information is available on the peatland type, it is recommended to further subdivide rewettedarea into nutrient-poor and nutrient-rich, multiply each one by the appropriate emission factor and sum theproducts for the total CH4 emissions.

602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609

Tier 2Tier 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 peatlands 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. Countries with extensive areas ofrewetted peatlands or organic soils should develop EFs based on measurements or experiments within the
country and thus contribute to better scientific understanding of CH4 effluxes from rewetted peatland sites.

610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617

Methane fluxes from peat and organic soils strongly depend on the depth of the water table, with potential efflux
increasing steeply from near zero when mean annual water table is deeper than 20 cm below the surface, to veryvariable and high values when the mean annual water table is shallower than 20 cm below the surface (Annex
3A.3). Variability is even greater on flooded sites, where both low and high flux values have been observed(Augustin & Chojnicki 2008; Couwenberg et al., 2010; Couwenberg & Fritz 2012; Glatzel et al., 2011). It isgood practice, when developing and using country-specific CH4 emission factors, to examine their relationshipwith water table position. In this case, activity data on mean annual water table position and its distribution in
space would also be required.

618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627

As noted in Chapter 2, emissions of CH4-C from drainage ditches can be much higher than the surrounding
drained peat fields. Few data are available on CH4-C emissions from ditches of rewetted peatlands and organicsoils and in some cases ditches may be filled during rewetting activities. Moreover, rewetting reduces thehydrological differences between peat fields and neighboring ditches creating a more homogeneous surface fromwhich CH4 is emitted/removed. In some cases rewetting and restoration practices may retain ditches (e.g.
Waddington et al., 2010) and when ditches remain, it is good practice to include 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 on emission factors for ditches in drained peatlands. Activity data on
remnant ditches could be obtained from restoration practitioners or assessed with remote sensing imagery ofrewetted areas.

628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635

Prior land use (e.g. agriculture, peat extraction, forestry) can influence CH4 fluxes from rewetted peatlands ororganic soils. For example, CH4 emissions following the flooding of some agricultural land with nutrient
enriched top-soil appear higher compared to average emission factors (Augustin & Chojnicki, 2008; Glatzel etal., 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 monitor emissions/removals of CH4 from rewetted peatlands and organic soils to evaluate thiseffect.

636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644

The number of long-term rewetting studies is limited and changes in CH4 flux over time remain unclear.
Changes in CH4 flux with time since rewetting are likely linked to prior land-use. Research on restored cutover
peatlands in Canada indicates an increase in CH4 emissions each year during the first three years post-restoration
as the emerging vegetation cover provides fresh substrate for CH4 production (Waddington and Day, 2007). In
contrast, rewetting of high intensity 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 (Augustin and Joosten
2007). 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 ofvegetation information.

645
646
647

Several studies in both undisturbed and rewetted peatlands indicate the important role that vegetation may playfor providing substrate for CH4 production and for transporting CH4 from the saturated soil to the atmosphere(e.g. Bubier 1995; Shannon et al., 1996; Marnier et al., 2004; Tuittila et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 2007; Dias et al.,

3.16

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658

2010 ;). Species known to transport CH4 from the 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 amarked effect on methane efflux from peatlands (Couwenberg & Fritz 2012). Countries are encouraged todevelop nationally specific emission factors that address vegetation composition (see Riutta et al., 2007, Dias etal., 2010, Couwenberg et al., 2011; Forbrich et al., 2011). The effect of biomass harvesting on CH4 fluxes fromrewetted peatlands has thus far remained unstudied.

659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666

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

667
668

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS

669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676

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 region (boreal, temperate, tropical) and peatland type(nutrient poor, rich). The emission factor for rewetted tropical peat and 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 fortheir determination.
TABLE 3.3
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR CH4 FROM REWETTED PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS(ALL VALUES IN KG CH4-C HA-1 YR-1)
Climate Region

EFCH4

Boreal80 (n= 85 sites)

Temperate

158 (n=68 sites)

Tropical

41 (n=11 sites)

95% range

Nutrient
StatusEFCH4

95% range

0 – 420Poor

41 (n=39 sites)

0.5 – 246Rich

137 (n=35 sites)0 – 493Poor

97 (n=28 sites)

3 – 382Rich

216 (n=33 sites)0 – 856

0 – 795

7 - 134

677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684

The uncertainty of EFs can be reduced by using country-specific emission factors for each climate and peatland
type. 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 peatland andorganic soils can be further improved by implementing scientific findings relating CH4-C emissions to specificcropping practices, prior land use, vegetation cover and time since rewetting.

685
686
687
688
689

Default emission factors are not provided for specific wet cropping practices, such as for Sago or reed
plantations on wet peat where the scientific evidence is insufficient to support a globally applicable EF. Where
such practices are regionally important, it is good practice to derive country specific emission factors frompertinent publications (e.g. Inubushi et al., 1998, Melling et al., 2005, Watanabe et al., 2010), taking into accountwater table dynamics.

Tier 2 and 3

690

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.17

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
691

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

692
693
694

All Tiers require data on areas of rewetted peatlands or organic soils, broken down by climate region. When
information on nutrient status is also available it is good practice to further disaggregate into nutrient poor andnutrient rich type of peatland and organic soils.

695
696
697
698
699
700

Tier 1

701

Potential sources of activity data, both domestic and international, are provided in section 3.2.1.

702
703
704
705
706
707

Tier 2 and 3

The default methodology assumes that a country has data on the area of rewetted peatlands or organic soils andthe type of peatland or organic soils, consistent with the advice above on the selection of emission factors. As
recommended in the guidance on CO2 emissions/removals, such data can be obtained from the peat extractionindustry, forestry or agricultural agencies, as well as from government and non-government sources. Remotesensing can also be used for wet area detection and mapping of vegetation type and biomass.

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 successional changes
in vegetation 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 anenhanced understanding of the processes linking CH4 emissions to these factors.

708

710

N 2 O Emissions from Rewetted Peatlands and Organic
Soils

711
712
713
714
715
716

The emissions of N2O from rewetted peatlands or organic soils are controlled by the quantity of N available fornitrification and 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). Flooded conditions may promote denitrification and N2O removals,
but in practice this effect is very small and considered negligible in this chapter.

717
718

Equation 3.8 includes the essential elements for estimating N2O emissions from rewetted peatlands or organicsoils:

719
720
721

EQUATION 3.8
N2O-N EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS
N2O rewetted org soil = N2O soil + N2O soil burn

709

722

3.2.3

Where:

723

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

724

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

725
726

N2Osoil burn = N2O emissions from soil or peat burning on rewetted peatlands or organic soils, kg N2O-N
yr-1

727
728
729
730
731

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 3-6, Volume 4 in the2006 IPCC Guidelines. Consistent with guidance in the previous sections, emissions from soil burning (N2Osoil
burn of equation 3.8) should be estimated using country-specific (Tier 2) emission factors.

732

Under Tier 1, emissions of nitrous oxides from rewetted soils are assumed to be negligible1.

733
734
735
736

Tier 2 & 3Countries with large areas of rewetted peatlands or organic soils should take into account patterns of N2Oemissions from these sites, particularly where the nitrogen budget of the watershed is potentially influenced bysignificant local or regional N inputs such as in large-scale farmland development.
1

Augustin, 2003; Augustin and Chojnicki, 2008; Drösler, 2005; Hendriks et al., 2005; Jungkunst and Fiedler, 2007; Wild etal., 2001, Wilson et al., in press.

3.18

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744

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., 2006; 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).

745

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.19

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft

3.3

COMPLETENESS, TIME SERIES,CONSISTENCY, AND QA/QC

748

3.3.1

Completeness

749
750
751

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

752
753
754

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 peatlands and organic soils, as well as those thathave been subsequently rewetted.

755
756
757
758
759
760
761

Countries are encouraged to monitor the evolving land use of all drained, rewetted and restored lands on organic
or peat soils, avoiding double counting emissions or removals that are reported from lands in various categories,
preferably by using a consistent system for land representation. The greenhouse gas estimates from rewetted
lands with organic or peat soils should include all applicable carbon pools; double counting emissions or
removals between carbon pools has to be avoided, especially if country-specific flux-based estimation
methodologies are combined with stock change approaches (see section 3.3.3 below). Regardless of theestimation methodology it is good practice to clearly demonstrate the completeness of pool coverage.

762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769

Implementing higher Tier methodologies will improve both inventory accuracy and completeness by developing
estimates for gases, pools, conditions or practices for which Tier 1 methods are not provided in this document. It
is good practice to assess the completeness of all methods and data sources against all known sources or sinks ofgreenhouse gases. Due to material limitations, all combinations of ecosystem types, management practices andenvironmental conditions are rarely captured. However, information of the most common combinations
combined with basic Tier 1 calculations should provide a first estimation of sites and management practices thatmost contribute to the total GHG budget; this information allows not only prioritizing quantification efforts, butalso assessing the extent to which a given data set can be deemed representative of a larger area of interest.

770

3.3.2

771
772
773
774
775
776

General guidance on ensuring time series consistency can be found in Chapter 7 of this Supplement. Consistenttime series are essential to producing real trends. Inventory agencies should critically assess the spatial andtemporal consistency of definitions and classification schemes, information on management practices, sources ofactivity data, and key estimation parameters used over the entire time series. In particular, countries should strive
to apply consistent definitional parameter(s) to determine the land areas on organic or peat soils that are drainedor rewetted, across all land use categories.

777
778
779
780

The emission and removal estimation method should be applied consistently to every year in the time series, atthe same level of spatial disaggregation. When country-specific data are used, national inventory agencies should
use the same measurement protocol (sampling strategy, method, etc.) or modelling approach throughout the timeseries.

781
782
783
784

It is likely that changes will occur over time in the quality or availability of various inputs to the inventory.
Inventory agencies should determine the influence of changing data or methods on trends, and use methods
provided in the Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to correct for any significant inconsistency
and re-calculate the time series.

785
786
787
788

The implementation of higher Tier methods often involves developing a full time series for the new, additionalparameters required by a more spatially disaggregated or complex estimation methodology. It is good practice toincorporate considerations of time-series consistency in the design, development and implementation ofrefinements in inventory methods.

789
790
791
792
793

In general, significant fluctuations in emissions and removals between years should be explained. Higher tiermethods usually better represent the true inter-annual variability observed in wetland ecosystems, which is often
obscured in simple, time-integrated methods such as differences in C stocks. A distinction should be madebetween changes in activity levels and refinements in methods that may affect the trend, and the reasons forthese changes documented. If the method changes it is good practice to recalculate the entire time series.

746
747

Developing a consistent time series

794

3.20

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
795

3.3.3

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

796
797

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

798
799
800
801
802
803

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.

804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817

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.

818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825

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 peat or organic soils across all land use categories to ensure
there is no unexplained gains or losses of land; conducting a comparative analysis of emission factors applied torewetted land on organic or peat soils and fluxes from un-drained similar ecosystems; ensuring consistency of
the area and location of rewetted peatlands or organic soils with the information provided on drained peatlands
and organic soils.

826

3.3.4

827

EMISSION FACTORS

828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839

The scientific basis of country-specific emission factors, parameters models and their evaluations should be fully
described and documented. This includes describing the input parameters, the derivation of emission factors andparameters and the sources of uncertainty, as well as justifying their representativeness. Representativeness canbe assessed by comparing the range of conditions under which measurements were made to real-world
circumstances to which a parameter or emission factor is applied. A representative data set provides a balanced
representation of the range of conditions and practices found in rewetted ecosystems. The determination ofrepresentativeness generally requires knowledge of types and areas of rewetted ecosystems and associatedmanagement practices in the country or region. For example, in seasonal climates flux measurements conductedduring the growing or wet season are not representative of the entire year and therefore flux rates observed
during part of the year only may not be directly scaled up over a year. Generally, it is more challenging toachieve a representative data set when there is high spatial and temporal variability in environmental conditions,ecosystem diversity and management practices.

840
841
842
843

Tier 3 approaches are likely to involve both extensive use of flux measurement techniques, combined to somemodelling framework. The growing use of flux measurements in the field over the last decade has resulted in arich literature source of information and guidance on the use and documentation of flux measurement techniques(Evans et al., 2011; Alm et al., 2007; Pattey et al., 2006).

844
845

Model documentation should be exhaustive, and generally follow expert recommendations (IPCC, 2011) toinclude:846

Basis and type of model (statistical, deterministic, process-based, empirical, top-down, bottom-up etc)

847

Domain of application of the model

Reporting and Documentation

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.21

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
848



Key assumptions

849



Main equations/processes and their adaptation to domestic conditions if appropriate

850

How the model parameters were estimated851

Description of key inputs and outputs

852



Details of calibration and evaluation with calibration data and independent data

853
854



Description of the approach taken to the uncertainty analysis and to the sensitivity analysis, and the resultsof these analyses

855



QA/QC procedures adopted

856



References to peer-reviewed literature where details of the supporting research can be found

857
858

ACTIVITY DATA

859
860
861
862
863
864

Sources of all activity data used in the calculations (publications, databases and soil map references, reports on
rewetting projects, official communications) should be recorded, along with their origin: government agencies,
conservation organizations, research institutions and industry, subject to any confidentiality considerations. This
documentation should cover the protocol for data collection (frequency, measurement methods and time span),estimation methods, and estimates of accuracy and precision. Reasons for significant changes in activity data andinter-annual fluctuations should be explained.

865
866
867

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 peat or organic soils reported under each land use
categories should equal the total national area of rewetted peatlands or organic soils.

868
869

3.22

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
870

References

871
872
873

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.

874
875

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.

876
877
878

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.

879
880
881

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.

882
883
884
885

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.,

886
887
888

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.

889
890
891

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.

892
893
894
895
896

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.

897
898
899

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

900
901

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

902
903
904
905

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.

906
907
908

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.

909
910

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.

911
912

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.

913
914

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

915
916

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.

917
918
919

Billett M. F., Charman C., Clark I., EVans C. D., EVans M. G., Ostle N., 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: 13-20.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.23

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
920
921
922

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.

923
924

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.

925
926

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

927
928

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.

929
930

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.

931
932

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

933
934
935

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.

936
937

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

938
939
940

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.)

941
942
943

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.

944
945
946

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.

947
948

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

949
950

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.)

951
952
953

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

954
955

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.

956
957
958

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):

959
960

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.

961
962
963

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

964
965
966
967

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.

968
969

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

970
971

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

3.24

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
972
973

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

974
975

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.

976
977
978
979

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.

980
981
982

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.

983
984

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.

985
986

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.

987
988

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.

989
990

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.

991
992

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.

993
994

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

995
996
997

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.

998
999
1000

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.

1001
1002

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.

1003
1004
1005

Hahn-Schöfl, M., Zak, D., Minke, M., Gelbrecht, J., Augustin, J., and Freibauer, A. 2010: Organic sediment
formed during inundation of a degraded fen grassland emits large fluxes of CH4 and CO2, Biogeosciences
Discuss. 7: 9273-9303, doi:10.5194/bgd-7-9273-2010.

1006
1007

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.

1008
1009
1010

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.)

1011
1012
1013

Hooijer A, Page S, Jauhiainen J, Lee WA, Lu XX, Idris A, and Anshari G. 2012. Subsidence and carbon loss indrained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053–1071Koh LP, Miettinen J, Liew SC, and Ghazoula J. 2011.
Remotely sensed evidence of tropical peatland conversion to oil palm. PNAS. doi/10.1073/pnas.1018776108

1014
1015

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.

1016
1017

Hendriks D. M. D., van Huissteden J., Dolman A. J. & van der Molen M. K. 2007. The full greenhouse gasbalance of an abandoned peat meadow. Biogeosciences Discuss 4: 277-316.

1018
1019

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

1020
1021
1022

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.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

Cover.

RAP

Publication.

2005/13.

3.25

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
1023
1024

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

1025
1026
1027

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

1028
1029

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.

1030
1031

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

1032
1033
1034

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.

1035
1036
1037

Inubushi, K., Furukawa, Y., Hadi, A., Purnomo, E. & Tsuruta, H. 2003. Seasonal changes of CO2, CH4 andN2O fluxes in relation to land-use change in tropical peatlands located in coastal area of South Kalimantan.
Chemosphere 52: 603-608.

1038
1039
1040

Inubushi, K., Hadi, A., Okazaki, M & Yonebayashi, K. 1998. Effect of converting wetland forest to sago palm
plantations on methane gas flux and organix carbon dynamics in tropical peat soil. Hydrological Processes,
12: 2073-2080.

1041
1042
1043

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

1044
1045
1046

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.

1047
1048
1049

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.

1050
1051

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.

1052
1053

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.

1054
1055
1056

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

1057
1058

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.

1059
1060

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.

1061
1062
1063

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

1064
1065
1066
1067
1068

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

1069
1070
1071

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.

1072
1073

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, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02180.x.

3.26

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
1074
1075

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.

1076
1077
1078

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.

1079
1080

Komulainen, V-M., Tuittila, E-S., Vasander, H. & Laine, J. 1999. Short term effect of restoration on vegetation
succession and CO2-exhange from peatland drained for forestry. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 636-648.

1081
1082

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

1083
1084
1085

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.

1086
1087

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.

1088
1089
1090

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

1091
1092

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

1093
1094
1095

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.

1096
1097
1098

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.

1099
1100

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.

1101
1102

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

1103
1104

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.

1105
1106
1107

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.

1108
1109
1110

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.

1111
1112

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.

1113
1114
1115

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

1116
1117

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.

1118
1119

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

1120
1121

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.

1122
1123

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

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.27

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
1124
1125
1126

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.

1127
1128
1129

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.

1130
1131

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.

1132
1133
1134

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.

1135
1136

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.

1137
1138

Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O., and Banks, C. J. 2010. Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon
pool, Global Change Biology, 17, 798–818.

1139
1140

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

1141
1142
1143

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.

1144
1145

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.

1146
1147

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.

1148
1149
1150

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.

1151
1152

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.

1153
1154
1155

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.

1156

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

1157
1158

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.

1159
1160

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

1161

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

1162
1163
1164

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

1165
1166

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.

1167
1168

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.

1169
1170

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.

1171
1172

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

1173
1174

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.

3.28

restoration

manual.

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
1175
1176

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

1177
1178

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.

1179
1180

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.

1181
1182
1183

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.

1184
1185
1186

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

1187
1188

Stephens, J.C., Allen, L.H. & Chen, E. 1984. Organic soil subsidence. In: Holzer, T.L. (ed.) Man induced land
subsidence. Boulder, Geological Society of America, pp. 107-122.

1189
1190

Strack M. & Zuback Y. C. A. 2012. Annual carbon balance of a peatland 10 yr following restoration.
Biogeosciences Discussions 9(12): 17203.

1191
1192

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.

1193
1194
1195

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.

1196
1197

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.

1198
1199

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

1200
1201
1202

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.

1203
1204

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

1205
1206

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.

1207
1208

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:

1209
1210

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.

1211
1212

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.

1213
1214

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

1215
1216
1217

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.

1218
1219

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

1220
1221

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

1222
1223

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

1224
1225

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

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.29

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
1226
1227

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

1228
1229
1230

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.

1231
1232
1233

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

1234
1235
1236

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.

1237
1238
1239
1240

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.)

1241
1242

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

1243
1244

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

1245
1246

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

1247
1248

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

1249
1250

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

1251
1252

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.

1253
1254
1255

Wilson D., Renou-Wilson F., Farrell C., Bullock C. & Müller C. 2012. Carbon Restore - The potential of Irish
peatlands for carbon uptake and storage. Climate Change Research Programme. Report Series No.17
prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland.

1256
1257

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.

1258
1259
1260
1261

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.)

1262
1263

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.

1264
1265

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.

1266
1267

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.

1268
1269

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.

1270
1271

3.30

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
1272

Annex 3A.1

1273

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

1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279

An extensive literature review was conducted to collate all CO2 studies that are currently available for (1)rewetted peatlands and organic soils and (2) natural/undrained peatlands. Literature sources included bothpublished and non-published (grey literature) studies. In the case of the latter where a peer reviewed process had
not formed part of the publication process 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 nonpublished studies were reviewed (Drösler 2005, Augustin and Chojnicki 2008, Wilson et al., 2012).

1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290

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 fluxes at high spatial
resolution and is widely employed in conditions where the vegetation is either low or absent. In contrast, EC
towers operate at lower spatial resolutions but are suitable for sites where the biomass is vertically high (e.g.
treed peatlands). For a more detailed description of both methodologies see Alm et al., 2007. A detailed databaseof annual CO2 fluxes was then constructed to determine the main drivers (if any) of CO2 dynamics in rewetted
peatlands and organic soils. When available, the following parameters were extracted from the literature source
and included in the database for analysis: climate region (see Table 4.1, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines), peatland types, mean annual water table (WTD), median annual water table (as well as minimum
and maximum), soil pH, peat thickness, peat C/N ratio, degree of humification, soil moisture, soil bulk density,
plant cover and species, previous land-use and time since rewetting.

1291
1292
1293
1294

The CO2 flux database initially contained a total of 187 annual flux estimates taken from 48 locations. At eachstudy location, a number of sites could be identified (similar dominant vegetation and hydrology) and each
represented as such an entry in the database. For multi-year studies from the same site, annual flux estimates
were averaged over the years. The final number of entries came to 107 and was distributed as follows:

1295

(i)

Peatland state (Natural/undrained = 74; Rewetted: 33);

1296

(ii)

Climate zone (Boreal = 64; Temperate = 43)

1297

(iii)

Peatland nutrient status (Nutrient rich = 49; Nutrient poor = 58).

1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314

The criteria for inclusion in the database were as follows; (1) the study reported CO2 fluxes from either rewetted
peatlands/organic soils or natural, undrained peatlands. If a natural site had a WTD of deeper than 30 cm it wasconsidered to be drained effectively (Minkkinen et al., 1999, Haapalehto et al., 2010, Hooijer et al., 2010). Only
natural sites 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 peat/soil surface) were used as a proxy for rewetted sites. (2) The study had
to report either seasonal or annual CO2 fluxes from the peatland. 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 overestimations. Seasonal CO2 fluxes (typically reported for the snow free May to October growing period) wereconverted to annual fluxes using 15% of the seasonal ecosystem respiration data from each study to estimate
CO2 fluxes from the non-growing season (Saarnio et al., 2007), although this may represent a slightoverestimation given that photosynthesis (and hence C uptake) may have occurred for a short time following theending of those seasonal studies . For studies where such data was not available, a value of 30g C m-2 for nongrowing season fluxes was used (Alm et al., 1999). (3) Studies had to indicate a mean WTD for each annual CO2
flux reported. In some cases, this information was available 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,
which included a woody biomass pool (e.g. treed peatlands) as this would have resulted in double accounting at
the Tier 1 level. Calculated default EFs for CO2 exclude woody biomass.

1315
1316
1317

To determine Tier 1 CO2-C EFs, descriptive statistics allowed the data to be grouped by (1) climate region, (2)peatland type (nutrient poor or nutrient rich) and (3) climate region and peatland type, and descriptive analysis
for each group was computed.

1318
1319
1320

A comparison was made between annual CO2 fluxes from rewetted sites and natural/undrained sites. Whilenoting the wide range of fluxes especially within the temperate climate zone (-2115 to 2786 g m-2 yr-1), the arrayfrom both groups, natural/undrained vs rewetted is analogous (Figure 3A.1a and b).

1321

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.31

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
1322
1323
1324

Distribution of CO 2 flux values (g CO 2 m -2 yr -1 ) found in the publishedliterature for natural/undrained and rewetted peatlands in (a) boreal and (b)temperate climate zones.

Figure 3A.1

1325
(a)
1000

Flux g CO2 m‐2 yr‐1

500
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

‐500

Rewetted
Undrained

‐1000
‐1500
‐2000

Number of annual flux measurements

(b)
4000
3000

Flux g CO2 m‐2 yr‐1

2000
Undrained

1000

Rewetted
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

‐1000
‐2000
‐3000

Number of annual flux measurements

1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332

Mean water table (WT) was plotted against each annual CO2 fluxes. The fitted regression lines (CO2 flux =a+b1*WT) were compared between rewetted and natural/undrained peatlands for each climate region (seeFigures 3A.2a 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 both boreal and temperate peatlands (Table 3.A.1). Therefore, EFs were calculated using rewetted
and natural/undrained data points.

1333
1334

3.32

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
1335
1336
1337
1338

Figure 3A.2

Relationship between annual CO 2 fluxes and mean annual water table (WT)
in cm for both undrained and rewetted peatland groups in (a) boreal and (b)temperate climate zones(a) Boreal zone

‐40

‐30

‐20

Water table (cm)
‐10

0

10

20
1500

500
0
‐500

g CO2 m‐2 yr‐1

1000

‐1000
‐1500
Undrained

Re‐wetted

Linear (Undrained)

Linear (Rewetted)(b) Temperate zone

‐40

‐30

‐20

Water table (cm)
‐10

0

10

20
3000

1000
0
‐1000

g CO2 m‐2 yr‐1

2000

‐2000
‐3000
Undrained
Linear (Undrained)

Re‐wetted
Linear (Rewetted)

1339

Note:

1340

1. the fitted regression line is CO2 flux = a+b1*WT, see Table 3.A.1.

1341
1342

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

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.33

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
TABLE 3A.1
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 FLUXES AND WATER TABLE (WT) SHOWING B1 PARAMETER FROM THE FITTEDREGRESSION LINE (CO2 FLUX = A+B1*WT) FOR BOTH THE REWETTED GROUP AND FOR THE NATURAL/UNDRAINEDGROUP FOR EACH CLIMATIC REGION

Climate zone

Natural/undrained b1±Std Err.

Rewetted b1± Std Err.

Boreal-5.18±2.68-5.55±7.24

Temperate-14.40±6.66-12.76±11.1

1343
1344

3.34

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft

1346

Estimation of default emission factors for CO2-DOC
in rewetted peatlands and organic soils

1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352

Fluvial C export has been found to be an important pathway linking the peatland C pool to the atmosphere as
there is a growing evidence that peatland aquatic system is characterised by high levels of allochthonous DOC(Billett et al., 2004, Dinsmore et al., 2010, Rowson et al., 2010), a high proportion of which is processed andconverted to CO2 (e.g. Cole et al., 2007, Wickland et al., 2007, Rowan 2009). A full characterisation of fluvial C
losses comprises not only DOC, but also particulate organic carbon (POC), dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC)and dissolved CO2 and CH4 and the dissolved carbonate species HCO3- and CO32-.

1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359

The various sources, behaviour and ultimate fate of these different forms of fluvial C within peatland andorganic soils system are further described in Chapter 2 (Annex 2A.2). However, in temperate and boreal,natural/undrained peatlands, as well as rewetted peatlands and 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 not estimated here (Jonsson et al., 2007, Waddington et al.,2008, Ramchunder et al., 2009, Worrall et al., 2009, Dinsmore et al., 2010, Dinsmore et al., 2011, Schafer et al.,2012).

1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367

It should be noted here however that rewetting of bare cutaway peatlands has been found to produce relative
high POC concentrations, albeit variable, both temporally in relation to storm flow events and spatially due tothe patchiness of soil erosion. However, while in-stream processing of POC (respiration/evasion) may beoccurring, the greater proportion may be simply translocated from the rewetted peatlands to other stable C stores,
such as freshwater or marine sediments and may not lead to CO2 emission. Therefore, due to current scientificuncertainty of the ultimate fate of POC export, no estimation methodology is presented here for emissions
produced from the decomposition of POC lost from rewetted peatlands or organic soils (see Appendix 2A.1 forfuture methodological development to estimate POC).

1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373

This section describes the methodology that has been used to derive emission factors for DOC losses fromrewetted peatlands and organic soils as this has been shown to be the largest component of waterborne carbon
loss from all types of peatlands and organic soils (see Chapter 2). Collated data from seven peat rewetting studies
suggest a median DOC reduction of 36%, with a range of 1-69% (Table 3A.2). While the number of studies islimited, and results are variable, 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).

1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380

In addition, some studies (e.g. Glatzel et al., 2003, Wallage et al., 2006) 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 therewetting process, depending on the techniques used (e.g. Worrall et al., 2007, Strack et al., 2011). 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.

1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386

While there are a limited number of published studies of re-wetting impact on DOC loss, a larger number ofstudies are available that provide reliable DOC flux estimates from natural/undrained peatlands. These werecombined to derive best estimates of the DOC flux from rewetted sites. The values derived for the estimation of
DOCFLUX-NATURAL needed in Equation 3.5 are explained in Annex 2A.2 of Chapter 2. Finally, the proportion of
DOC exported from peats which is ultimately converted to CO2, called here (FracDOC-CO ) is also explained in2
Annex 2A.2 of Chapter 2.

1345

Annex 3A.2

1387

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.35

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
1388
TABLE 3A.2
DOC CONCENTRATION (ABOVE) OR FLUX (BELOW) COMPARISONS BETWEEN DRAINED AND REWETTED PEATSDOC (mg l-1)

DOCRE-WET

Previous land-use

Country

Study

DrainedRewetted(%)

Peat extraction bog

CanadaGlatzel et al., 2003

110

70

-36%

Drained blanket bog

UK

Wallage et al., 2006

43

13

-69%

Drained blanket bog

UK

Armstrong et al., 2010

34

30

-10%

Drained blanket bog

UK

Gibson et al., 2009

39

39

-1%

Drained agricultural fen

Germany

Höll et al., 2009

86

57

-34%

-1

Previous land-use

Country

Study-2

DOC (g C m yr )DrainedRewetted

DOCRE-WET(%)

Peat extraction bog

CanadaWaddington et al., 2008

7.5

3.5

-53%

Drained blanket bog

UK

O’Brien et al., 2008

7.0

4.1

-41%

1389
1390
1391
1392

3.36

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
1393

Annex 3A.3

Estimation of default emission factors for CH4-C inrewetted peatlands and organic soils

1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403

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 peatlands and organic soils. The collated data are based on closed
chamber and eddy covariance flux measurements with a temporal coverage of at least one measurement permonth during the snow-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, data from natural (undrained) peatlands only were available and used as proxy for rewetted
peatlands.

1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409

Where possible, the analysis considered the same parameters as those described in Annex 3A.1: climate zone
(latitude), peatland types, mean annual water table, median annual water table (as well as minimum andmaximum), soil pH, peat thickness, peat 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 the collected
data show a near log-normal distribution, which, however, did not allow for derivation of standard deviation.
Variance pertains to the 95% interval of the observed data.

1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418

Methane fluxes from rewetted boreal peatlands (mean 75.9 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance -0.1 – 338.7; n=152) arenot significantly different from undrained (pristine) sites (mean 80.8 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0 – 492.8;
n=673). The increase in efflux with rising water table (Figure 3A.2) is similar for undrained (n=57 pairs) andrewetted sites (n= 9 pairs). Methane efflux from rewetted nutrient rich peatlands (mean 161.6 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1;
variance -0.1 – 338.7; n=6) is an order of magnitude higher than efflux from rewetted nutrient poor peatlands(mean 22.2 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 5.8 – 74.8; n=6), which is mirrored by efflux values from undrained
nutrient rich peatlands (mean 131.5 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0.2 – 492.8; n=29) and poor peatlands (41.7 kg
CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0.3 – 245.9; n=30). The derived emission factors for nutrient rich (n=35) and poor sites(n=36) are based on the total respective datasets of rewetted and undrained sites.

1419
1420
1421
1422

Figure 3A.2

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

1423

3,0

Borealrewettedmethane flux

undrained

2,0

1,0

0,0

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

mean annual water table [cm]

1424

2

Juottonen et al., 2012; Komulainen et al., 1998; Tuittila et al., 2000 ; Urbanová et al., 2012 ; Yli-Petäys et al., 2007 ; Strack& Zuback 20123

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, 2012

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.37

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
Temperate

3,0

rewettedmethane flux

undrained

2,0

1,0

0,0

-60

-40

-20

0

20

mean annual water table [cm]

1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439

Whereas methane fluxes from rewetted temperate peatlands (mean 209.1 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0 – 856.3;
n=274) are considerably higher than from undrained peatlands (mean 125.0 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0 –528.4; n=415), 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 risingwater level is not significantly different between undrained (n=27 pairs) and rewetted sites (n=22 pairs), nor
between undrained nutrient poor (n=15 pairs) and undrained nutrient rich sites (n=7 pairs). Methane effluxes
from rewetted temperate nutrient poor peatlands are an order of magnitude lower than from nutrient richpeatlands, but measurements are restricted to only 5 poor sites. Combined, the increase in efflux with risingwater level in undrained and rewetted sites does not show a significant difference between poor peatlands (n=18
pairs) and rich ones (n=27 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.

1440

4

Augustin & Merbach 1998; Augustin 2003; Augustin in Couwenberg et al., 2011; Cleary et al., 2005; Drösler 2005; 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., in press

5

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; Harriss et al., 1982; Koehler et al., 2010;
Nagata et al., 2005; Nilsson et al., 2008; Roulet et al., 2007; Scottish Executive, 2007; Shannon & White 1994; Sommer etal., 2003; Tauchnitz et al., 2008; Von Arnold 2004; Waddington & Price 2000; Wickland et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 1989

3.38

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
1441
1442
1443

Figure 3A.3

Methane flux from boreal and temperate, poor and rich, rewetted (rw) andundrained (un) peat and organic soils.

1444
Boreal103

Temperate

poor

rich

poor

rich

rw

rw

rw

rw

un

un

un

un

methane flux

102
10
1
10-1
10-2
10-3

1445
1446

Note:

1447

1. Fluxes (in kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1) are expressed on a logarithmic scale.

1448

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

1449

3. Bars indicate mean values.

1450
1451

4. Note that in derivation of EFs, data for rewetted and undrained temperate sites were lumped and temperate EFs are
onlydisaggregated for poor and rich.

1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461

Similar to boreal and temperate peatlands, methane fluxes from tropical swamp forest peatlands in Southeast
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 fromliterature. Data were limited to measurements associated with wet conditions (water table ≤20 cm below surface),
either based on actual water table data or if wet conditions could reasonably be assumed (Table 3A.3). Flux datafrom rice padi on peat soil are comparable to current IPCC estimates (Couwenberg 2011) and were excluded
from the analysis. Methane flux data from tropical peatlands outside Southeast Asia are currently not available.
Because of the recalcitrance of the woody peat, methane fluxes from tropical swamp forest peatlands inSoutheast Asia are considerably lower than from boreal and temperate peatlands (Couwenbert et al., 2010).

1462

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.39

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
1463
TABLE 3A.3
CH4-C FLUX DATA FROM WET SWAMP FOREST PEATLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS
mg CH4-C m-2 h-1

Reference

Site

Furukawa et al., 2005

S1 (drained forest)

0.13 (0 – 0.35)

9*

S6 (swamp forest)

0.67

1

S7/S8 (swamp forest)

0.74 (0.58 – 0.91)

2

Hadi et al., 2001

A1 (secondary forest)

0.14

1

Hadi et al., 2005

A1 (secondary forest)

0.46 (0 – 2.29)

13

Inubushi et al., 1998

Secondary forest

0.85

1

Jauhiainen et al., 2001, 2005

Conservation swamp forest

0.22 (0.03 – 0.70)

20*Jauhiainen et al., 2004, 2008

Drained and selectively logged forest

0.08 (-0.02 – 0.22)

44*Jauhiainen et al., 2004

Young secondary forest

0.19 (0.10 – 0.26)

5*Melling et al., 2012

Tropical peat swamp forest

1.53 (1.28 – 1.78)

2

Pangala et al., 2012

Conservation swamp forest

0.14

1

0.47 (0.08 – 1.53)

11

Mean

n

kg CH4-C ha-1 y-1)
Annual flux

41.2 (7.0 – 134.0)

Note:*only measurements pertaining to wet site conditions (water table ≤20 cm below the surface) are considered

1464
1465

3.40

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands
Second Order Draft
1466
1467
1468

Appendix 3.1 CO2 emissions/removals from rewetted peatlands
and organic soils in Tropical climate: a basis for
future methodological develpment

1469
1470

INTRODUCTION

1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477

Natural tropical peatlands are undergoing extensive conversions for agriculture development (Koh et al., 2011;
Mietinnen et al., 2012). The clearance of forest cover followed by drainage and use of fires have been widelypracticed (van der Werf et al., 2008; Hooijer et al., 2012) resulting in large amount of CO2 release into theatmosphere. Rewetting drained organic soils followed by restoring or reestablishing the vegetation cover that
pre-dated the drainage of these areas could reduce the rates of emission or increase the rate of removal of CO2
from the atmosphere. It has also been suggested that water management and fire suppression on drained anddegraded peatlands could provide potential mitigation opportunities (Murdiyarso et al., 2010).

1478
1479
1480
1481

Water table is generally elevated when drained organic soils are rewetted by blocking the existing canals or
ditches, which were constructed to drain water and transport logs or other purposes. Following the water tablerise to pre-drainage levels, the vegetation may recover naturally or the site may undergo human-supported
restoration with planting of indigenous vegetation.

1482
1483
1484
1485
1486

The basis for methodological development in this Appendix focuses on changes in CO2 emissions and removals
from the restoration of rewetted tropical peatlands. The approach is consistent with the default EF of Table 3.1,
which assumes that rewetting effectively stops soil organic matter oxidation but, in the absence of vegetation
regrowth, does not reestablish a soil C sequestration function. Carbon uptake by vegetation on restored sites
eventually allows the water saturated soil to accumulate carbon.

1487
1488
1489
1490

This appendix only considers the soil C pool of rewetted and restored tropical peatlands. The sequestration of
atmospheric CO2 in the biomass and dead organic matter pool should follow the guidance in Chapter 7, Volume
4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The area rewetted and subsequently restored will be considered as activity data
(AD).

1491
1492

CHOICE OF METHOD

1493

The method may be developed in two pathways:

1494



Reduction of CO2 emission due to elevated water table following rewetting of organic soils

1495



Increase of CO2 removal due to re-introduction of vegetation in rewetted peatlands

1496
1497
1498
1499

Tier 1

1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510

Tier 2In the absence of published data on the soil emissions from rewetted tropical organic soil, the default EF as
considered in Section 3.2.1 is zero. In rewetted areas where vegetation is introduced, a default EF for soil carbon
accumulation has yet to be determined.
Where rewetted tropical peatlands cover significant areas, it is recommended to develop country specific soil
EFs. Preliminary indications of CO2 emissions/removals from undrained peatlands as summarized in Table A3.1
below. However, these values apply to entire ecosystems; the information currently available is insufficient toallow further separation by ecosystem C pool. It has been suggested that the mean Holocene soil carbon
sequestration rates amount to 1.16 t CO2-C ha-2 y-1 for inland tropical peatlands and 2.85 t CO2-C ha-2 y-1 forcoastal sites (Dommain et al., 2011). Countries using such values should demonstrate the applicability of thescientific data to their national circumstances. Depending on measurement techniques used to develop emission
factors, an estimate of C losses in the dissolved form (DOC) should be added for a complete C budget. Section
3.3.3 provides further guidance on how to combine flux estimates developed with various measurement
techniques.

1511

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement

3.41

Chapter 3: Cross-cutting guidance on rewetted organic soils and restored peatlands DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Second Order Draft
1512
TABLE A3.1
CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) EMISSIONS FROM UNDRAINED PEATLANDS WITH DIFFERENT VEGETATION COVER OR SUB CATEGORY
Ecosystem

Site/Location

Flux rate(tonnes CO2-C ha-1 y-1)

Reference

Forested peatland

Jambi, Indonesia

0.08

Furukawa et al., 2005

Forested peatland

Sarawak, Malaysia

0.03 – 0.18

Melling et al., 2005

Secondary forest

S. Kalimantan, Indonesia

0.05

Hadi et al., 2001

Secondary forest

S. Kalimantan, Indonesia

12

Inubushi et al., 2003

Secondary forest

Amazonia, Peru

1.44 – 3.14

Lahteenoja et al., 2009

Secondary forest

Aucayacu, Peru

0.24 – 2.73

Lahteenoja et al., 2011

Secondary forest

Lagunas, Peru

1.07 – 4.00

Lahteenoja et al., 2011

Secondary forest

Maquia, Peru

0.32

Lahteenoja et al., 2011

Secondary forest

Roca Fuerte, Peru

1.25 – 2.41

Lahteenoja et al., 2011

Sago

Sarawak, Malaysia

0.0 – 0.08

Melling et al., 2005

1513
1514

Tier 3

1515
1516



Comprehensive and integrated estimates of CO2 emissions and removals from all C pools are based on the
dynamic of water level, vegetation development and ecosystem C cycling

1517



CO2 emissions on-site and off-site are both incorporated

1518
1519
1520
1521

3.42

DRAFT 2013 Wetlands Supplement