2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands
Methodological Guidance on Lands with Wet and Drained Soils,
and Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Edited by
Takahiko Hiraishi, Thelma Krug, Kiyoto Tanabe, Nalin Srivastava,
Baasansuren Jamsranjav, Maya Fukuda and Tiffany Troxler

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

A report prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of the IPCC and accepted by the
Panel but not approved in detail.

Whilst the information in this IPCC Report is believed to be true and accurate at the date of going to press,
neither the authors nor the publishers can accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions.
Neither the authors nor the publishers have any responsibility for the persistence of any URLs referred to in thisreport and cannot guarantee that any content of such web sites is or will remain accurate or appropriate.

Published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
© The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014.
When using this report please cite as:
IPCC 2014, 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands,
Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M. and Troxler, T.G. (eds).
Published: IPCC, Switzerland.

IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Technical Support Unit
℅ Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
2108 -11, Kamiyamaguchi
Hayama, Kanagawa
JAPAN, 240-0115
Fax: (81 46) 855 3808
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp

Printed in Switzerland
ISBN 978-92-9169-139-5
The designations employed and the presentation of material on maps do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Contents

Contents
Foreword
Preface
Overview
Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 2

Drained Inland Organic Soils

Chapter 3

Rewetted Organic Soils

Chapter 4

Coastal Wetlands

Chapter 5

Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

Chapter 6Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Chapter 7

Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

Glossary
List of Contributors

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

Foreword

Foreword
Recognizing the problem of global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) co-established in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). One of the IPCC’s activities is to support the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) through its work on methodologies for national greenhouse gas inventories.
This report, the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement), is the culmination of over two years of work by the IPCC Task Force on
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) to supplement the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories 1 (2006 IPCC Guidelines). The Wetlands Supplement has been produced in response to theconclusions of IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O2 and to an invitation from the Subsidiary
Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the UNFCCC at its 33rd Session in Cancun(December 2010) to prepare additional guidance on wetlands.
In response to this invitation by the SBSTA, the IPCC held a scoping meeting in Geneva (30 March - 1 April,2011). This meeting produced a draft Terms of Reference, including annotated chapter outline, and a draft work
plan which were approved by the IPCC at its 33rd Session in Abu Dhabi (May 2011). This work plan was revisedby the IPCC at its 35th Session in Geneva (June 2012) so that it aimed to complete the task by October 2013.
According to this work plan, the work on the production of the Wetlands Supplement was carried out by the TFIfrom 2011 to 2013. The Overview Chapter of the Wetlands Supplement was adopted and the entire report was
accepted at the 37th Session of IPCC held in Batumi, Georgia (October 2013).
The Wetlands Supplement extends the content of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by filling gaps in the coverage andproviding updated information reflecting scientific advances, including updating of emission factors. It covers
inland organic soils and wetlands on mineral soils, coastal wetlands including mangrove forests, tidal marshes
and seagrass meadows and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. The coverage of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines on wetlands was restricted to peatlands drained and managed for peat extraction, conversion toflooded lands, and limited guidance for drained organic soils.
The development of this report has depended on the expertise, knowledge and cooperation of the Coordinating
Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Contributing Authors – a total of 90 authors worldwide. A total of 15 Review
Editors oversaw the IPCC review process. We wish to thank them for their commitment, time and efforts in
preparing this report. As with all the IPCC Methodology Reports, this report has built upon the work of theprevious IPCC Methodology Reports including, among others, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines without which the task
would have been much more demanding. We are pleased to acknowledge our debt with all those who
contributed to those reports.
The Steering Group, consisting of IPCC TFI Co-Chairs Takahiko Hiraishi (Japan) and Thelma Krug (Brazil)
together with Dominique Blain (Canada), Rizaldi Boer (Indonesia), Simon Eggleston (TFI Technical Support
Unit (TFI-TSU), until January 2013), Sergio González Martineaux (Chile), William Irving (USA), Alex Krusche(Brazil), Emmanuel Jonathan Mpeta (Tanzania), Jim Penman (UK), Riitta Pipatti (Finland), Robert Sturgiss(Australia), Kiyoto Tanabe (TFI-TSU) and Sirintornthep Towprayoon (Thailand), has guided the development of
the Wetlands Supplement, ensuring consistency across all chapters and continuity with the guidance it
supplements. We therefore wish to thank them for their valuable and considerable efforts in leading and guiding
the preparation of this report. We express a high appreciation to the IPCC Task Force Bureau on National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFB) for their overall guidance and oversight.
Author and expert meetings were held in Hayama (Japan), Edinburgh (Scotland), Victoria Falls (Zimbabwe),
Dublin (Ireland), Freising (Germany) twice and Manaus (Brazil). We would therefore like to thank the hostcountries and agencies for organizing these meetings. We would also like to thank all governments that

1

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. andTanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.

2

IPCC 2011, IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O. Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K., BaasansurenJ., and Fukuda M. (eds). Meeting Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O, Geneva,
Switzerland, 19-21 October, 2010, Published: IGES, Japan 2011.

iv

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

Foreword

supported authors and reviewers for their contributions, without which the production of this report would nothave been possible.
A comprehensive review is an important element of the IPCC process. The Wetlands Supplement underwent tworounds of review, followed by a round of submission of written comments by governments in 2012 and 2013.
The first, expert review of the First Order Draft, produced over 5000 comments from 128 expert reviewers. The
second, government and expert review of the Second Order Draft, resulted in an additional 3740 comments from112 expert reviewers and 14 governments. The Final Draft received over 300 comments from 14 governments.
The efforts of the reviewers and their comments have contributed greatly to the quality of the final report and wewish to thank them accordingly.
In addition, the TFI-TSU (Head: Kiyoto Tanabe; Deputy Head: Nalin Srivastava; Programme Officers:
Baasansuren Jamsranjav, Maya Fukuda and Tiffany Troxler; Administrative Assistant: Koh Mikuni; Secretary:
Eriko Nakamura; and IT Officer: Toru Matsumoto) has made an invaluable contribution to the development of
the Wetlands Supplement by providing guidance and assistance as well as technical and organisational support
for the project. Apart from working tirelessly to organise meetings and reviews, they worked extensively withthe authors especially in the editing of the various drafts and preparation of the final version, and we wish tocongratulate them for their exemplary work. Thanks are also due to the former TSU Head, Simon Eggleston,
who led the TSU work on the development of the Wetlands Supplement in its early stages. We would also like toexpress our gratitude to the Government of Japan, for its generous support of the TFI-TSU, without which thisreport might not have been completed. We would also like to thank the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES) for hosting the TFI-TSU.
We would also like to thank the IPCC Secretariat, led by the Secretary, Renate Christ, for their assistance andsupport in enabling this project to meet its tight deadlines.
Finally we would like to thank the IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri for his support and guidance.

Michel Jarraud

Achim Steiner

Secretary-General
World Meteorological Organization

Executive Director
United Nations Environment Programme

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

Preface
The 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands(Wetlands Supplement), extends the content of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines) by filling gaps in the coverage and providing updated information reflecting
scientific advances.
This report assists countries in compiling complete national inventories of greenhouse gases to include
significant land-use and management activities occurring in lands with wet and drained soils, and constructedwetlands for wastewater treatment. The guidance has been structured so that any country, regardless ofexperience or resources, should be able to produce reliable estimates of emissions and removals of these gases.
In particular, default values of various parameters and emission factors required are supplied, so that, at its
simplest, a country need only supply national activity data. Following the approach of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
the Wetlands Supplement also allows countries with more information and resources to use more detailed
country-specific methodologies and country-specific data while retaining comparability and consistency between
countries. The Wetlands Supplement guidance also integrates good practice to include augmented coverage of
wetlands in inventory compilation so that the final estimates are neither over- nor under-estimates as far as canbe judged and uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable.
The IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) also manages the IPCC Emission Factor
Database (EFDB). The EFDB was launched in 2002, and is continuously updated as a resource for inventory
compilers to use to assist them by providing a repository of emission factors and other relevant parameters that
may be suitable for use in more country-specific methodologies.
The Wetlands Supplement is the latest step in the IPCC development of guidelines for national greenhouse gas
inventories. In the opinion of the authors, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines supplemented by this report provide thebest, widely applicable default methodologies and, as such, are suitable for global use in compiling national
greenhouse gas inventories. They may also be of use in more narrowly-defined project-based estimates, although
here they should be used with caution to ensure they correctly include just the emissions and removals fromwithin the system boundaries and with particular attention to applicability and representativeness of those project
conditions.
We would like to thank all the authors as well as reviewers, Review Editors, the Steering Group and the Task
Force Bureau for their contributions and experience. We would also like to thank all the governments who
contributed by hosting meetings (Hayama, Japan; Edinburgh, Scotland; Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe; Dublin,
Ireland; Freising, Germany - twice; and Manaus, Brazil) as well as those who supported authors and othercontributors. Finally we would like to express our gratitude to the TFI Technical Support Unit and the IPCC
Secretariat for their invaluable support throughout the entire process of drafting and producing this report.

vi

Taka Hiraishi (Japan)

Thelma Krug (Brazil)

IPCC TFI Co-Chair

IPCC TFI Co-Chair2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Overview

2013 SUPPLEMENT TO THE 2006
IPCC GUIDELINES FOR
NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GASINVENTORIES: WETLANDS

Methodological Guidance on Lands with Wet andDrained Soils, and Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment

OVERVIEW

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

O.1

Overview

Authors
Dominique Blain (Canada), Rizaldi Boer (Indonesia), Simon Eggleston (IPCC TFI TSU1), Sergio Gonzalez (Chile),
Takahiko Hiraishi (Japan), William Irving (USA), Thelma Krug (Brazil), Alex Krusche (Brazil), EmmanuelJonathan Mpeta (Tanzania), Jim Penman (UK), Riitta Pipatti (Finland), Robert Sturgiss (Australia), Kiyoto Tanabe(IPCC TFI TSU) and Sirintornthep Towprayoon (Thailand)

Review Editors
Steen Gyldenkærne (Denmark) and Erda Lin (China)

1

Until February, 2013.

O.2

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

Overview

Contents
1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... O.4

2

Background ...................................................................................................................................... O.5

3

Coverage of the Wetlands Supplement............................................................................................. O.6

4

Managed Land and Anthropogenic Emissions ................................................................................ O.8

5

The Wetlands Supplement and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines .............................................................. O.9

TablesTable 1

Coverage of the Wetlands Supplement ............................................................................. O.6

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

O.3

Overview

1 INTRODUCTION
The 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands
Supplement) provides methods for estimating anthropogenic emissions and removals of greenhouse gases fromwetlands and drained soils. The scope of the Wetlands Supplement is broader than the coverage of Wetlands in the2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2 (2006 IPCC Guidelines), where managed
wetlands are defined as lands where the water table is artificially changed (i.e. lowered or raised) or those createdthrough human activity (e.g. damming a river) and that do not fall into Forest Land, Cropland, or Grasslandcategories. The emissions and removals from wetlands and drained soils addressed in the Wetlands Supplement canoccur under any land-use category or other relevant category of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The guidance in the
Wetlands Supplement is not intended to change the allocation of wetlands for reporting purposes.
The guidance provided is supplementary to that contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which provide
methodologies for estimating national anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhousegases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol3. The content of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on wetlands is restricted
to peatlands drained and managed for peat extraction, conversion to flooded lands, and some guidance for drainedorganic soils. It is therefore incomplete; it does not cover all wetland types and does not characterize all of thesignificant activities occurring on wetlands that are covered (e.g. rewetting of peatlands is not included).
This Wetlands Supplement supplements the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by filling in gaps in the coverage and providing
updated information reflecting scientific advances. This includes updating of emission factors. It covers inland
organic soils and wetlands on mineral soils, coastal wetlands including mangrove forests, tidal marshes and seagrassmeadows, and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. For the reasons described subsequently, the Wetlands
Supplement does not provide guidance on permanently flooded lands such as reservoirs.

2

IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.

3

Greenhouse gases addressed in the Wetlands Supplement are: CO2, CH4 and N2O.

O.4

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

Overview

2 BACKGROUND
The IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O held on 19-21 October, 2010 in Geneva4, concluded
that:
Since the 2006 IPCC Guidelines were completed much new scientific information is now available about
various wetlands that enable emissions and removals to be estimated from wetland restoration andrewetting especially for peat lands. The meeting recommended that the IPCC provide additional
methodological guidelines for the rewetting and restoration of peat land; emissions from fires, ditches andwaterborne carbon; and constructed wetlands for waste water disposal, to fill gaps in the existing
guidelines.
The Wetlands Supplement has been produced in response to the conclusions of this expert meeting, and in responseto an invitation from the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at its 33rd session, held in December, 2010 in Cancun,
which invited the IPCC to prepare additional guidance on wetlands, focusing on the rewetting and restoration ofpeatlands. Document FCCC/SBSTA/2010/13, paragraph 72 states:...the SBSTA invited the IPCC to undertake further methodological work on wetlands, focusing on therewetting and restoration of peatland, with a view to filling in the gaps in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) in these areas
and to complete this work for the thirty-ninth session of the SBSTA.
In response to this invitation, the IPCC held a scoping meeting in Genevafrom 30 March to 1 April, 2011. This
meeting produced a draft Terms of Reference (ToR), including annotated chapter outline, which was approved by
the IPCC at its 33rd Session in Abu Dhabi (10-13 May 2011).

4

IPCC (2011) IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O. Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K.,
Baasansuren J., and Fukuda M. (eds). Meeting Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O,
Geneva, Switzerland, 19-21 October, 2010, Published: IGES, Japan 2011.

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

O.5

Overview

3 COVERAGE OF THE WETLANDSSUPPLEMENT
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines classify all land area into six broad land-use categories: Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements, and Other Land (see Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). The
lands covered in the Wetlands Supplement may occur in any of the IPCC land-use categories. The land-use category
under which land is reported depends on national land-use category definitions, data collection systems and trackingof land transitions. For example, forested peatland can be classified as Forest Land, plantations on peatland may beclassified as Forest Land or Cropland depending on national forest definitions, and mangrove forests may beclassified as Forest Land or Wetlands. Due to their function, constructed wetlands are not considered as a land-use
category. The coverage of the Wetlands Supplement is summarised in Table 1.

TABLE 1
COVERAGE OF THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT
Chapter

Coverage

1.

Introduction

Guidance on the use of the report and generic information on the linkages
between the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the supplementary guidance that itpresents.

2.

Drained Inland Organic
Soils

Guidance on managed inland organic soils including land drained for forestry,
croplands, grazing, and settlements across climate zones.

3.

Rewetted Organic Soils

Guidance on rewetted organic soils including boreal, temperate, and tropical
wetlands occurring in any land-use category.

4.

Coastal Wetlands

Guidance on specified management activities in coastal areas of mangroves,tidal marshes and seagrass meadows.

5.

Inland Wetland Mineral
Soils

Guidance on managed inland wetland mineral soils, including lands used forforestry, cropland, grazing, and settlements, and rewetted mineral soils.

6.

Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment

Guidance on wetlands constructed for wastewater treatment.

7.

Cross-cutting Issues andReportingOverall guidance on how to report anthropogenic emissions and removals
from wetlands in the framework of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Also gives
general good practice guidance on cross-cutting issues (key category anduncertainty analysis, times series consistency and quality assurance/quality
control) to supplement that given in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

A summary of the main methodological updates to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines is provided below. Chapter 1 provides
a decision tree to help inventory compilers determine which chapters of this supplement to apply and describes thecoverage and definitions of the wetland types.
Peatlands and organic soils. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines included some guidance on drainage (Chapter 4, Volume 4)
and peat extraction (Chapter 7, Volume 4), but not on rewetting. In this supplement, peatlands are included alongwith organic soils and both drainage and rewetting are covered. Updated emission factors and methods are provided
for both drained and rewetted organic soils including for off-site carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions via waterborne
carbon losses. Guidance on methane (CH4) emissions from rewetting of organic soils (Chapter 3 of the Wetlands
Supplement), ditches on drained inland organic soils and CO2, CH4 and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from peat
fires are also provided (Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement).
Peatland managed for peat production. Peat production is covered in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Chapter 7,
Volume 4) and no additional guidance is given here except some updated emission factors in Chapter 2.
Rice cultivation. Rice cultivation is covered in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Chapter 5, Volume 4) and additionalemission factors for lowland rice production are given in Chapter 2.
Coastal wetlands. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide no specific guidance for coastal wetlands, and new guidanceis given in Chapter 4 of this supplement on how to treat anthropogenic emissions and removals associated with

O.6

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

Overview

specified human activities that affect them. Coastal wetlands in this supplement include mangrove forests, tidal
marshes and seagrass meadows. Emissions factors and methodologies are provided for management of mangrove
forests (including harvesting), rewetting, revegetation and creation, aquaculture and drainage.
Inland wetland mineral soils (IWMS). The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provided limited data on soil carbon in wetland
mineral soils. Chapter 5 provides updated default soil carbon factors and covers methodologies for quantifying
emissions and removals of CO2 and emissions of CH4 from (i) artificial drainage of IWMS (ii) subsequently
rewetting of artificially drained IWMS and (iii) the artificial flooding of mineral soils for the purposes of wetland
creation. Mineral soil wetlands 5 include riparian wetlands, forested swamps and marshes and can occur in all
climate zones.
Saline inland wetlands. Saline wetlands are important parts of otherwise arid landscapes across the globe but little
information is available in the literature to assess potential greenhouse gas emissions or removals from these lands.
Thus emission or removal factors cannot be given and no guidance is provided for these wetland types. These arealso known as playas, pans, salt lakes, brackish wetlands, salinas, and sabkhas.
Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. The guidance supplements Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
on Waste (Chapter 6). These are wetlands that have been designed and constructed to use natural processes
involving vegetation, soils, and associated microbial assemblages to treat wastewater. New guidance is also
provided on semi-natural treatment wetlands.
Permanently flooded lands. No new guidance on permanently flooded lands is provided. The Expert Meeting on
HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O6 did not agree that there was sufficient new information available to produce new andadditional guidance based on the latest literature7. The IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and
Mitigation of Climate Change8 also noted that it was not possible to make global estimates of the size of emissions
from reservoirs.

5

Wetlands do not all have organic soils. Wetland Mineral Soils are classified as Aquic soil (USDA) or Gleysols (World
Reference Base), and are described as having restricted drainage leading to periodic flooding and anaerobic conditions(Table 2.3, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

6

IPCC (2011) IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O. Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K.,
Baasansuren J., and Fukuda M. (eds). Meeting Report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O,
Geneva, Switzerland, 19-21 October, 2010, Published: IGES, Japan 2011.

7

The attendees of the Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O agreed on the need to discuss a range of issues suchas the impact of reservoirs on total emissions from watersheds, allocation of emissions to specific drivers, and how
emissions may be related to specific reservoir typologies.

8

IPCC (2011) IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working
Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P.
Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds). Published: Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp.

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

O.7

Overview

4 MANAGED LAND AND ANTHROPOGENICEMISSIONS
Parties to the UNFCCC are committed to report anthropogenic emissions and removals of greenhouse gases notcovered by the Montreal Protocol9. In practice, it is difficult to separate anthropogenic and natural emissions inAgriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Thus, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides that it is goodpractice to report emissions and removals from managed land as a proxy for anthropogenic emissions and removals(Pages 1.4-1.5, Chapter 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). An expert meeting10 held in May 2009 in Brazil,
reconsidered the issue and concluded that, although suitable methods for a better quantification of anthropogenic
emissions and removals had been demonstrated in specific circumstances, there was no suitable, globally applicable
alternative to the use of managed land as a proxy for anthropogenic emissions and removals.
The Wetlands Supplement continues to use managed land as a proxy for estimation of anthropogenic emissions andremovals. The Wetlands Supplement notes that many wetlands on managed land have significant non-anthropogenic
fluxes of greenhouse gases. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines restricted managed wetlands to those lands where the watertable is artificially changed (i.e. lowered or raised). This Wetlands Supplement extends this coverage also to include
wetlands created (e.g. constructed), or where emissions and removals from coastal wetlands are attributed to
specified human activities. The focus on human activities such as drainage or construction of aquaculture ponds
maintains the justification for the managed land proxy. In the case of seagrass meadows the guidance estimatesemissions and removals associated with changes linked to a specific human activity, rather than estimating
emissions and removals from that coastal wetland type as a whole. Application of the supplement will maintainconsistency with previous estimates so long as these activities can be recognised as subsets within the broader
definition of managed land. The application of new emission factors will not introduce inconsistency so long as thehistorical time series is updated, consistent with long-standing IPCC guidance.

9

UNFCCC Article 4.1 (a).
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf

10

IPCC 2010, Revisiting the Use of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National Anthropogenic Emissions andRemovals, Eggleston H.S., Srivastava N., Tanabe K., Baasansuren J. (eds). Meeting Report, 5-7 May, 2009, INPE, SãoJosé dos Campos, Brazil, Published: IGES, Japan 2010.

O.8

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

Overview

5 THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT AND THE 2006
IPCC GUIDELINES
The Wetlands Supplement follows the same approach to estimating emissions and removals as the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines themselves are an evolutionary development starting from the 1996 IPCC
Guidelines, 2000 IPCC Good Practice Guidance (GPG2000) and Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use
Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF). This evolutionary approach helps ensure continuity, and allows for theincorporation of experiences with the existing guidelines, new scientific information, and the results of the
UNFCCC inventory review process. An important structural change occurred in Volume 4, of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, which consolidated the guidance for LULUCF in GPG-LULUCF and the Agriculture sector in
GPG2000 into a single Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Volume. This Wetlands Supplement
adds to the guidance given in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and provides updates where science hasadvanced, but does not replace it. This Wetlands Supplement also adds to the guidance given in Volume 5 (Waste).
Where the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance that updates emission factors for land areas, categories, gases,
and pools covered directly by Volumes 4 and 5, the guidance in the Wetlands Supplement should take precedence.
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines retained the definition of good practice that was introduced with GPG2000. Thisdefinition has gained general acceptance amongst countries as the basis for inventory development. According tothis definition, national inventories of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals consistent with goodpractice are those, which contain neither over- nor under-estimates so far as can be judged, and in which
uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable. These requirements are intended to ensure that estimates of emissions
by sources and removals by sinks, even if uncertain, are bona fide estimates, in the sense of not containing any
biases that could have been identified and eliminated.
The Wetlands Supplement, like the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, generally provides guidance, usually with decision trees,on estimation methods at three levels of detail, from Tier 1 (the default method) to Tier 3 (the most detailed method;
Chapter 1, Volume 1). The Tier 1 guidance generally consists of mathematical specification of the methods andequations for estimating emissions/removals, information on emission factors or other parameters to use ingenerating the estimates, and sources of activity data to estimate the overall level of net emissions (emission bysources minus removals by sinks). Properly implemented, all tiers are intended to provide unbiased estimates, andaccuracy and precision are expected to improve from Tier 1 to Tier 3. The provision of different tiers enables
inventory compilers to use methods consistent with their resources and to focus their efforts on those categories ofemissions and removals that contribute most significantly to national emission totals and trends.
National circumstances include the availability of data and knowledge, and contribution made by the category tototal national emissions and removals and to their trend over time. The most important categories, in terms of total
national emissions and the trend, are called key categories11. The decision trees generally require Tier 2 or Tier 3
methods for key categories. This approach to the use of different tiers allows limited resources to be focused on
those areas of the inventory that contribute significantly to the overall total or trend in emissions.
Within Chapter 7 of the Wetlands Supplement advice is also provided on:

11

(i)

ensuring time series are consistent,(ii)

estimation of uncertainties,(iii)

guidance on quality assurance and quality control procedures to provide cross-checks during inventory
compilation,(iv)

information to be documented to achieve transparent reporting, avoiding double-counting and omissions,to facilitate review and assessment of inventory estimates, and(v)

reporting tables and worksheets for Tier 1 methods are provided as well as mapping between the
categories and guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the changes to those introduced by the
Wetlands Supplement.

In the GPG2000 and GPG-LULUCF these were called key sources or key categories where there could be removals.

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

O.9

Chapter 1: Introduction

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

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

1.1Chapter 1: Introduction

Coordinating Lead Autho rs
Tom Wirth (USA) and Chengyi Zhang (China)

Lead Autho rs
Gusti Zakaria Anshari (Indonesia), Kenneth Byrne (Ireland), Elke Hodson (Switzerland/USA), Hans Joosten(EC/WI/FAO), J. Boone Kauffman (IUCN/UNESCO), Leif Klemedtsson (Sweden), Tuija Elina Lapvetelainen†(Finland), Christoph Mueller (Germany), Phillip O'Brien (Ireland) and Mitsuru Osaki (Japan)

Cont ributing Autho rs
Tonya Del Sontro (Switzerland), Mark Flugge (USA), Stephen Ogle (USA), Riitta Pipatti (Finland), Rachel
Steele (USA), Victoria Thompson (USA) and Kiyoto Tanabe (IPCC TFI TSU)

Review Edito rs
Fatih Evrendilek (Turkey) and Steen Gyldenkærne (Denmark)† Ms. Tuija Elina Lapvetelainen, a close colleague, passed away in July 2013. She greatly contributed to the development of
Chapter 1.

1.2

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

Contents
1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1

Background ....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2

Guidance for using this supplement .................................................................................................... 4

1.3

Application of the Managed Land Proxy to wetlands .......................................................................... 9

1.4

Coherence and compatibility with 2006 IPCC Guidelines ................................................................. 11

1.4.1

Guidance on activities in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines that are also covered in the Wetlands
Supplement............................................................................................................................... 11

1.4.2

Supplementary guidance in this report ...................................................................................... 12

1.5

Relevant databases for wetlands and organic soils ............................................................................ 16

References................................................................................................................................................ 17

FiguresFigure 1.1

Decision tree for finding the appropriate guidance chapter within the Wetlands
Supplement or the 2006 IPCC Guidelines ....................................................................... 5

Figure 1.2

Soil based subcategories that are being addressed in the Wetlands Supplement ................ 6

Figure 1.3

Typical management practices on organic and wet soils ................................................ 10

TablesTable 1.1

Look-up table for Wetlands Supplement by land-use categories, soil type and condition
and inland or coastal location ........................................................................................ 15

Table 1.2

Global and regional on-line resources providing metadata sets for developing an inventoryof greenhouse gas emissions and removals from wetlands and organic soils................... 16

Box
Box 1.1

Greenhouse gas emissions and removals of managed organic and wet soils ..................... 92013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

1.3Chapter 1: Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1

BACKGROUND

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines) acknowledgedthat the methodological guidance for the land-use category Wetlands in Volume 4 (Agriculture, Forestry andOther Land Use—AFOLU), Chapter 7 (Wetlands) is incomplete and limited to estimating emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from peatlands cleared and drained for production of peat for energy,
horticultural and other uses (Section 7.2, Chapter 7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and to CO2emissions from land converted to flooded land such as reservoirs for production of hydroelectricity, irrigationand navigation (Section 7.2, Chapter 7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). In October 2010, an IPCC
expert meeting on harvested wood products, wetlands, and N2O emissions from soils concluded that there wassufficient new scientific information available to provide additional methodological guidance and fill gaps in theexisting 2006 IPCC Guidelines for the rewetting and restoration of peatlands; emissions from fires, ditches, andwaterborne carbon; and constructed wetlands for waste water disposal (IPCC, 2011). In December 2010, theSubsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the IPCC to undertake further methodological work on
wetlands, focusing on the rewetting and restoration of peatland, with the objective of filling in the gaps in the2006 IPCC Guidelines in these areas.
In response to the invitation of SBSTA, this 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands - Methodological Guidance on Lands with Wet and Drained Soils, andConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment - (Wetlands Supplement) provides new and supplementary
guidance on estimating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and removals from lands with organic soils andwet and drained mineral soils in Wetlands and all the other IPCC land-use categories with these soil types thatare subject to human activities (‘managed’). The Wetlands Supplement is organised into the following chapters:•

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils•

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils•

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands•

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils•

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment•

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

1.2

GUIDANCE FOR USING THIS SUPPLEMENT

This introductory chapter provides guidance on the way to use the Wetlands Supplement in conjunction with theexisting 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for the preparation of a greenhouse gas inventory that includes lands withorganic soils and wet and drained mineral soils across all the IPCC land-use categories.
Inventory compilers can use the decision tree (Figure 1.1) as a guide to the relevant chapters within this
Wetlands Supplement and/or the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The numbers located near the ‘start’ box and the
diamonds in the decision tree refer to the guidance notes listed below, which explain and illustrate the terms usedin the decision tree and within this document (see also the glossary).
The terms are for the purpose of this document, and their definitions are not intended to pre-empt otherdefinitions of these terms in any other context. For example, except for the use of the term ‘Wetlands’ in thename of this supplement, this guidance uses the term ‘Wetlands’ (with a capital ‘W’ and always plural) solely torefer to the IPCC land-use category Wetlands. The term ‘wetland’ or ‘wetlands’ (with a lowercase ‘w’ andsingular or plural) is used to refer to land with wet soil as defined in note 4 below. Other articulations of theconcept of ‘wetland’ are possible, for example that used by the Ramsar Convention(www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-texts-convention-on/main/ramsar/1-31-38%5E20671_4000_0__)
but this does not affect the applicability of the methodological guidance.

1.4

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1.1

Decision tree for finding the appropriate guidance chapter within the
Wetlands Supplement or the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
Start: Determine
land-use category

Is the soil used
for rice cultivation?

1)
2)

Yes

Vol.4, Chapters 5
and 11,
2006 IPCC
Guidelines
andChapters 2 and 5,
Wetlands
Supplement

Yes

Vol.4, Chapter 7,
2006 IPCC
Guidelines

Yes

Chapter 6,
Wetlands
Supplement

Yes

Chapter 4,
Wetlands
Supplement

Yes

Chapter 5,
Wetlands
Supplement

Yes

Chapter 3,
Wetlands
Supplement5)
Vol.4, 2006 IPCC
Guidelines(To be read in
conjunction with new
guidance available in
Chapters 4 and 5,
Wetlands Supplement)

No

No

Is the soilorganic and/or
wet?

3), 4)Yes
6)
Is this a“Flooded Land”?

No
7)
Is thisa wetland for wastewater
treatment?

No
8)
Is thiscoastalland?
NoIs thisinland mineral
soil?

•

•

The numbers associated with the shapes
in the decision tree refer to the notes
which follow the decision tree.
Except for Chapter 4, the Wetlands
Supplement only deals with greenhousegas fluxes and carbon stock changes insoils. For guidance on other pools,
refer to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

9)

No
10)
Is this organic
soil wet?

No
Chapter 2,
Wetlands
Supplement

Note 1: Determine land-use category
The Wetlands Supplement covers land with organic soils, and wet and drained mineral soils (see notes 2, 3, and 4
for the definition of these terms) across all the IPCC land-use categories (Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland,

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

1.5Chapter 1: Introduction

Wetlands, Settlements, and Other Land, see Figure 1.2). The Wetlands Supplement is consistent with Chapter 3(Consistent Representation of Lands) in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in that it does not change theassignment of land to a category. If using Approach two or three for land representation 1, land-use conversions
should also be identified (e.g. Forest Land converted to Cropland, Cropland converted to Settlements).
In comparison with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the Wetlands Supplement identifies relevant subcategories (seeFigure 1.2 below) and specifies emission factors for all land-use categories with organic soils and wet anddrained mineral soils (including drained ‘wetland mineral soils’ (see Note 4 below) subject to rewetting; inland
wetland mineral soils subject to long-term cultivation; inland dry mineral soils that have been wetted; coastal
drained mineral soils subject to rewetting and coastal mineral soils subject to other management practices2). The
Wetlands Supplement differentiates between coastal land and inland land, because water salinity and dynamics(e.g. tides) may, for the same land-use category, modify emission factors compared to inland land. .
Figure 1.2

Soil based subcategories addressed in the Wetlands Supplement

Notes on Figure 1.2: Guidance for all the soils shown in this figure is included the Wetlands Supplement. Guidance for ‘mineral dry’soils except for those drained for long-term cultivation and drained coastal wetlands (see Note 5) is provided in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

It is good practice to subdivide each land use/conversion category into subcategories with similar characteristics.
The Wetlands Supplement proposes to use - in addition to the dry mineral soils covered by the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines - a division into four soil subcategories 3; all with a coastal and inland subdivision where appropriate(see Figure 1.2 above):1)

drained mineral soil

2)

wet mineral soil

3)

wet organic soil

4)drained organic soil.

In the case of dry mineral soil, the guidance in the Forest Land, Cropland or Grassland Chapters in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines should be used as appropriate. Chapter 4 of the Wetlands Supplement provides new guidancefor drained coastal mineral soils, and Chapter 5 presents new guidance for drained inland wetland mineral soils
1

Cf. Section 3.3.1, Chapter 3 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

2

Other management activities on coastal wetland mineral soils covered in the Supplement include extraction, revegetation
and aquaculture.

3

The guidance for rice cultivation provided in Chapters 2 and 5 of the Wetlands Supplement should be used in conjunction
with Chapters 5 and 11 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

1.6

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

Chapter 1: Introduction(see Note 4 below) that have been continuously managed for > 20 years to cultivate predominantly annual crops.
In all other cases, the decision tree should be used (see Figure 1.1 above) to identify the appropriate guidance
chapter within this Wetlands Supplement or within the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines are used for estimating and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions andremovals only. With respect to ‘land’ inventory compilers are required to differentiate between ‘managed’ and‘unmanaged’ land for all land-use categories besides Cropland and Settlements, which are inherently managed
land. The Wetlands Supplement continues to apply the Managed Land Proxy (see Section 1.3 of this supplement)
to estimate anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In the case of coastal wetlands, guidance is provided to estimate
and report anthropogenic emissions and removals from specific management activities.
Note 2: Is the soil used for rice cultivation?
Guidance on rice cultivation is provided in Chapters 2 and 5 of the Wetlands Supplement, and Chapters 5 and 11
in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Note 3: Is the soil organic?
An organic soil is a soil with a high concentration of organic matter (see below). Every soil that is not an organic
soil is classified as a mineral soil, following the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Annex 3A.5, Chapter 3 in Volume 4).
The Wetlands Supplement follows the definition of organic soils in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Annex 3A.5,
Chapter 3 in Volume 4):
Organic soils are identified on the basis of criteria 1 and 2, or 1 and 3 listed below (FAO 1998):
1. Thickness of organic horizon greater than or equal to 10 cm. A horizon of less than 20 cm must have 12
percent or more organic carbon when mixed to a depth of 20 cm.
2. Soils that are never saturated with water for more than a few days must contain more than 20 percent organiccarbon by weight (i.e., about 35 percent organic matter).
3. Soils are subject to water saturation episodes and has either:a. At least 12 percent organic carbon by weight (i.e., about 20 percent organic matter) if the soil has no clay;orb. At least 18 percent organic carbon by weight (i.e., about 30 percent organic matter) if the soil has 60% ormore clay; orc. An intermediate proportional amount of organic carbon for intermediate amounts of clay.
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines largely follow the definition of Histosols by the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), but have omitted the thickness criterion from the FAO definition to allow for often historicallydetermined, country-specific definitions of organic soils.
There are no IPCC definitions for peat and peatland. Definitions of peatland and peat soil differ between
countries in relation to the thickness of the peat layer required to be determined as a peatland or a peat soil. In
addition, the definition of peat varies among countries and disciplines, especially with respect to the minimum
percentage of organic matter the material is required to contain (Joosten and Clarke, 2002). In the Wetlands
Supplement the concept of peatland is considered to be included in ‘(land with) organic soil’.
It is good practice that, when a country uses another definition of organic soil in accordance with its national
circumstances, the concept of organic soil (and its possible subdivisions) applied is clearly defined, and that thedefinition is applied consistently both across the entire national land area and over time.
Note 4: Is the soil wet?
A wet soil is a soil that is inundated or saturated by water for all or part of the year to the extent that biota,
adapted to anaerobic conditions, particularly soil microbes and rooted plants, control the quality and quantity of
the net annual greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Every soil that is not a wet soil is in this supplementclassified as a dry soil.
Drainage is the process of artificial lowering of the soil water table. In this supplement, the term is used todescribe the act of changing a soil from wet into dry. A drained soil is a soil that has formerly been a wet soil,
but as a result of human intervention has become a dry soil. All organic soils are assumed to have originally been
wet, therefore a dry organic soil is always also a drained organic soil.
Rewetting is the process of changing a drained soil into a wet soil. A rewetted soil is a soil that has formerly
been a drained soil but as a result of human intervention has become a wet soil. Similarly, wetting is the processof changing an originally dry soil into a wet soil as a result of human intervention, as in wetland creation.
Restoration (adjective restored) is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded,
damaged, or destroyed. In the case of drained former wetlands, restoration always has to include rewetting.
With respect to inland wet mineral soils the Wetlands Supplement only provides Tier 1 guidance for ‘wetland
mineral soils’ and mineral soils that have been wetted by human intervention for the purpose of wetland creation.

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

1.7Chapter 1: Introduction‘Wetland mineral soils’ include the ‘wetland soils’ as defined in footnote 6 to Table 2.3, Chapter 2 in Volume 4of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines as Soils with restricted drainage leading to periodic flooding and anaerobic
conditions (in WRB classification Gleysols; in USDA classification Aquic suborders). Sandy soils (as defined byfootnote 3 to Table 2.3, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) that are wet are not included.
Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement covers organic soils that are rewetted and wet organic soils that are
subject to other management practices such as paludicultures. Chapter 4 covers coastal wetland soils that are
subject to rewetting (after drainage) and to other management practices such as extraction, revegetation andaquaculture. Chapter 5 covers rewetting of drained inland wetland mineral soils and wetting of originally dry
mineral soils.
Note 5: New guidance for drained coastal mineral soils and ‘inland wetland mineral soils’
Dry mineral soils in inland lands that are subject to management activities other than rewetting or wetting
respectively are covered in Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Chapter 4 of the Wetlands Supplement provides
new guidance for drained coastal mineral soils, and Chapter 5 presents new guidance on ‘inland wetland mineralsoils’ (see Note 4 above) that have been continuously cultivated (by default for > 20 years) with predominantly
annual crops. Tier 1 methods for both mineral and organic soils do not differentiate between recently and longtime drained soils.’
Drained mineral soils may have a high organic matter content that gives them different greenhouse gas emission
characteristics from those of mineral soils that have never been wet, or which were originally wet, but have been
in a dry state for a long time. These differences fade with time after drainage, but so long as they persist, the soil
is described in this supplement as being ‘drained’.
Note 6: Is this a ‘Flooded Land’?
Flooded Land is defined in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines as water bodies where human activities have causedchanges in the amount of surface area covered by water, typically through water level regulation. Examples ofFlooded Land include reservoirs for the production of hydroelectricity, irrigation, and navigation. Regulated
lakes and rivers that do not have substantial changes in water area in comparison with the pre-flooded
ecosystem are not considered as Flooded Lands. Some rice paddies are cultivated through flooding of land, but
because of the unique characteristics of rice cultivation, rice paddies are addressed in Chapter 5 (Cropland) of
the Guidelines (Section 7.3, Chapter 7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
This Wetlands Supplement does not include additional guidance for Flooded Land. Estimating emissions fromthis category of land use is discussed in Section 7.3, Chapter 7 of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Reservoirs constructed as wetlands for wastewater treatment are covered in Chapter 6 of the Wetlands
Supplement.
Note 7: Is this a wetland for wastewater treatment?
A wetland for wastewater treatment is a wetland that is used for or influenced by waste water treatment. Chapter
6 of the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance for wetlands for wastewater treatment, both for wetlands thatare constructed for such a purpose (constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment) and for natural wetlands thatare used for, or influenced by, wastewater treatment. The emissions are reported under the Waste Sector. Other
constructed (i.e. man-made, engineered or artificially created) wetlands are included in Chapter 5 of the
Wetlands Supplement.
Note 8: Is this coastal land?
Coastal land is land at or near the coast. It is good practice for a country to clearly define the concept of ‘coastal
land’ and its sea- and landward limits in accordance with its national circumstances, and to apply that definition
consistently across the entire national land area and over time. All land that is not coastal is inland.
A coastal wetland is a wetland (see Note 4) at or near the coast that is influenced by brackish/saline water and/or
astronomical tides. Coastal wetland may occur on both organic and mineral soils. Brackish/saline water is waterthat normally contains more than 0.5 or more parts per thousand (ppt) of dissolved salts. Every mineral soil
wetland that is neither a coastal wetland, a Flooded Land (see Note 6) nor a constructed wetland for waste water
treatment (see Note 7) is classified as inland wetland (cf. Chapter 5).
Note 9: Is this inland mineral soil?
Inland mineral soil is all mineral soil (see Note 3) that is not on coastal land (see Note 8).
Note 10: Is this organic soil wet?
Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement focuses on rewetted organic soils and peatlands. While Chapter 3 of the
Wetlands Supplement does not provide Tier 1 methods for management practices such as paludicultures, these

1.8

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

are discussed in the general discussion and in the higher tier sections of that chapter. Chapter 2 of the Wetlands
Supplement covers drained organic soils.

BOX 1.1
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS OF MANAGED ORGANIC AND WET SOILS

Lands with organic and wet soils are crucial in maintaining the Earth’s carbon balance as they
contain soils with high organic carbon content (Mitra et al., 2005; Joosten and Couwenberg, 2008;
Donato et al., 2011). Human activities on wetlands (e.g. drainage, agriculture, forestry, peat
extraction, aquaculture) and their effects (e.g. oxidation of soil organic matter) may significantly
affect the carbon and nitrogen balance and, thus, the greenhouse gas emissions and removals fromthese lands. The actual magnitude of human-induced emissions and removals from lands withorganic and wet soils depends on numerous variables, including soil type, type of land
use/conversion, wetland type, wetland size, management practice, vegetation composition, watertable depth, growing season length, salinity, precipitation, and temperature and is discussed ingreater detail within this Wetlands Supplement.
Draining inland organic soils lowers the water table and increases the oxygen content of the soil,
thus increasing CO2 emissions. Methane (CH4) emissions from drained inland organic soils are
generally negligible because the soil carbon is then preferentially oxidized to CO2. However,methanogenesis may take place in drainage ditches with a higher water table causing significant
emissions of CH4 to the atmosphere. Drained organic soils can also emit significant amounts ofN2O from nitrogen in the organic matter or nitrogen added by fertilization. Losses of particulate
and dissolved organic carbon in drainage waters from organic soil are also included in this
Wetlands Supplement (Chapter 2). Rewetting inland organic soils raises the water table again,
decreases CO2 emissions, rapidly decreases N2O emissions to almost zero, and increases CH4emissions compared to the drained state, as the oxygen level in the soil drops and methanogenesis
starts again. Rewetting can also restore wetlands to a state where net CO2 emissions are greatly
reduced or even become negative, causing the wetlands to function as a net remover of greenhousegases from the atmosphere (Chapter 3 of this supplement). CO2 emissions from coastal wetlands
can be significant, especially during the construction phase of aquaculture and salt
production/extraction. CH4 and N2O emissions from coastal wetlands are not significant except
when the wetlands are enriched with nutrients from agricultural run-off or sewage (Chapter 4 ofthis supplement). Restoring and creating wetlands on mineral soils, similar to rewetting organicsoils, creates anoxic conditions and increases CH4 emissions (Chapter 5 of this supplement).
Constructed and semi-natural wetlands used for wastewater treatment emit CH4 and N2O (Chapter
6 of this supplement).

1.3

APPLICATION OF THE MANAGED LANDPROXY TO WETLANDSThe Managed Land Proxy is used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Good Practice Guidance for Land Use,
Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF) as a pragmatic way to estimate anthropogenic emissions andremovals because detailed factoring out of natural emissions or removals is impractical at the country level.
According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Section 3.2, Chapter 3 in Volume 4), managed land is land where
human interventions and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological or social functions, andall emissions and removals from managed land are to be reported regardless of whether they are anthropogenic
or non-anthropogenic.
The Managed Land Proxy continues to be applied in the Wetlands Supplement. For coastal wetlands (Chapter 4of this supplement), this Wetlands Supplement provides guidance to estimate and report countries’ emissions andremovals from specific management activities such as aquaculture, salt production, and dredging. See Figure 1.3
below for some typical management practices on wetlands.

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

1.9Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1.3

Typical management practices on organic and wet soils(Figure by Riikka Turunen, Statistics Finland)

1.10

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.4

COHERENCE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH
2006 IPCC GUIDELINESThis section provides an overview of the links between the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the information presented
in this Wetlands Supplement. Section 1.4.1 presents an outline of the activities in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines thatare topics of additional guidance in this supplement. Section 1.4.2, highlights guidance in this supplement thatwas not previously included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and which may need to be considered by inventory
compilers.

1.4.1

Guidance on activities in the 2006 IPCC Guidelinesthat are also covered in the Wetlands Supplement

CARBON STOCK CHANGES AND CO 2 EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS IN
MINERAL AND ORGANIC SOILSThe 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide guidance for estimating carbon stock changes in mineral soils and drainedorganic soils within the land-use categories Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements and Other
Land. In Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, complete guidance is provided at
the Tier 1 level, with additional guidance for Tiers 2 and 3. For mineral soils, the default method is based onchanges in soil carbon stocks over a finite period of time. The change is computed based on the carbon stock
after the management change relative to the carbon stock in a reference condition. To estimate CO2 emissions
from drained organic soils an area-based annual emission factor differentiated by climate region and land use isapplied. The Wetlands Supplement provides additional guidance for both organic and mineral soils (subdivided
into wet and drained) and the information with respect to organic soils is expanded to include activities on wet(undrained, rewetted) organic soils. The information in Table 4.6 in Chapter 4 (Forest Land), Table 5.6 in
Chapter 5 (Cropland), and Table 6.3 in Chapter 6 (Grassland) in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, which
provides CO2 emission factors for drained organic soils, is updated in Table 2.1 in the Wetlands Supplement.

CH 4 EMISSIONS FROM MAN AGED SOILS
Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines assumes that CH4 emissions due to thedrainage of organic soils are negligible. The Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on estimating CH4emissions from drained organic soils and drainage ditches, including default emission factors in Tables 2.3 and2.4 in Chapter 2, respectively.
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines do not provide guidance on estimating CH4 emissions from mineral soils except forin relation to rice cultivation. The Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on this potential source in Table 5.4
in Chapter 5, based upon a review of the available scientific literature.

BIOMASS AND DEAD ORGANIC MATTER CARBON STOCK CHANGESGeneric methodologies for estimating above-ground and below-ground biomass carbon stock changes for allland-use categories are available in Section 2.3.1, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Guidance to estimate the dead organic matter pool is provided in Section 2.3.2, Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. More specific guidance by land-use categories can be found in Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines under the specific land-use category Chapters: 4 (Forest Land), 5 (Cropland), 6 (Grassland), 7(Wetlands), 8 (Settlements), and 9 (Other Land). The Wetlands Supplement provides additional guidance forthese carbon pools with respect to coastal wetlands in Section 4.2, Chapter 4.
The Wetlands Supplement does not provide additional guidance for these pools in Chapters 2, 3 and 5.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT N 2 O EMISSIONS FROM MAN AGED SOILS
Methodologies are provided in Section 11.2, Chapter 11 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for theestimation of both direct and indirect N2O emissions from managed soils. Generic equations are presented for
application to all land areas in aggregate or to specific land-use categories if the activity data are available. N2Oemissions from drained organic soils are estimated using an area-based annual emission factor differentiated byclimate region. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines caution the risk of double counting indirect N2O emissions that arereported elsewhere, e.g. under Agriculture (Chapter 11, Volume 4). This caution is reiterated here in relation to
the use of the additional information about N2O emissions.
Certain Tier 1 N2O emission factors provided in Tables 11.1 (direct emissions), Chapter 11 in Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines are updated in Table 2.5, Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement.

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

1.11

Chapter 1: Introduction

NON-CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM BIOMASS BURNING
Generic guidance for non-CO2 emissions from the burning of live and dead biomass on managed lands (Forest
Land, Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements and Other Land) is provided under Section 2.4, Chapter 2,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The existing guidance does not include the burning of peat and otherorganic soils, which is a large emission source for some countries. The Wetlands Supplement addresses CO2,CH4 and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions associated with the burning of organic soils.

RICE CULTIVATION
CH4 emissions from rice cultivation are included in Section 5.5, Chapter 5 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Soil carbon stock changes are accounted for using guidance as described above in Section 2.3.3,
Chapter 2 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement provides emission
factors for CO2, CH4 and N2O for rice cultivation on tropical drained organic soils.

WETLANDS
Methodologies are provided in the Wetlands chapter of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Chapter 7 in Volume 4) toestimate greenhouse gas emissions and removals from peatlands cleared and drained for extracting peat forenergy, horticulture and other uses (Section 7.2, Chapter 7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
Emissions from the use of horticultural peat are accounted for in Chapter 7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, while emissions from peat used for energy generation are estimated under the Energy Sector(Volume 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, guidance for peat extraction that does
not include drainage is not provided; this remains the case in the Wetlands Supplement. CO2 emissions from land
converted to flooded land such as reservoirs for production of hydroelectricity, irrigation and navigation areprovided in Section 7.2, Chapter 7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines; no further guidance is provided
for flooded lands in the Wetlands Supplement.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6 in Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (wastewater treatment and discharge) provides amethodology to estimate CH4 and N2O emissions from domestic and industrial wastewater treatment. CO2
emissions from wastewater are not considered in the IPCC Guidelines and should not be included in the national
total emissions because of their biogenic origin. The Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on CH4 and N2Oemissions associated with constructed and natural wetlands used for wastewater treatment.

1.4.2

Supplementary guidance in this report

Figure 1.3 shows schematic representations of typical generic management practices covered in each of thechapters of the Wetlands Supplement. The illustrations are not intended to be comprehensive; rather they are avisual guide to the landscapes and ecosystem types to be considered when using this supplement.

CHAPTER 2—DR AINED INLAND ORGAN IC SOILS
Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement provides an updated summary of emission factors and supplementary
guidance to Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for use in the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions andremovals from drained inland organic soils in all land-use categories: Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland,
Wetlands, Settlements and Other Land, (see Figure 1.3, Frame B in this chapter).
Additional Tier 1 guidance is provided to include the impact of drainage depth (water-table level) on emissionsof CO2, CH4 and N2O. New emission factors to estimate the release of CH4 from drainage ditches are also
provided.
Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement also identifies additional pathways by which carbon is lost from the soil,
namely: carbon loss as Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), as Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and as
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC). Guidance is provided to estimate these carbon losses separately from thedirect emissions. The loss of carbon from managed organic soils via DOC can be estimated using the Tier 1
methodology and the emission factors provided. Chapter 2 does not, however, provide Tier 1 methodologies foremissions associated with POC or DIC. However, Annex 2A.1, Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement sets out
the basis for the future methodological development for estimating CO2 emissions associated with waterborne
carbon loss from POC. Fire on drained organic soils causes not only on-site CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions
directly from burning, but also has a high potential to increase off-site carbon loss from waterborne organic
matter. Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement provides supplementary methodological guidance to estimate CO2,CH4 and CO emissions from fires on drained organic soils.

1.12

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

CHAPTER 3—REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
Chapter 3 in the Wetlands Supplement provides new guidance and emission factors for organic soils that havebeen drained for forestry, crop production, grazing, peat extraction or other purposes, and have subsequently
been rewetted to re-establish water saturation (see Figure 1.3, Frame C in this chapter). Rewetting may haveseveral objectives such as emission reduction, restoration for nature conservation or enabling other management
practices on saturated organic soils (paludicultures). While restoration may take place on undrained sites (e.g. therestoration of damaged vegetation cover), in the majority of cases restoration will include rewetting.
Chapter 3 provides Tier 1 guidance for assessing greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4 and N2O) emissions and removals
from rewetted organic soils by climate region and general guidance for utilizing higher tier methodologies.

CHAPTER 4—COASTAL WETLANDS
Chapter 4 in the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on estimating emissions and removals of greenhousegases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) associated with specific activities on managed coastal wetlands that may or may not
result in a land use change. Coastal wetlands are wetlands near the coast that are influenced by tidal and/or salineor brackish water. They may consist of mangrove, tidal marsh and seagrass vegetation and can have organic andmineral soils (see Figure 1.3, Frame A in this chapter). Management practices included in the guidance areaquaculture, salt production, extraction, drainage, rewetting, revegetation and creation, and forest management
practice in mangroves.

CHAPTER 5—INLAN D WETLAND MINERAL SOILS
Chapter 5 in the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance for managed inland wetland mineral soils, including
drained soils subject to rewetting and those under long term cultivation; and any other mineral soils that havebeen wetted by human intervention (e.g. inundation for the purpose of wetland creation) not included in Chapter
4 (coastal wetlands) or Chapter 6 (constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment) in the Wetlands Supplement(see Figure 1.3, Frame E in this chapter). The chapter provides methodologies for estimating greenhouse gas
emissions and removals, delivers updated default reference values for soil organic carbon stocks and offers adefault stock change factor for land-use for long term cultivation of croplands on inland wetland mineral soils. It
also gives guidance that is not contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, including a default stock change factor
for land use for rewetted croplands, and methodologies and emission factors for CH4 emissions for mineral soils
in any land-use category that have been rewetted or inundated for the purpose of wetland creation.
Chapter 5 in the Wetlands Supplement does not provide guidance on the application of the methodology given in
Chapter 11 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, for estimating N2O emissions associated with loss of soil
carbon as a result of changes in land use and/or management on inland wetland mineral soils based on estimatesof the loss of soil carbon in relation to updated and new defaults for SOCREF and SOC stock change factors.
However the chapter suggests a future development on the issue.

CHAPTER 6—CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATERTREATMENT
Chapter 6 in the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on estimating CH4 and N2O emissions fromconstructed wetlands and semi-natural treatment wetlands used for wastewater treatment (see Figure 1.3, Frame
D in this chapter). The guidance supplements Chapter 6 in Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in relation towastewater treatment. Default emission factors for different types of constructed wetlands (e.g. those withsurface, subsurface vertical or subsurface horizontal flows) are provided for the Tier 1 method. The types ofwastewater include domestic, industrial wastewater, collected runoff from agricultural land and leachate fromlandfill. To avoid double-counting, N2O emissions from wetlands managed for the filtration of non-point source
agricultural effluents, such as fertilizers, are included in indirect N2O emissions from managed soils (Chapter 11
in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) as part of the leaching/runoff and volatilization components ofindirect emissions, and are not considered within this supplement. No specific guidance for estimating potentialchanges in carbon pools associated with constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment is presented in Chapter 6in the Wetlands Supplement. Inventory compilers are encouraged to consider the guidance given in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines and in the Wetlands Supplement for possible approaches to reporting these carbon pools.

CHAPTER 7—CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND RE PORTING
Chapter 7 in the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on reporting and cross-cutting issues, including
uncertainties, key category analysis, completeness, time series consistency, quality control, and quality assurance.
The chapter summarises the good practice guidance on these cross-cutting issues found in Volume 1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines and addresses the cross-cutting issues specific to Chapters 2 to 6 of this Wetlands Supplement.
Worksheets that can be used for estimating emissions and removals for each category using the Tier 1 guidance,and revised background tables, are included in the annex of the chapter.

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

1.13

Chapter 1: Introduction

OVERVIEW OF GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS IN USING THE WETLANDSSUPPLEMENT AND THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES
It is good practice for countries to avoid double-counting emissions that have already been estimated elsewherein the greenhouse gas inventory. This is especially relevant because lands with organic soils or with wet soils canbe included under various land categories.
In particular, there is a risk that using the guidance provided in Chapters 4 and 6 of the Wetlands Supplement
could result in double-accounting of N2O emissions from wetlands that result from non-point source agricultural
effluents already addressed as indirect emissions from soil amendments (e.g. nitrogen fertilizers) within Chapter
11 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Double-counting can be avoided by considering only thosemanagement practices that result in direct N2O emissions.
Chapter 2 of this supplement provides guidance on waterborne carbon (DOC, DIC and PIC). However, if thecountry uses a methodology in which soil carbon stock changes are measured in situ (e.g. soil sampling
associated with forest inventories), it is possible that the waterborne carbon has already been included in acountry’s emission estimates.
Table 1.1 below provides guidance for inventory compilers on which chapters of this Wetlands Supplement are
relevant when considering methods for particular combinations of land use, soil type and soil condition. Where
no guidance is provided in this Wetlands Supplement, the table is blank. To estimate total greenhouse gas
emissions from organic and wet soils correctly, this Wetlands Supplement should be used together with the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

1.14

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

TABLE 1.1
LOOK -UP TABLE FOR WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT BY LAND-USE CATEGORIES, SOIL TYPE AND CONDITION AND INLAND OR COASTAL LOCATION
Forest land
Soil Type

Cropland

Grassland

Wetlands

Settlements

Other Land

Gas
InlandCoastalInlandCoastalInlandCoastalInlandCoastalInlandCoastalInlandCoastalCO2
Mineral Dry

Refer to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

CH4
N2 O

MineralMineral Drained

CO2

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

CH4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

4

N2 O

Mineral Wet

Organic Wet
Organic
Organic Drained

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

CO2

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

CH4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

N2 O

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

CO2

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

CH4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

N2 O

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

CO2

2

4

2

4

2

4

2

4

2

4

2

4

CH4

2

2

2

2

2

2

N2 O

2

2

2

2

2

2

Constructed and Natural Wetlands for
Wastewater treatment

The emission sources discussed in the Wetlands Supplement Chapter 6 provide guidance for the Waste Sector and do not impact on
estimates of emissions and removals within AFOLU. However, the area of constructed wetlands should be reported as Wetlands,
Settlements, or other land-use categories as appropriate, and the impact on biomass, soil carbon and other pools may be considered.
Care is required to avoid double-counting of emissions.

Emissions due to burning of organic soils

Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance for estimation of greenhouse gas emissions due to burning of organic soils.
This guidance can be applied across all land use categories as appropriate where burning is reported as occurring.

DOC, DIC, PIC, POC

Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement provides a discussion and guidance on carbon loss from organic soils through water pathways.
This information is relevant to all land-use categories.

Here ‘Mineral Drained’ refers to drained inland wetland mineral soils that are subject to rewetting and drained coastal wetland mineral soils.

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

1.15

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.5

RELEVANT DATABASES FOR WETLANDSAND ORGANIC SOILS

To generate estimates of emissions and removals from wetlands and organic soils, inventory compilers will needto gather activity data and secondary data, such as soil type (organic or mineral), climate zone, wetland type, size,
water table level, vegetation composition, and management practices. Guidance on data collection is provided in
Chapter 2 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to focus these efforts on collecting dataneeded to improve estimates of key categories, which will vary by country depending on which emission sources
are the largest, have the largest potential to change or have the greatest uncertainty. Chapters 2-6 of the Wetlands
Supplement provide specific guidance on assembling the necessary activity data for implementation of the Tier 1
methodology as well as general guidance on activity data that may be necessary for implementation of higher
tiers. Chapter 7 in the Wetlands Supplement provides general guidance for producing consistent times series
when activity data are not available for all years.
Inventory compilers may be able to collect activity data from in-country natural resource agencies or fromnational experts. To supplement in-country data, or if in-country data are not readily available, inventory
compilers may use internationally available data. Table 1.2 below presents a list of online resources that may
prove useful to inventory compilers in obtaining activity data for estimating greenhouse gas emissions andremovals from the wetlands and organic soils included in this Wetlands Supplement. The most notable wetlands
dataset is the Ramsar database of the Ramsar Convention. For most ‘wetlands of international importance,’ theRamsar database provides relevant characteristics, including: wetland type, area, elevation, persistence of water,
salinity, soil type, land use inside and adjacent to the wetland, and vegetation types. In addition, the FAO
provides a variety of metadata sets, including forestry, agriculture, and carbon emissions on a country scale. The
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in collaboration with the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre (WCMC), has a collection of wetland atlases and offers open source geospatial data. Wetlands
International is the only global non-governmental organisation (NGO) that focuses on wetland best practices,
restoration and conservation. It has regional offices in all continents and has compiled a variety of data on
wetlands and organic soils.
TABLE 1.2
GLOBAL AND REGIONAL ON-LINE RESOURCES PROVIDING METADATA SETS FOR DEVELOPING AN INVENTORY OF
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS FROM WETLANDS AND ORGANIC SOILS

Online Resources
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
http://www.ramsar.org

FAOSTAT
http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html

United Nations Environment Programme and Word
Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/datasets-tools-reports_15.html
GeoNetwork Open Source
Geographic data sharing for everyone
http://geonetwork.grid.unep.ch/geonetwork/srv/en/
main.home
Wetlands International
http://www.wetlands.org/

1.16

Description
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (theRamsar Convention) is an intergovernmental treaty that provides theframework for national action and international cooperation for theconservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.
In 2013, this convention consisted of 167 Contracting Parties, 2,122
wetlands of International Importance, and 205,366,160 hectares of
wetlands designated as Ramsar sites.
A large time series and cross section of data relating to hunger,
commodity prices, foods, forestry, agriculture, and emissions for 245
countries and territories and 35 regional areas, from 1961 to the mostrecent year
This site provides a set of metadata related to conservation in
general. It also contains several atlases of wetlands, e.g. the World
Mangrove Atlas and the World Atlas of Seagrass.
This site is managed by UNEP. It contains geographic metadata thatcan be freely requested.

Wetlands International is the only global not-for-profit organisation
dedicated to the conservation and restoration of wetlands. This NGO
also has several regional metadatasets, e.g. South Asia Wetlands,
Australia Wetlands, etc.

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

References
Donato, D.C., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M. & Kanninen, M. (2011) Mangroves
among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geosciences 4: 293-297.
http://mangroveactionproject.org/files/resources/Donato.etal_2011_NatureGeo_MangroveCarbonStorage.pdf
IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K.
(eds). Published: IGES, Japan.
IPCC (2011) IPCC Expert Meeting on HWP, Wetlands and Soil N2O. Geneva, Switzerland: eds: Eggleston, H.S.,
Srivastava, N., Tanabe, K, Baasansuren, J. and Fukuda, M. IGES, Japan 2011.
Joosten, H. & Clarke, D. (2002) Wise use of mires and peatlands – Background and principles including aframework for decision-making. International Mire Conservation Group / International Peat Society, 304 p.
http://www.peatsociety.org/sites/default/files/files/WUMP_Wise_Use_of_Mires_and_Peatlands_book.pdf
Joosten, H. & Couwenberg, J. (2008) Peatlands and carbon. In: Parish, F., Sirin, A., Charman, D., Joosten, H.,
Minaeva, T. and Silvius, M. (eds). Assessment on peatlands, biodiversity and climate change. Global
Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International Wageningen, pp. 99-117.
Mitra, S., Wassmann, R. & Vlek, L.G. (2005) An appraisal of global wetland area and its organic carbon stock.
Current Science 88: 25–35.
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The Convention on Wetlands text, as amended in 1982 and 1987.
http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-texts-convention-on/main/ramsar/1-3138%5E20671_4000_0__

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

1.17

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

CHAPTER 2

DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS

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

2.1Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

2.2

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Contents
2

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

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

2.2

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

2.2.1

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

2.2.1.1

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

2.2.1.2

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

2.2.2

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

2.2.2.1

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

2.2.2.2

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

2.2.2.3

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

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

2.3.1

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

2.3.1.1

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

2.3.1.2

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

2.3.2

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

2.3.2.1

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

2.3.2.2

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

2.3.2.3

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

2.4

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

2.4.1

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

2.4.2

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

2.4.3

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

2.4.4

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

Annex 2A.1

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

Annex 2A.2

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

Annex 2A.3

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

Annex 2A.4

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

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

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

2.3

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Equations
Equation 2.1

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

Equation 2.2

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

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

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

Equation 2.5

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

Equation 2.6

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

Equation 2.7

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

Equation 2.8

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

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

FiguresFigure 2.1

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

Figure 2.2

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

Tables

2.4

Table 2.1

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

Table 2.2

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

Table 2.3

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

Table 2.4

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

Table 2.5

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

Table 2.6

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

Table 2.7

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

Table 2A.1

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

Table 2A.2

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

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Table 2A.3

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

Boxes

Box 2.1

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

2.5Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

2 DRAINED INLAND ORGANIC SOILS
2.1

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.6

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Figure 2.1

Summary of fluxes from drained organic soils

Fire
CO , CH , COHeterotrophic
soil respiration

2

4

CH4 and N2O

Net peatdecomposition loss

CO and CH
2

4

Litterfall

Root mortality

2.2

Soluble and physical removal(DIC, DOC and POC)

LAND REMAINING IN A LAND-USE
CATEGORY

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

2.2.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils

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

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

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

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

2.7

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

AB= above-ground biomassBB= below-ground biomass

DW= dead woodLI

= litterSO= soils

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

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

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

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

2.2.1.1

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

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

2.8

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

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

2.9Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

2.10

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

Climate /vegetation
zone
Nutrient-poor

Nutrient-poor

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

0.25

95% Confidence
intervalb

-0.11

-0.23

0.84

0.73

No. of sites

Citations/comments

63

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

59

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

Forest Land, drainedd
Nutrient-rich

Forest Land, drained

Forest Land and cleared Forest Land (shrublande), drained

Boreal

0.93

0.54

1.3

62

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

Temperate

2.6

2.0

3.3

8

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

21

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

Tropical

5.3

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

-0.7

9.5

2.11

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Climate /vegetation
zone

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

Plantations, drained, unknown or long rotationsf

Tropical15

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

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

Cropland, drained

2.12

TropicalTropicalTropicalBoreal andTemperate

20

11

1.5

7.9

95% Confidence
intervalb

No. of sites

Citations/comments

10

n.a.

Average of emission factors for
acacia and oil palm

13

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

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

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

16

5.6

-2.3

6.5

21

24

17

5.4

9.4

39

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Cropland and fallow, drained

Cropland, drained, paddy rice

Climate /vegetationzone

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

14

9.4

95% Confidence
intervalb

6.6

-0.2

26

20

No. of sites

Citations/comments

10

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

6

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

Grassland, drained

Boreal

5.7

2.9

8.6

8

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

Grassland, drained, nutrient-poor

Temperate

5.3

3.7

6.9

7

Drösler et al., 2013; Kuntze, 1992

Grassland, deep-drained, nutrient-richTemperate

6.1

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

5.0

7.3

39

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

2.13

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Land-use category

Climate /vegetation
zone

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

Grassland, shallow-drained, nutrient-richTemperate

Grassland, drained

Tropical

95% Confidence
intervalb

No. of sites

Citations/comments

3.6

1.8

5.4

13

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

9.6

4.5

17

n.a.

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

Peatland Managed for Extractioni

Boreal andTemperate

2.8

1.1

4.2

20

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

Peatland Managed for Extractioni

Tropical

2.0

0.06

7.0

n.a.

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

Settlements

All climate
zones

Other LandAll climate
zones

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

Mean

b

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

c

Forest broader than FAO definitiond

Forest according to FAO definitione

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

f

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

2.14

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

g

Number derived solely from Acacia plantation datah

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

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

2.15

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.16

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.17

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

2.2.1.2

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

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

2.18

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

CO 2 C DOC    A  EFDOC 
c ,n

c ,n

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

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

EFDOC can be calculated from Equation 2.5:

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

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

2.19

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

DOCFLUX_NATURAL(t C ha-1yr-1)

Boreal0.08 (0.06–0.11)

Temperate

0.21 (0.17–0.26)

Tropical

0.57 (0.49–0.64)

DOCDRAINAGEa

FracDOC-CO2

0.60(0.43–0.78)

0.9(± 0.1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.20

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA
Tier 1
Activity data consist of areas of land remaining in a land-use category on drained organic soils summarised byorganic soil type, climate zones and land-use type (specifically occurrence of drainage). Total areas should bedetermined according to the Approaches laid out in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andshould be consistent with those reported under other sections of the inventory. They also need to be consistent
with activity data for on-site CO2 emissions. For boreal and temperate raised bogs and fens, additional data on
annual mean precipitation may be used to refine emission estimates, as shown in Table 2.2.

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

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

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

2.2.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained
inland organic soils

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

2.2.2.1

CH 4 EMISSIONS AND REMOVA LS FROM DRAINED INLANDORGANIC SOILS

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

2.21

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

c ,n , p

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.23

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.24

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

ForestLand,drainedNutrientpoor

Climate /vegetation
zones

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

7.0

95% confidence intervalb(centred on mean)

2.9

11

No. ofsites

Citations/comments

47

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

Boreal

2.0

-1.6

5.5

83

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

Forest Land, drained

Temperate

2.5

-0.60

5.7

13

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

Forest Land andcleared Forest Land(shrublandc), drained

Tropical/
Subtropical

4.9

2.3

7.5

7

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

Forest plantations,drainedd

Tropical/
Subtropical

2.7

-0.9

6.3

5

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

Plantation: oil palm

Tropical/
Subtropical

0

0

0

1

Melling et al., 2005b

Tropical/
Subtropical

26.2

7.2

45.3

6

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

Nutrientrich

Plantation: sago palm

Cropland, drained

CroplandBoreal andTemperate

0

-2.8

2.8

38

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

Tropical/
Subtropical

7.0

0.3

13.7

5

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

2.25

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Climate /vegetation
zones

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

95% confidence intervalb(centred on mean)

Ricee

Tropical/
Subtropical

143.5

63.2

223.7

6

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

Grassland, drained

Boreal

1.4

-1.6

4.5

12

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

Grassland, drained,
nutrient-poor

Temperate

1.8

0.72

2.9

9

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

No. of sites

Citations/comments

Grassland, deepdrained, nutrient-richTemperate

16

2.4

29

44

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

Grassland, shallowdrained, nutrient-richTemperate

39

-2.9

81

16

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

Tropical/
Subtropical

7.0

0.3

13.7

5

Same emission factor as tropical Cropland

Peat Extraction

Boreal andTemperate

6.1

1.6

11

15

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

Settlements

All climate
zones

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

Other LandAll climate
zones

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

Grassland

2.26

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

a

Mean

b

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

c

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

d

Number derived solely from acacia plantation data.

e

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

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

2.27

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

2.28

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

2.29

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

TABLE 2.4
DEFAULT CH4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR DRAINAGE DITCHES
Climatezone

Land use

DrainedForestLand
DrainedWetlandsb

Boreal /Temperate

Shallowdrained
Grassland

Deepdrained
Grassland
Croplandc

Peat
Extraction

Tropicala

All landuses
involvingdrainage

EFCH4_ditch(kg CH4 ha-1
yr-1)

217

527

1165

542

2259

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

41–393285–769

335–1995

102–981599–3919d

No.
of
sites

11

5

6

6

2

Fracditch(indicativevaluese)Citations0.025

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

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

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

0.05

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

0.02

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

Values represent 95% confidence intervals unless otherwise statedb

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

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

d

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

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

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

2.30

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.2.2.2

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

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

EQUATION 2.7
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM MANAGED/DRAINED ORGANIC SOILS



 



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





 



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

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

2.31

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

FOS= Annual area of managed/drained organic soils, ha (note: the subscripts CG, F, Temp, Trop, NR
and NP refer to Cropland and Grassland, Forest Land, Temperate, Tropical, Nutrient-Rich andNutrient-Poor, respectively)

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

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

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

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

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

2.32

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Climate /vegetation
zone

Emission factor-1

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

Citations/comments

Nutrientpoor

Boreal

0.22

0.15

0.28

43

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

Nutrientrich

Boreal

3.2

1.9

4.5

75

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

Forest Land, drained

Temperate

2.8

-0.57

6.1

13

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

Forest Land and cleared
Forest Land(shrublandb), drained

Tropical/
Subtropical

2.4

1.3

3.5

10

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

Plantation: oil palm

Tropical/
Subtropical

1.2

n.a.

n.a.

1

Melling et al., 2007b

Plantation: sago palm

Tropical/
Subtropical

3.3

n.a.

n.a.

1

Melling et al., 2007b

Boreal andTemperate

13

8.2

18

36

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

Tropical/
Subtropical

5.0

2.3

7.7

8

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

Rice

Tropical/
Subtropical

0.4

-0.1

0.8

6

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

Grassland, drained

Boreal

9.5

4.6

14

16

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

Grassland, drained,
nutrient-poor

Temperate

4.3

1.9

6.8

7

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

ForestLand,drained

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

2.33

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Climate /vegetation
zone

Emission factor-1

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

Citations/comments

Grassland, deepdrained, nutrient-richTemperate

8.2

4.9

11

47

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

Grassland, shallowdrained, nutrient-richTemperate

1.6

0.56

2.7

13

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

Grassland

Tropical/
Subtropical

5.0

2.3

7.7

8

The emission factor for tropical Cropland can be used

Peatland Managed forExtraction

Boreal andTemperate

0.30

-0.03

0.64

4

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

Peatlands Managed forExtraction

Tropical/
Subtropical

3.6

Settlements

All climate
zones

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

Other Lands

All climate
zones

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

0.2–5.0

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

a

Mean

b

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

2.34

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Plantations can be defined as Forest Land or Cropland. The attribution to Cropland made in this table is notbinding. It is good practice to report plantations in the appropriate national land-use category according tonational land-use definitions.
In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, emission factors were provided for EF2CG, Trop and EF2F, Trop, based on the
expectation that net mineralisation was twice as high in tropical soils as in temperate soils. Research in tropicalsoils suggests that net mineralisation is not a useful predictor of N2O flux and that net nitrification or the nitrate
portion of the inorganic-N pool are better predictors (Verchot et al., 1999, 2006; Ishizuka et al., 2005). It also
needs to be highlighted that all measurements of N2O emissions on tropical organic soils to date are fromSoutheast Asia and from a very limited number of studies. Nonetheless these emission factors are to be used for
all tropical ecosystems until better data become available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.35

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.2.2.3

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

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

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

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

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

2.36

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

in Table 2.6; units differ by gas species)

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

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

2.37

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Figure 2.2

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

Start

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

Yes

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

No

Are country-specific activity data and emission factors
available ?

Yes

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

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

No

Are aggregate data on burning of organicsoils available ?

No

Yes

Yes
Collect data for Tier 3 or Tier 2 methods.

Gather data on burning .

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

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

2.38

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.39

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Sub-category

Boreal/temperate

Wildfire (undrained
peat)

66

Wildfire(drained peat)

336

4a

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

No literature foundWildfire (undrained
peat)

-

-

No literature foundWildfire(drained peat)

353

170

536

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

Prescribed fire(agricultural land
management)b

155

82

228

Saharjo & Munoz, 2005; Saharjo &Nurhayati, 2005

TropicalaStandard errorb

The consumption value excludes crop residues.

Mean(t d.m. ha-1)

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

Citations46

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

86

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

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

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

2.40

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

CO2-C

CO

CH4

Citations

Boreal/temperate

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

464

210

21

Christian et al., 2003

Tropical
1.

2.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

2.41

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

BOX 2.1
RECENT ADVANCES IN SATELLITE-DERIVED FIRE PRODUCTS

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

2.42

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

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

2.43

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

2.3

LAND CONVERTED TO A NEW LAND-USE
CATEGORY

2.3.1

CO2 emissions and removals from drained inland
organic soils

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

2.3.1.1

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

1

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

2.44

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3.1.2

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

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

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

2.45

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

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

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

2.3.2

Non-CO2 emissions and removals from drained
inland organic soils

2.3.2.1

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

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

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

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

2

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

2.46

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

2.3.2.2

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

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

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

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

2.3.2.3

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

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

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

2.4

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

2.4.1

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

2.4.2

Time series consistency

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

2.47

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.4.3

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

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

2.4.4

Reporting and documentation

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

2.48

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Annex 2A.1

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

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

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

2.

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

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

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

2.49

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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



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

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

2.50

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils



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

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

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



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

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

2.51

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Annex 2A.2

Derivation of ditch CH4 emission factors

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

2.52

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Fracditch

Schrier-Uijl et al., 2010b, 2011

0.435

0.21

The
Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.592

0.25

Deep-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Best & Jacobs, 1997

0.072

0.06

Deep-drained Grassland

UK

McNamara, 2013

0.580

0.04

Dee-drained Grassland

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.450

0.04

Deep-drained Grassland

RussiaChistotin et al., 2006

1.989

0.04

Deep-drained Grassland

USA

Teh et al., 2011

1.704

0.05

Shallow-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Vermaat et al., 2011

0.592

0.25

Shallow-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Best & Jacobs, 1997

0.345

0.06

Shallow-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

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

0.085

0.25

Shallow-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Hendriks et al., 2007, 2010

0.375

0.10

Drained treed bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.114

0.03

Drained treed fen

Finland

Minkkinen & Laine, 2006

0.783

0.03

Drained afforested fen

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.139

0.02

Drained afforested fen

RussiaGlagolev et al., 2008

0.088

0.04

Drained treed bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.028

0.03

Drained afforested bog

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.301

0.01

Drained afforested bog

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

0.011

0.01

Drained afforested bog

CanadaRoulet & Moore, 1995

0.192

0.03

Drained afforested bog

Swedenvon Arnold et al., 2005b

0.013

0.02

Drained afforested bog

Finland

Minkkinen & Laine, 2006

0.053

0.03

Peat extraction site

FinlandNykänen et al., 1995

0.133

0.02

Peat extraction site

SwedenSundh et al., 2000

0.356

0.03

Peat extraction site

RussiaSirin et al., 2012

1.022

0.04

Peat extraction site

RussiaChistotin et al., 2006

0.797

0.04

Peat extraction site
(inactive)

FinlandHyvönen et al., 2013

0.011

0.06

Peat extraction (inactive)

CanadaWaddington & Day, 2007

0.110

0.05

Drained blanket bog

UK

Cooper & Evans, 2013

0.070

0.03

Drained tropical peat(abandoned)Indonesia

Jauhiainen & Silvennoinen, 2012

0.449

0.02

Drained tropical peat
(pulpwood plantation)

Indonesia

Jauhiainen & Silvennoinen, 2012

2.939

0.02

Organic soil/land-use
typeCountry

Deep-drained Grassland

The
Netherlands

Deep-drained Grassland

Reference

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

2.53

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Annex 2A.3

Derivation of DOC emission factors

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

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

2.54

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

Climate zone
BorealCountry
Finland

Juutinen et al., 2013

0.037

BorealCanadaMoore et al., 2003

0.043

BorealCanadaKoprivnjak & Moore, 1992

0.052

BorealCanadaMoore et al., 2003

0.060

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al., 2006

0.060

BorealFinland

Jager et al., 2009

0.078

BorealSwedenÅgren et al., 2008

0.099

BorealFinland

Rantakari et al., 2010

0.120

BorealSwedenNilsson et al., 2008

0.130

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al., 2006

0.159

Temperate

CanadaStrack et al., 2008

0.053

Temperate

CanadaRoulet et al., 2007

0.164

Temperate

USA

Urban et al., 1989

0.212

Temperate

USA

Kolka et al., 1999

0.235

Temperate

CanadaMoore et al., 2003

0.290

Temperate

CanadaClair et al., 2002

0.360

Temperate

UK

Dawson et al., 2004

0.194

Temperate

UK

Dinsmore et al., 2010

0.260

Temperate

UK

Billett et al., 2010

0.234

Temperate

UK

Billett et al., 2010

0.276

Temperate

Ireland

Koehler et al., 2009, 2011

0.140

Temperate

Australia

di Folco & Kirkpatrick, 2011

0.134

TropicalIndonesia

Baum et al., 2007

0.470

TropicalIndonesia

Alkhatib et al., 2007

0.549

TropicalMalaysia

Yule & Gomez, 2009; Zulkifli, 2002

0.632

TropicalIndonesia

Moore et al., 2013

0.625

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

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

2.55

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.56

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

DOC
Land use

Country

DrainedDOCDRAINAGE
(%)

Study
Undrained

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

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

CanadaGlatzel et al., 2003

60

110

83%

CanadaStrack et al., 2008

16

24.29

53%

Boreal fen

Drainage

USA

Kane et al., 2010

56

71.7

29%

Boreal fen

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

Finland

Heikkinen, 1990

17

20

15%

PolandBanaś & Gos, 2004

48

71

49%

New Zealand

108

54%

Czech Republic

Moore & Clarkson,
2007
Urbanová et al., 201170

Temperate bog

Drainage(peat extraction)
Drainage

36

53.9

51%

Temperate fen

Drainage

Czech Republic

Urbanová et al., 2011

17

37.5

118%

Temperate
blanket bog

Drainage

UK

Wallage et al., 2006

28

42.9

55%

Tropical peat

Drainage(sago palm)
Drainage(agriculture)

Temperate bog
Temperate bog

Tropical peat

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

Inubushi et al., 1998

33

63

91%

Indonesia

Moore et al., 2013

62

97

54%

Estimat io n o f Frac D O C - C O 2
The significance of DOC export in terms of greenhouse gas estimation depends on its ultimate fate, i.e. whether
it is returned to the atmosphere as CO2 (or even CH4) or deposited in stable forms such as lake or marine
sediments. The latter simply represents a translocation of carbon between stable stores, and should therefore not
be included in the estimation. The parameter FracDOC-CO2 sets the proportion of DOC exported from organic soils
that is ultimately converted to CO2. While uncertainty remains in the estimation of this parameter, there is
growing evidence that fluvial systems process a high proportion of incoming terrestrial carbon, and that much ofthis is converted to CO2 (e.g. Algesten et al., 2003; Cole et al., 2007; Wickland et al., 2007; Battin et al., 2009).
Both Algesten et al. (2003) and Jonsson et al. (2007) estimated that, within large, lake-influenced catchments in
Sweden, around 50% of all terrestrially derived organic carbon was mineralised. Wickland et al. (2007)
measured 6–15% conversion of pore-water DOC to CO2, and 10–90% conversion of the vegetation-derived
DOC, during one-month dark incubations, while Raymond and Bauer (2001) measured 63% biodegradation ofriverine DOC during a one-year dark incubation. Multiple studies showing a strong correlation between lake
DOC concentration and dissolved CO2 concentrations (e.g. Sobek et al., 2003; Stutter et al., 2011 and references
therein) all suggest widespread conversion of DOC to CO2 in lakes. Dawson et al. (2001) estimated that 12–18%
of DOC was removed within a 2 km stream reach, Experiments undertaken on light-exposed samples of peatderived waters (Köhler et al., 2002; Jones et al., 2013; Worrall et al., 2013) consistently show rapid andextensive DOC loss, with averages ranging from 33–75% over periods of up to 10 days. Both Köhler et al. (2002)
and Jones et al. (2013) found that peat-derived DOC was more susceptible to photodegradation than DOC fromother water sources, and Köhler et al. (2002) found that most of the DOC lost was converted to CO2 (e.g. Opsahl& Benner, 1998). Jones et al. (2013) observed that since much of this degradation occurs within the first 48
hours, this would be sufficient to convert most peat-derived DOC to CO2 before it enters the sea. Overall,Algesten et al. (2003) estimated that 90% of the DOC removal in the large catchments studied was due tomineralisation to CO2, with only 10% buried in lake sediments. Terrestrially-derived DOC that does reach thesea largely appears to be photochemically or microbially processed in the marine system, mostly within years to
decades (Opsahl & Benner, 1997; Bianchi, 2011).
In summary, there is strong evidence that a high proportion of peat-derived DOC is mineralised rapidly inheadwaters, that this processing continues at a relatively high rate through rivers and lakes, and that any peatderived DOC that does reach the sea will nevertheless largely be mineralised in the marine ecosystem. Theseobservations support the use of a high value for FracDOC-CO2. Taking the ratio of mineralisation to sediment burial
obtained by Algesten et al. (2003), and assuming that a similar ratio applies to any DOC exported to the ocean,would suggest that around 90% of peat-derived DOC is eventually converted to CO2. On this basis, a Tier 1

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

2.57

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.58

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Annex 2A.4

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

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

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

2.59

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.60

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

Part iculate Org anic C arbo nParticulate organic carbon (POC) is generally a negligible component of the carbon balance of natural peatlands
and organic soils. However, disturbance of organic soils through land-use change, including drainage (which can
include the dredging of peat from drains and canals), burning (managed burning and wildfire), conversion toarable land and peat extraction, can all result in high rates of POC loss via waterborne erosion and also winderosion. In actively eroding blanket bogs, POC losses in excess of 100 g C m -2 yr-1 may represent the dominant
form of soil carbon loss (e.g. Pawson et al., 2008; Worrall et al., 2011).
Available data suggest that the key determinant of POC loss is the proportion of the total area occupied byexposed (bare) peat, according to Equation 2A.1. The bare peat area, PEAT BARE, would include unvegetateddrainage ditches, erosion gullies, peat extraction surfaces and areas of the soil surface exposed by burning,
intensive grazing or the deposition of peat dredged from drainage channels onto the land surface. For Cropland,some estimation of the annual average proportion of the organic soil surface exposed over the full crop rotation
would be required. Data from eroding UK blanket bogs suggest that waterborne POC exports can be reasonably
well predicted based on a POC flux from bare peat surfaces (POCFLUX_BAREPEAT) of around 4 t C ha-1yr-1(Goulsbra et al., 2013). Further work is required to establish whether different values would be applicable toother soil types, land-use types and climate regimes (in particular whether it is dependent on precipitation
amount or intensity). At present, there are few data on which to base an estimate of airborne POC loss, andfurther work is required to quantify this loss term, which may be large in peat extraction and Cropland sites.
Finally, there is limited information currently available from which to derive a value for the proportion of POC
ultimately converted to CO2 (FracPOC-CO2). Unlike DOC, a substantial proportion of POC is mobilised fromorganic soils through physical erosion processes, and its reactivity in fluvial systems is uncertain. Some studies
have shown fairly high rates of POC turnover in river and estuarine systems (e.g. Sinsabaugh & Findlay, 1995),
and POC redeposited on floodplains may be subject to moderate rates of oxidation (Goulsbra et al., 2013).
However, it is likely that a significant proportion of waterborne POC loss from organic soils may simply betransferred to lake or coastal sediments, redeposited on floodplains or transported to other land areas via aeoliantransport, rather than converted to CO2. Further research is therefore needed to establish realistic ranges for
FracPOC-CO2 in different systems.
EQUATION 2A.1
CALCULATION OF POC EXPORT FROM DRAINED ORGANIC SOILSEFPOC  POCFLUX _ BAREPEAT  PEAT BARE  FracPOC CO2
Where:EFPOC= POC emission factor, t C ha-1yr-1

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

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

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

2.61

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.62

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

2.63

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.64

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

2.65

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.66

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

2.67

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Hergoualc’h, K. & Verchot, L.V. (2011) Stocks and fluxes of carbon associated with land-use change inSoutheast Asian tropical peatlands: a review. Global Biochemical Cycles 25: GB2001. doi:2010.1029/2009GB003718.
Hergoualc’h, K. & Verchot, L.V. (2012) Changes in soil CH4 fluxes from the conversion of tropical peat swamp
forests: a meta-analysis. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9: 93–101.
Hergoualc’h, K. & Verchot, L.V. (2013) Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use and land-use change inSoutheast Asian peatlands. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change doi: 10.1007/s11027013-9511-x.
Hertel, D., Harteveld, M.A. & Leuschner, C. (2009) Conversion of a tropical forest into agroforest alters the fineroot-related carbon flux to the soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41: 481–490.
Hirano, T., Jauhiainen, J., Inoue, T. & Takahashi, H. (2009) Controls on the carbon balance of tropical peatlands.
Ecosystems 12: 873–887.
Hirano, T., Segah, H., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Takahashi, H. & Osaki, M. (2012) Effects of disturbances on the
carbon balance of tropical peat swamp forests. Global Change Biology 18: 3410–3422.
Holden, J., Chapman, P.J., Palmer, S.M., Kay, P. & Grayson, R. (2012) The impacts of prescribed moorland
burning on water colour and dissolved organic carbon: a critical synthesis. Journal of Environmental
Management 101: 92–103.
Honrath, R.E., Owen, R.C., Val Martin, M., Reid, J.S., Lapina, K., Fialho, P., Dziobak, M.P., Kleissl, J. &Westphal, D.L. (2004) Regional and hemispheric impacts of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions
on summertime CO and O3 in the North Atlantic lower free troposphere. Journal of Geophysical Research
109: D24310. doi: 24310.21029/22004JD005147.
Hooijer, A., Page, S., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W.A., Lu, X.X., Idris, A. & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon
loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9: 1053–1071.
Hope, D., Palmer, S.M., Billett, M.F. & Dawson, J.J.C. (2001) Carbon dioxide and methane evasion from atemperate Peatland stream. Limnology and Oceanography 46: 847–857.
Höper, H. (2002) Carbon and nitrogen mineralization rates in German agriculturally used fenlands. In: Wetlandsin Central Europe: Soil Organisms, Soil Ecological Processes, and Trace Gas Emissions, ed. G. Broll, W.
Merbach & E.-M. Pfeiffer, pp. 149–164. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hoscilo, A., Tansey, K.J. & Page, S.E. (2013) Post-fire vegetation response as a proxy to quantify the magnitudeof burn severity in tropical peatland. International Journal of Remote Sensing 34: 412–433.
Hyvönen, N.P., Huttunen, J.T., Shurpali, N.J., Lind, S.E., Marushchak, M.E., Heitto, L. & Martikainen, P.J.
(2013) The role of drainage ditches in greenhouse gas emissions and surface leaching losses from a cutaway
peatland cultivated with a perennial bioenergy crop. Boreal Environment Research 18: 109–126.
Hyvönen, N.P., Huttunen, J.T., Shurpali, N.J., Tavi, N.M., Repo, M.E. & Martikainen, P.J. (2009) Fluxes ofnitrous oxide and methane on an abandoned peat extraction site: effect of reed canary grass cultivation.
Bioresource Technology 100: 4723–4730.
Immirzi, C.P., Maltby, E. & Clymo, R.S. (1992) The global status of peatlands and their role in carbon cycling.
Wetland Ecosystems Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Exeter, UK.
Inubushi, K., Furukawa, Y., Hadi, A., Purnomo, E. & Tsuruta, H. (2003) Seasonal changes of CO2, CH4 andN2O fluxes in relation to land-use change in tropical peatlands located in coastal area of South Kalimantan.
Chemosphere 52: 603–608.
Inubushi, K., Hadi, A., Okazaki, M. & Yonebayashi, K. (1998) Effect of converting wetland forest to sago palm
plantations on methane gas flux and organic carbon dynamics in tropical peat soil. Hydrological Processes
12: 2073–2080.
IPCC (2010) Use of models and facility-level data in greenhouse gas inventories. In: Report of IPCC Expert
Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements in Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Sydney, Australia, 9–11
August, ed. H.S. Eggleston, N. Srivastava, K. Tanabe, J. Baasansuren & M. Fukuda. IGES, Kanagawa, Japan.
Ishida, T., Suzuki, S., Nagano, T., Osawa, K., Yoshino, K., Fukumura, K. & Nuyim, T. (2001) CO2 emission ratefrom a primary peat swamp forest ecosystem in Thailand. Environmental Control in Biology 39: 305–312.
Ishizuka, S., Iswandi, A., Nakajima, Y., Yonemura, S., Sudo, S., Tsuruta, H. & Murdiyarso, D. (2005) The
variation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils of various land-use/cover types in Jambi province,
Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71: 17–32.

2.68

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Itkonen, A. & Jantunen, M.J. (1986) Emissions and particle-size distribution of some metallic elements of twopeat/oil-fired boilers. Environmental Science and Technology 20: 335–341.
Jaakkola, A. (1985) Lannoite ja kasviainestypen hyväksikäyttö ja häviö. Biologisen typensidonnan ja
ravinnetypen hyväksikäytön projekti. Suomen itsenäisyyden juhlavuoden 1967 rahasto. Julkaisu 13. Helsinki,
Finland. 107 pp (in Finnish).
Jacobs, C.M.J., Moors, E.J. & van der Bolt, F.J.E. (2003) Invloed van waterbeheer op gekoppelde
broeikasgasemissies in het veenweidegebied by ROC Zegveld. Alterra-rapport 840. Alterra, Wageningen,
The Netherlands (in Dutch).
Jager, D.F., Wilmking, M. & Kukkonen, J.V.K. (2009) The influence of summer seasonal extremes on dissolved
organic carbon export from a boreal peatland catchment: evidence from one dry and one wet growing season.
Science of the Total Environment 407: 1373–1382.
Jauhiainen, J. & Silvennoinen, H. (2012) Diffusion GHG fluxes at tropical peatland drainage canal water
surfaces. Suo 63: 93–105.
Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A. & Page, S.E. (2012a) Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation on
peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9: 617–630.
Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A. & Page, S.E. (2012c) Greenhouse gas emissions from a plantation on thick tropicalpeat. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Peat Congress. Stockholm, Sweden, 3–8 June.
Jauhiainen, J., Limin, S., Silvennoinen, H. & Vasander, H. (2008) Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in drained
tropical peat before and after hydrological restoration. Ecology 89: 3503–3514.
Jauhiainen, J., Silvennoinen, H., Hämäläinen, R., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Raison, R.J. & Vasander, H. (2012b)
Nitrous oxide fluxes from tropical peat with different disturbance history and management. Biogeosciences 9:1337–1350.Johnson, E.A. (1992) Fire and Vegetation Dynamics: Studies from the North American Boreal
Forest. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, T., Jones, D. & Evans, C. (2013) Conversion of waterborne DOC to CO2 – results of laboratory
experiments. In: Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters. Report to Defra
under project SP1205: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with non-gaseous losses of carbon frompeatlands – fate of particulate and dissolved carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food andRural Affairs, UK.
Jonsson, A., Algesten, G., Bergström, A.-K., Bishop, K., Sobek, S., Tranvik, L.J. & Jansson, M. (2007)
Integrating aquatic carbon fluxes in a boreal catchment carbon budget. Journal of Hydrology 334: 141–150.
Juutinen, S., Väliranta, M., Kuutti, V., Laine, A.M., Virtanen, T., Seppä, H., Weckström, J. & Tuittila, E.-S.
(2013) Short-term and long-term carbon dynamics in a northern peatland-stream-lake continuum: acatchment approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 118: 171–183.
Kajii, Y., Kato, S., Streets, D., Tsai, N., Shvidenko, A., Nilsson, S., McCallum, I., Minko, N., Abushenko, N.,
Altyntsev, D. & Khodzer, T. (2002) Boreal forest fires in Siberia in 1998: estimation of area burned andemissions of pollutants by advanced very high resolution radiometer satellite data. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 107: D24. doi: 10.1029/2001JD001078.
Kakuda, K.-I., Watanabe, A., Ando, H. & Jong, F.S. (2005) Effects of fertilizer application on the root andaboveground biomass of sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) cultivated in peat soil. Japanese Journal of
Tropical Agriculture 49(4): 264–269.
Kane, E.S., Turetsky, M.R., Harden, J.W., McGuire, A.D. & Waddington, J.M. (2010) Seasonal ice andhydrologic controls on dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations in a boreal-rich fen. Journal ofGeophysical Research 115: G04012. doi: 10.1029/2010JG001366.
Kasimir-Klemedtsson, Å., Klemedtsson, L., Berglund, K., Martikainen, P., Silvola, J. & Oenema, O. (1997)
Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: a review. Soil Use and Management 13: 245–250.
Kasimir-Klemedtsson, Å., Weslien, P. & Klemedtsson, L. (2009) Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from a
farmed Swedish Histosol. European Journal of Soil Science 60: 321–331.
Kasischke, E.S. (2000) Boreal ecosystems in the carbon cycle. In: Fire, Climate Change and Carbon Cycling in
the North American Boreal Forest, ed. E.S. Kasischke & B.J. Stocks, pp. 19–30. New York, NY, USA:
Springer-Verlag.
Kasischke, E.S. & Bruhwiler, L.P. (2003) Emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane fromboreal forest fires in 1998. Journal of Geophysical Research 108: 8146. doi: 8110.1029/2001JD000461.

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

2.69

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Kasischke, E.S., Bourgeau-Chavez, L.L., Rober, A.R., Wyatt, K.H., Waddington, J.M. & Turetsky, M.R. (2009)
Effects of soil moisture and water depth on ERS SAR backscatter measurements from an Alaskan wetlandcomplex. Remote Sensing of Environment 113: 1868–1873.
Kasischke, E.S., Christensen, N.L. & Stocks, B.J. (1995) Fire, global warming, and the carbon balance of boreal
forests. Ecological Applications 5: 437–451.
Kasischke, E.S., Loboda, T., Giglio, L., French, N.H.F., Hoy, E.E., de Jong, B. & Riaño, D. (2011) Quantifying
burned area from fires in North American forests: implications for direct reduction of carbon stocks. Journalof Geophysical Research 116: G4. doi: 10.1029/2011JG001707.
Keeney, D.R., Fillery, I.R. & Marx, G.P. (1979) Effect of temperature on the gaseous nitrogen products ofdenitrification in a silty loam soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43: 1124–1128.
Koehler, A.-K., Murphy, K., Kiely, G. & Sottocornola, M. (2009) Seasonal variation of DOC concentration andannual loss of DOC from an Atlantic blanket bog in South Western Ireland. Biogeochemistry 95: 231–242.
Koehler, A.-K., Sottocornola, M. & Kiely, G. (2011) How strong is the current carbon sequestration of an
Atlantic blanket bog? Global Change Biology 17: 309–319.
Köhler, S., Buffam, I., Jonsson, A. & Bishop, K. (2002) Photochemical and microbial processing of stream andsoil water dissolved organic matter in a boreal forested catchment in northern Sweden. Aquatic Science 64:
1–13.
Kolka, R.K., Grigal, D.F., Verry, E.S. & Nater, E.A. (1999) Mercury and organic carbon relationships in streams
draining forested upland peatland watersheds. Journal of Environmental Quality 28: 766–775.
Komulainen, V.M., Nykänen, H., Martikainen, P.J. & Laine, J. (1998) Short-term effect of restoration onvegetation change and methane emissions from peatlands drained for forestry in southern Finland. Canadian
Journal of Forestry Research 28: 402–411.
Koprivnjak, J.F. & Moore, T.R. (1992) Sources, sinks and fluxes of dissolved organic carbon in subarctic fen
catchments. Arctic and Alpine Research 24: 204–210.
Kortelainen, P., Mattsson, T., Finér, L., Ahtiainen, M., Saukkonen, S. & Sallantaus, T. (2006) Controls on theexport of C, N, P and Fe from undisturbed boreal catchments, Finland. Aquatic Science 68: 453–468.
Kreshtapova, V.N. & Maslov, B.S. (2004) Contents of carbon compounds in reclaimed peat soils as a function of
the properties of peat organic matter. In: Proceedings of 12th International Peat Congress, Vol. 2, ed. J.
Päivänen, pp. 988–992. Tampere, Finland, 6–11 June.
Kroon, P.S., Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Hensen, A., Veenendaal, E.M. & Jonker, H.J.J. (2010) Annual balances of CH4
and N2O from a managed fen meadow using eddy covariance flux measurements. European Journal of Soil
Science 61: 773–784.
Kuhry, P. (1994) The role of fire in the development of Sphagnum-dominated peatlands in western boreal
Canada. Journal of Ecology 82: 899–910.
Kuntze, H. (1992) Peat losses by liming and fertilization of peatlands used as Grassland. In: Proceedings of the
9th International Peat Congress, Vol. 2, pp. 306–314.
Laine, J., Minkkinen, K., Sinisalo, J., Savolainen, I. & Martikainen, P.J. (1996) Greenhouse impact of a mire
after drainage for forestry. In: Northern Forested Wetlands, Ecology and Management, ed. C.C. Trettin, M.F.
Jurgensen, D.F. Grigal, M.R. Gale & J.K. Jeglum, pp. 437–447. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Lewis
Publishers.
Lamade, E. & Bouillet, J.-P. (2005) Carbon storage and global change: the role of oil palm. OCL: Oléagineux,
Corps Gras, Lipides 12: 154–160.
Langeveld, C.A., Segers, R., Dirks, B.O.M., van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., Velthof, G.L. & Hensen, A. (1997)
Emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O from pasture on drained peat soils in the Netherlands. European Journal of
Agriculture 7: 35–42.
Lapina, K., Honrath, R.E., Owen, R.C., Val Martin, M., Hyer, E.J. & Fialho, P. (2008) Late-summer changes inburning conditions in the boreal regions and their implications for NOx and CO emissions from boreal fires.
Journal of Geophysical Research 113: D11304. doi: 11310.11029/12007JD009421.
Laurila, T., Lohila, A., Aurela, M., Tuovinen, J.-P., Thum, T., Aro, L., Laine, J., Penttilä, T., Minkkinen, K.,
Riutta, T., Rinne, J., Pihlatie, M. & Vesala, T. (2007) Ecosystem-level carbon sink measurements on forested
peatlands. In: Greenhouse Impacts of the Use of Peat and Peatlands in Finland, ed. S. Sarkkola, pp. 38–40.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 11a/2007.

2.70

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

2.71

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Marsden, K. & Ebmeier, S. (2012) Peatlands and climate change. SPICe briefing 12/28 [www document] URL
www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_12-28.pdf.
Martikainen, P.J., Nykänen, H., Alm, J. & Silvola, J. (1995a) Change in fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane andnitrous oxide due to forest drainage of mire sites of different trophy. Plant and Soil 168–169: 571–577.
Martikainen, P.J., Nykänen, H., Crill, P. & Silvola, J. (1992) The effect of changing water table on methane
fluxes at two Finnish mire sites. Suo 43: 237–240.
Martikainen, P.J., Nykänen, H., Crill, P. & Silvola, J. (1993) Effect of a lowered water table on nitrous oxide
fluxes from northern peatlands. Nature 366: 51–53.
Martikainen, P.J., Nykänen, H., Regina, K., Lehtonen, M. & Silvola, J. (1995b) Methane fluxes in a drained andforested peatland treated with different nitrogen compounds. In: Northern Peatlands in Global Climatic
Change: Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Hyytiälä, Finland, 1/96, ed. R. Laiho, J. Laine& H. Vasander, pp. 105–109. Academy of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. (2013) Is CO2 flux from oil palm plantations on peatland controlled by water table, soil
moisture, day/night rhythm and/or temperature? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change doi
10.1007/s11027-013-9518-3.
Matthews, R.B., Wassmann, R., Buendia, L.V. & Knox, J.W. (2000) Using a crop/soil simulation model and
GIS techniques to assess methane emissions from rice fields in Asia: II. Model validation and sensitivity
analysis. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 58: 161–177.
McNamara, N. (2013) CH4 emissions from ditches in a drained lowland peat Grassland, Somerset, UK. In:
Emissions of greenhouse gases associated with peatland drainage waters. Report to Defra under project
SP1205: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with non-gaseous losses of carbon from peatlands – fate ofparticulate and dissolved carbon. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
McNeil, P. & Waddington, J.M. (2003) Moisture controls on Sphagnum growth and CO 2 exchange on a cutover
bog. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 354–367.
Melling, L., Chaddy, A., Goh, K.J. & Hatano, R. (2013) Soil CO2 fluxes from different ages of oil palm in
tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia as influenced by environmental and soil properties. Acta
Horticulturae 982: 25–35.
Melling, L., Goh, K.J., Beauvais, C. & Hatano, R. (2007a) Carbon flow and budget in a young mature oil palm
agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. International Symposium and Workshop on Tropical Peatland,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 27–31 August.
Melling, L., Hatano, R. & Goh, K.J. (2005a) Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of
Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus 57B: 1–11.
Melling, L., Hatano, R. & Goh, K.J. (2005b) Methane fluxes from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of
Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 1445–1453.
Melling, L., Hatano, R. & Goh, K.J. (2007b) Nitrous oxide emissions from three ecosystems in tropical peatlandof Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 53: 792–805.
Meyer, K., Höper, H. & Blankenburg, J. (2001) Spurengashaushalt und Klimabilanz von Niedermooren unterdem Einfluß des Vernässungsmanagements. In: Ökosystemmanagement für Niedermoore. Strategien und
Verfahren zur Renaturierung, ed. R. Kratz & J. Pfadenhauer, pp. 104–111. Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer.
Milner, L., Boom, A., Page, S.E., Moore, S. & Matthews, R. (forthcoming) Effects of fire on the organic mattercomposition of a tropical peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of Organic Geochemistry.
Minkkinen, K. & Laine, J. (1998) Long-term effect of forest drainage on the peat carbon stores of pine mires inFinland. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 28: 1267–1275.
Minkkinen, K. & Laine, J. (2006) Vegetation heterogeneity and ditches create spatial variability in methane
fluxes from peatlands drained for forestry. Plant and Soil 285: 289–304.
Minkkinen, K., Laine, J., Shurpali, N., Mäkiranta, P., Alm, J. & Penttilä, T. (2007b) Heterotrophic soil
respiration in forestry drained peatlands. Boreal Environment Research 12: 115–126.
Minkkinen, K., Penttilä, T. & Laine, J. (2007a) Tree stand volume as a scalar for methane fluxes in forestrydrained peatlands in Finland. Boreal Environment Research 12: 127–132.
Minkkinen, K., Vasander, H., Jauhiainen, S., Karsisto, M. & Laine, J. (1999) Post-drainage changes invegetation composition and carbon balance in Lakkasuo mire, Central Finland. Plant and Soil 207: 107–120.

2.72

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

Moore, S., Evans, C.D., Page, S.E., Garnett, M.G., Jones, T.G., Freeman, C., Hooijer, A., Wiltshire, A., Limin, S.
& Gauci, V. (2013) Deep instability of deforested tropical peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon
fluxes. Nature 493: 660–664.
Moore, T.R. (2003) Dissolved organic carbon in a northern boreal landscape. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17:1109. doi: 10.1029/2003GB002050.
Moore, T.R. & Clarkson, B.R. (2007) Dissolved organic carbon in New Zealand peatlands. New Zealand
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41: 137–141.
Moore, T.R. & Knowles, R. (1990) Methane emissions from fen, bog and swamp peatlands in Quebec.
Biogeochemistry 11: 45–61.
Moore, T.R., Matos, L. & Roulet, N.T. (2003) Dynamics and chemistry of dissolved organic carbon in
Precambrian Shield catchments and an impounded wetland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 60: 612–623.
Morrison, R., Cumming, A., Taft, H., Page, S., Kaduk, J., Harding, R., Jones, D. & Balzter, H. (2013) Carbon
dioxide budget of a drained and intensively cultivated lowland fen in the East Anglian fen. In: Emissions ofgreenhouse gases from UK managed lowland peatlands. Report to Defra under project SP1210: Lowland
peatland systems in England and Wales – evaluating greenhouse gas fluxes and carbon balances. Report to
the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
NCDENR (1998) Smoke from peat fire could pose health concerns in Craven County. [www document] URL
http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/newsrels/presrels.htm.
Nieveen, J.P., Campbell, D.I., Schipper, L.A. & Blair, I.J. (2005) Carbon exchange of grazed pasture on adrained peat soil. Global Change Biology 11: 607–618.
Nilsson, M., Sagerfors, J., Buffam, I., Laudon, H., Eriksson, T., Grelle, A., Klemedtsson, L., Weslien, P. &Lindroth, A. (2008) Contemporary carbon accumulation in a boreal oligotrophic minerogenic mire – asignificant sink after accounting for all C-fluxes. Global Change Biology 14: 2317–2332.
Nouvellon, Y., Laclau, J.-P., Epron, D., Le Maire, G., Bonnefond, J.-M., Gonçalves, J.L.M. & Bouillet, J.-P.
(2012) Production and carbon allocation in monocultures and mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus
grandis and Acacia mangium in Brazil. Tree Physiology 32: 680–695.
Nykänen, H., Alm, J., Lang, K., Silvola, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (1995) Emissions of CH4, N2O and CO2 from avirgin fen and a fen drained for Grassland in Finland. Journal of Biogeography 22: 351–357.
Nykänen, H., Alm, J., Silvola, J., Tolonen, K. & Martikainen, P.J. (1998) Methane fluxes on boreal peatlands ofdifferent fertility and the effect of long term experimental lowering of the water table on flux rates. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 12: 53–69.
Nykänen, H., Silvola, J., Alm, J. & Martikainen, P.J. (1996) Fluxes of greenhouse gases CH4, CO2 and N2O onsome peat mining areas in Finland. In: Northern Peatlands in Global Climatic Change: Proceedings of theInternational Workshop Held in Hyytiälä, Finland, 1/96, ed. R. Laiho, J. Laine & H. Vasander, pp. 141–147.
Academy of Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K., Alm, J. & Penttilä, T. (2010) Soil-atmosphere CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes in boreal
forestry-drained peatlands. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 411–421.
Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K., Lohila, A., Badorek, T. & Penttilä, T. (2012) Chamber measured soil respiration: auseful tool for estimating the carbon balance of peatland forest soils? Forest Ecology and Management 277:
132–140.
Ojanen, P., Minkkinen, K. & Penttilä, T. (2013) The current greenhouse impact of forestry-drained peatlands.
Forest Ecology and Management 289: 201–208.
Okruszko, H. (1989) Wirkung der Bodennutzung auf die Niedermoorentwicklung. Ergebnisse eines längjährigen
Feldversuches. Z f Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung 30: 167–176.
Opsahl, S. & Benner, R. (1997) Distribution and cycling of terrigenous dissolved organic matter in the ocean.
Nature 386: 480–482.
Opsahl, S. & Benner, R. (1998) Photochemical reactivity of dissolved lignin in river and ocean waters.
Limnology and Oceanography 43: 1297–1304.
Page, S.E., Rieley, J.O. & Banks, C.J. (2011) Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon
pool. Global Change Biology 17: 798–818.

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

2.73

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.74

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

2.75

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.76

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

2.77

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

2.78

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

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils

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

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

2.79

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

CHAPTER 3

REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

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

3.1

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Coordinating Lead Authors
Dominique Blain (Canada) and Daniel Murdiyarso (CIFOR)

Lead Authors
John Couwenberg (EC/WI/Germany/Netherlands), Osamu Nagata (Japan), Florence Renou-Wilson (Ireland),
Andrey Sirin (Russian Federation), Maria Strack (Canada), Eeva-Stiina Tuittila (Finland), and David Wilson(Ireland)Cont ributing Authors
Christopher David Evans (UK), Maya Fukuda (IPCC TFI TSU) and Faizal Parish (Malaysia)

Review Editors
Jens Leifeld (Switzerland) and María José Sanz Sánchez (FAO)

3.2

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Contents
3

Rewetted Organic Soils ............................................................................................................................. 5
3.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2

Greenhouse gas emissions and removals............................................................................................ 6

3.2.1

CO2 emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils ..................................................................... 7

3.2.2

CH4 emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils ................................................................... 15

3.2.3

N2O emissions from rewetted organic soils .................................................................................. 19

3.2.4

Choice of activity data ................................................................................................................ 19

3.2.5

Sources of uncertainty ................................................................................................................. 21

3.3

Completeness, time series consistency, and QA/QC......................................................................... 22

3.3.1

Completeness.............................................................................................................................. 22

3.3.2

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) ........................................................................ 22

Annex 3A.1

Estimation of default emission factors for CO2-C in rewetted organic soils............................... 23

Annex 3A.2 Estimation of default emission factors for off-site CO2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses(CO2-DOC) from rewetted organic soils .......................................................................................................... 28
Annex 3A.3

Estimation of default emission factors for CH4-C in rewetted organic soils............................... 31

References ...................................................................................................................................................... 34

Equations
Equation 3.1

Net gains or losses of C resulting from the balance between CO2 and CH4 emissions andremovals ........................................................................................................................ 7

Equation 3.2

Net CH4 flux .................................................................................................................. 7

Equation 3.3

CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils ................................................... 7

Equation 3.4

Annual on-site CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils ........................... 9Equation 3.5

Annual off-site CO2-C emissions due to DOC losses from rewetted organic soils............. 9Equation 3.6

Emission factor for annual emissions of C as CO2 due to doc export from rewetted organicsoils ............................................................................................................................. 13

Equation 3.7

CH4-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils ................................................. 15

Equation 3.8

Annual CH4-C emissions from rewetted organic soils ................................................... 16

Equation 3.9

N2O-N emissions from rewetted organic soils ............................................................... 192013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

3.3

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

FiguresFigure 3.1

Decision tree to estimate CO2-C and CH4-C emissions/removals from rewetted organicsoils ............................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 3A.1

Ranges of CO2 flux values (g CO2 m-2 yr-1) found in the published literature fornatural/undrained and rewetted organic soils in (a) boreal and (b) temperate climate zones.
Positive flux values indicate CO2 emissions from the ecosystem to the atmosphere andnegative flux values indicate removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by the ecosystem.
References used to compile graph are to be found in Table 3.1. ..................................... 24

Figure 3A.2

Relationship between annual CO2 fluxes and mean annual water table depth (cm) for bothundrained and rewetted organic soils in (a) boreal and (b) temperate climate zones ........ 26

Figure 3A.3

Subsidence rates as measured in drained tropical organic soils in relation to water table
depth. From Hooijer et al. 2012. ................................................................................... 27

Figure 3A.4

Methane flux from boreal and temperate rewetted and undrained organic soils in relation
to mean annual water table. Fluxes are expressed as 10log(1+measured flux) [kg CH4-C ha1
yr-1]. ........................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 3A.5

Methane flux from boreal and temperate, poor and rich, rewetted (rw) and undrained (un)organic soils. Fluxes (in kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1) are expressed on a logarithmic scale. ......... 32

TablesTable 3.1

Default emission factors (EFCO2) and associated uncertainty, for CO2-C from rewettedorganic soils (all values in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1)......................................................... 12

Table 3.2

Default DOC emission factors (EFDOC_REWETTED in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1) for rewettedorganic soils ................................................................................................................. 14

Table 3.3

Default emission factors for CH4 from rewetted organic soils (all values in kg CH4-C ha-1yr-1) .............................................................................................................................. 18

Table 3A.1

DOC concentration (above) or flux (below) comparisons between drained and rewettedorganic soils with changes in DOC following rewetting................................................. 29

Table 3A.2

Annual DOC flux estimates from natural/undrained and rewetted organic soils used toderive default values for DOCflux.................................................................................. 29

Table 3A.3

CH4-C flux data from wet swamp forest on organic soils ............................................... 33

Box
Box 3.1

3.4

Controls on CH4 emissions from rewetted organic soils ................................................. 172013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

3 REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
3.1

INTRODUCTION

W hat is rewet t ing, resto rat io n, rehabilit at io n and how rew et t ing affects GHG
Definitions of wetlands and organic soils are provided elsewhere in this supplement (Chapter 1 and Glossary),
and will not be repeated here. As in the remainder of this supplement, this chapter considers peatlands to be
included in ‘(land with) organic soil’. Unless stated otherwise, statements referring to organic soils will include
soils made of peat; in some instances, examples are provided that are specific to peat soils or peatlands and insuch cases peatlands will be mentioned specifically.
Rewetting is the deliberate action of raising the water table on drained soils to re-establish water saturated
conditions, e.g. by blocking drainage ditches or disabling pumping facilities. Rewetting can have several
objectives, such as wetland restoration or allowing other management practices on saturated organic soils such as
paludiculture.
Wetland restoration aims to permanently re-establish the pre-disturbance wetland ecosystem, including thehydrological and biogeochemical processes typical of water saturated soils, as well as the vegetation cover that
pre-dated the disturbance (FAO, 2005; Nellemann & Corcoran, 2010). Normally, the restoration of previously
drained wetlands is accompanied by rewetting, while the restoration of undrained, but otherwise disturbed
wetlands may not require rewetting.
Rehabilitation, as defined by FAO (2005) and Nellemann & Corcoran (2010), can involve a large variety ofpractices on formerly drained organic soils, which may or may not include rewetting. The re-establishment of avegetation cover on a drained site without rewetting is a form of site rehabilitation.
The focus of this chapter is the rewetting of organic soils; restoration and other management practices onrewetted organic soils are not specifically addressed. Rehabilitation as an activity separate from rewetting is notcovered by this chapter. This chapter does not provide default guidance for the management of undrained inland
organic soils or for restoration that does not necessitate rewetting.
The position of the water table is a major control of the biogeochemical processes responsible for GHG fluxes
from wetlands (Reddy & DeLaune 2008, pages 162-163). Generally, rewetting decreases CO2 emissions fromorganic soils compared to the drained condition, and under certain conditions leads to the recovery of a net
ecosystem CO2 sink (Komulainen et al., 1999; Tuittila et al., 1999; Waddington et al., 2010). Re-establishing thevegetation cover on rewetted organic soils is necessary to reinstate the carbon sink function that ultimately leads
to soil C sequestration. After a vegetation succession promoted by rewetting, the CO 2 sink may reach the leveltypical of undrained ecosystems. However, during the first years after rewetting a site can remain a CO 2 source(Petrone et al., 2003; Waddington et al., 2010); upon restoration the ecosystem sink can temporarily besignificantly larger (Soini et al., 2010,Wilson et al., 2013). The time needed for the recovery of the sink function
may vary from years to several decades (Tuittila et al., 1999, Samaritani et al., 2011) depending on restoration
methods and pre-rewetting and climate conditions.
Rewetting generally increases CH4 emissions (e.g. Augustin & Chojnicki, 2008; Waddington & Day, 2007),
although in some cases lower emissions have been measured (Tuittila et al., 2000; Juottonen et al., 2012)
compared to the drained state. If all the other conditions (e.g. vegetation composition, site fertility) are equal,
CH4 emissions from rewetted sites are generally comparable to undrained sites after the first years following
rewetting as shown later in this chapter. In temperate regions N2O emissions are found to rapidly decrease close
to zero after rewetting (Augustin & Merbach, 1998; Wilson et al., 2013).
Carbon is also lost from rewetted organic soils via water mainly in a form of dissolved organic carbon (DOC).
Most of this carbon is eventually released into the atmosphere as CO2. Rewetting is thought to decrease DOC
leaching to a level comparable with undrained organic soil.
Generally the likelihood of fire occurrence in rewetted ecosystems is low, but real. The reader is referred to thedefault approach provided in Chapter 2 of this supplement to quantify this source of emissions for all GHGs.
High spatial variation in microtopography, water level and vegetation cover is typical of undrained organic soils
and is also observed in GHG fluxes (Strack et al., 2006; Laine et al., 2007; Riutta et al., 2007; Maanavilja et al.,2011). Rewetting recreates this natural heterogeneity with blocked ditches forming the wetter end of thevariation (Strack & Zuback, 2013; Maanavilja et al., submitted). For this reason, in this chapter, (and in contrast
to the approach in Chapter 2), former ditches are included as a part of rewetted sites and not treated separately.

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

3.5

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Scope o f t his g uidance: w et land ty pes covered, gas es, poo lsThis chapter provides guidance on rewetting of organic soils, with a focus on the soil pool. Organic soils can also
support perennial woody vegetation. To avoid repeating guidance already provided, wherever appropriate thereader will be referred to the existing guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, especially on C stock changes in
the woody biomass and dead wood pools.
The distinction between C pools in some wetland ecosystems can be difficult, especially between the herbaceous
biomass (mosses, sedges, grasses), the dead organic matter derived from this biomass and soil pools. For
example, the dead portion of mosses characteristic of many peatlands could be included in the dead organic
matter or soil pool. The non-woody biomass on rewetted organic soils cannot be ignored as it is essential in therestoration of the carbon sink function that in turn results in the sequestration over time of large quantities of soil
carbon. Because the default emission factors in this chapter were all derived from flux measurements overwetlands on organic soils with moss and/or herbaceous vegetation and/or dwarf shrubs, these default EFs
integrate all C fluxes from the soil and the above- and belowground vegetation components other than trees. In
all cases the guidance in this chapter will clarify which C pools are included in default EFs.
In this chapter boreal and temperate organic soil wetlands are divided into “nutrient poor” and “nutrient rich”
categories (Rydin & Jeglum, 2006). Most nutrient poor wetlands, whether undrained or rewetted, receive waterand nutrients from precipitation only, while nutrient rich wetlands also receive water from their surroundings.
Tropical wetlands on organic soils include a great variety of contrasting ecosystems, from papyrus dominatedsites in Africa to peat swamp forests in South East Asia. In general much less information is available forwetlands on organic soils in tropical regions than in temperate or boreal regions.
Rewetting activities in tropical regions have been reported from the USA, South Africa and Indonesia. Southeast
Asia harbours the largest extent of tropical peatlands (Page et al., 2011) and several attempts at large scale
rewetting have been undertaken here. Although successful rewetting of organic soils in tropical regions has been
demonstrated, flux data from such sites are lacking. Therefore, a default EF for rewetted tropical organic soils
was developed based on surrogate data. It is good practice, where significant areas of tropical organic soils havebeen rewetted, to develop science-based, documented, country-specific emission factors for CO2, CH4 and N2Oemissions.
As in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, guidance is provided for three GHGs: CO2, CH4 and N2O.

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

3.2

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANDREMOVALS

Equation 2.3 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines illustrates how in general carbon-containing
GHGs from an ecosystem can be calculated from the sum of C stock changes in each of the ecosystem carbon
pools. This chapter provides additional guidance specifically for the soil pool term ΔC so of equation 2.3 - inparticular for water-saturated organic soils. When practices for the rewetting of organic soils also involve C
stock changes in woody biomass or dead organic matter (DOM) pools, the appropriate default assumptions will
be provided along with references to existing equations in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for the Tier 1 estimation of
C stock changes for these pools.
With respect to the soil pool, this chapter elaborates on the estimations of CO 2 emissions or removals and CH4
emissions from organic soils, regardless of the ultimate goal of the rewetting activity (e.g. restoration or otherland management practices).
In the context of this chapter, Equation 3.1 below replaces Equations 2.24 and 2.26 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines; Equations 2.24 and 2.26 implicitly assumed that organic soils can only lose carbon,
while in fact undrained or rewetted organic soils can accumulate soil organic carbon if covered with vegetation.

3.6

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Assuming that rewetting is successful in establishing the C sink function, the rewetted organic soils can gain
substantial quantities of carbon. Equation 3.1 reflects the fact that the net C stock change of rewetted organicsoils results from net gains or losses of C resulting from the balance between CO2 and CH4 emissions andremovals.
In large carbon pools, such as organic soils, net CO2 emissions (or removals via uptake by vegetation) are moreaccurately measured directly as a CO2 flux (an emission is a positive flux, a removal a negative flux), as opposed
to being derived from a change in C stocks. Likewise, CH4 emissions are generally measured as fluxes. In thischapter these fluxes are denoted CO2-C and CH4-C, for the net C flux as CO2 and as CH4 respectively. This
notation is consistent with that used in Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
EQUATION 3.1
NET GAINS OR LOSSES OF C RESULTING FROM THE BALANCE BETWEEN CO2 AND CH4
EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

ΔC rewetted org soil = CO2-Crewetted org soil + CH4-Crewetted org soil
Where:ΔC rewetted org soil = Net C gain or loss in rewetted organic soils (tonnes C yr-1)
CO2-Crewetted org soil = Net flux of CO2 -C (emissions or removals) from the rewetted organic soil (tonnes C
yr-1)
CH4-Crewetted org soil = Net flux of CH4 -C (commonly emissions) from the rewetted organic soil (tonnes C
yr-1)
The notations CO2-C and CH4-C will facilitate reconciling net fluxes with C stock changes for estimation
purposes. However, the reporting convention remains that used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, where emissions
and removals of CO2 are reported as C stock changes, and emissions and removals of CH4 in tonnes of CH4.
CH4-C is converted to CH4 using Equation 3.2.
EQUATION 3.2
NET CH4 FLUX
CH4 rewetted org soil = CH4 -Crewetted org soil ∙ 16/12
Where:

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

3.2.1

CO2 emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils

CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils have the following components:
EQUATION 3.3
CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
CO2-Crewetted org soil = CO2-Ccomposite+ CO2-CDOC+ Lfire-CO2-C
Where:

CO2-Crewetted org soil = CO2-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr -1
CO2-Ccomposite = CO2-C emissions/removals from the soil and non-tree vegetation, tonnes C yr -1
CO2-CDOC = off-site CO2-C emissions from dissolved organic carbon exported from rewetted organic soils,
tonnes C yr-1
Lfire-CO2-C = CO2-C emissions from burning of rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr -1

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

3.7

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

On-s it e emiss io ns/remov als : CO 2 - C c o m p o s i t e
Since the default CO2-C EFs in this chapter are all derived from flux measurements (see Annex 3A.1), the CO2Ccomposite results from the net flux, emissions or removals, from the soil and non-tree vegetation taken together.
CO2 emissions are produced during the decomposition of the organic soil by heterotrophic organisms and arestrongly controlled by oxygen availability within the soil and by soil temperature. The contribution from nontree vegetation occurs via the two processes of photosynthesis (CO2 uptake) and above- and below-groundautotrophic respiration (CO2 emissions).
Consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the Tier 1 or default approaches assume that the woody biomass andwoody DOM stocks and fluxes are zero on all lands except on Forest Land and on Cropland with perennial
woody biomass. For rewetting on Forest Land or on Cropland with woody crops, the woody biomass and woody
DOM pools are potentially significant and should be estimated in a way consistent with the guidance provided in
Chapters 2 (generic methods), 4 (Forest Land) and 5 (Cropland) in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Inventory compilers are directed to Equations 2.7, 2.8 and the subsequent equations in Chapter 2 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines which split the C stock changes in the biomass pool or ΔCB into the various gains and losses
components, including harvest and fires.
If rewetting is accompanied by a change in land use that involves Forest Land or Cropland with perennial woody
biomass, changes in C stocks in biomass and dead wood and litter pools are equal to the difference in C stocks inthe old and new land-use categories (see Section 2.3.1.2, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
These changes occur mostly in the year of the conversion (carbon losses), or are uniformly distributed over thelength of the transition period (carbon gains). Default values for C stocks in forest litter can be found in Chapter
4 (Forest Land), Chapter 5 (Cropland) and Chapter 2 (Table 2.2 for forest litter) in Volume 4, of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

Off-s it e CO 2 emiss io ns : CO 2 -C D O C
The importance of waterborne carbon export (in all its different forms) as a pathway linking the organic soil C
pool to the atmosphere is described in Chapter 2 of this supplement and the various sources, behaviour and fateof the different forms of waterborne C following rewetting can be found in Annex 3A.2. In all types of organicsoils, including natural and rewetted ones, DOC has been shown to be the largest component of waterborne
carbon loss that will be processed and almost entirely returned eventually to the atmosphere. It is therefore goodpractice to include DOC in flux-based carbon estimation methods to avoid under-estimation of soil C losses.
CO2-CDOC is produced from the decomposition of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) lost from organic soils via
aquatic pathways and results in off-site CO2 emissions; a Tier 1 methodology is described below. Other forms ofwaterborne carbon (Particulate Organic Carbon and dissolved CO2) may also be significant in the early years
following rewetting but few data exist (see Annex 3A.2). It should be noted also that although generally notsignificant, DOC imports (e.g. from precipitation) should in theory be removed from net DOC fluxes.

E miss io ns fro m burning : L f i r e -CO 2 -C
While the likelihood of fires on rewetted organic soils is considered low (particularly in comparison to drainedorganic soils), fire risk may still be real. Any emissions from the burning of biomass, dead organic matter as well
as from soil (Lfire-CO2-C) should be included. Generic methodologies for estimating CO2 emissions from theburning of vegetation and dead organic matter are provided in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
while methodologies specific to vegetation and DOM burning in Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland and Wetlands
are provided in Chapters 4-7 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Emissions from the burning of organicsoils can be estimated following the methodologies in Equation 2.8 of Chapter 2 (this supplement) using the fuelconsumption values estimated for undrained organic soils given in Table 2.6 (same value for all climates) as wellas emission factors from Table 2.7.

CHOICE OF METHOD
The decision tree in Figure 3.1 presents guidance in the selection of the appropriate Tier for the estimation of
GHG emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils.

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

3.8

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

EQUATION 3.4
ANNUAL ON-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
CO2 -Ccomposite=A ∙ EFCO2c, nWhere:

CO2-Ccomposite = CO2-C emissions/removals from the soil and non-tree vegetation, tonnes C yr -1
Ac,n = area of rewetted organic soils in climate zone c and nutrient status n, ha
EFCO2 c,n = CO2-C emission factor for rewetted organic soils in climate zone c, nutrient status n, tonnes C
ha-1 yr-1

EQUATION 3.5
ANNUAL OFF-SITE CO2-C EMISSIONS DUE TO DOC LOSSES FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
CO2 -CDOC =A ∙ EFDOC_REWETTEDcWhere:

CO2-CDOC = off-site CO2-C emissions from dissolved organic carbon exported from rewetted organicsoils, tonnes C yr -1
Ac = area of rewetted organic soils in climate zone c, ha
EFDOC_rewetted, c = CO2-C emission factor from DOC exported from rewetted organic soils in climate zone c
tonnes C ha-1 yr-1

Tier 2
A Tier 2 methodology uses country-specific emission factors and parameters, spatially disaggregated to reflect
regionally important practices and dominant ecological dynamics. It may be appropriate to sub-divide activity
data and emission factors according to the present vegetation composition which is a representation of the watertable depth and soil properties or by land use prior to rewetting (e.g. Forest, Grassland, Cropland, Wetland).
Available datasets from rewetted organic soils generally cover a period of 10 years or less after rewetting; forthis reason it is difficult to identify clear temporal patterns in CO2 fluxes. Available data demonstrate that thestrength of the CO2 sink may vary over a number of years. In the period immediately following rewetting, it isexpected that soil oxidation rates are low as a consequence of the anoxic conditions, while most of the newly
sequestered C is still contained within the non-woody biomass pool (leaves, stems, and roots). Over longer timeframes (a few decades) a decrease in the amount of CO2 that is sequestered annually might be expected as thebiomass pool eventually approaches a steady state C sequestration saturation point typical of natural, undrainedorganic soils. Countries are encouraged to develop more detailed EFs for rewetted organic soils that capture fully
the transient nature of CO2 fluxes in the time since rewetting and reflect the time needed for the ecosystem toreach CO2 dynamics typical of natural, undrained organic soils. In particular, countries with a significant nonvegetated (bare organic soil) component (e.g. industrial cutaways or cutovers) at the time of rewetting areencouraged to develop detailed EFs that capture the expected decline in CO2 emissions following rewetting (e.g.
Tuittila et al., 1999; Bortoluzzi et al., 2006; Kivimaki et al., 2008; Waddington et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2013).
A Tier 2 methodology to derive an estimation of emissions from the decomposition of DOC should utilise
country-specific information if experimental data are available to refine the emission factor, especially withregard to different types of natural/undrained and rewetted organic soils (e.g. peatlands with various nutrient
status and development, such as raised bogs, blanket bogs, fens). Refined approaches to calculate EF DOC aresuggested below under Choice of EF: EFDOC_rewetted. On-site flux measurements will not capture C losses as DOC
so it is good practice to explicitly add C losses as DOC to flux-based C estimation methods. If a soil subsidence
approach is used to derive CO2-Ccomposite of Equation 3.3, DOC losses are included in the subsidence data andshould not be added a second time.
Tier 2 (as well as Tier 3) methodologies may capture changes in the woody biomass pool as fluxes instead of
separately reported stock changes; in such cases the woody biomass component is integrated with the other2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

3.9

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

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

Tier 3
A Tier 3 methodology involves a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO 2-C
emissions and removals on rewetted organic soils, including the effect of site characteristics, soil characteristics,
vegetation composition, soil temperature and mean water table depth. These could be integrated into a dynamic,
mechanistic-based model or through a measurement-based approach (see choice of EF, Tier 3 below for
examples of such models). These parameters, in addition to further parameters such as water flows and residence
time of water, could also be used to describe fluvial C (DOC) lost from the system using process-based models
that incorporate hydrology amongst other factors. A Tier 3 methodology might also include the entire DOC
export from rewetted sites and consideration of the temporal variability in DOC release in the years following
rewetting, which will also be dependent on the rewetting techniques used.

3.10

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Figure 3.1

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

Start

Is detailed
information1 available
on rewetting oforganic soils?

Yes

Estimate emissions using
country-specific methodology
and emission factors(Tier 2 or 3).
Box 3: Tier 2 or 3

No

Are historicaland current data
available on the area ofrewetted organicsoils?

No

Yes

Were
domestic studies
done on GHG emissions/removals in rewettedorganic soils?

Yes

Estimate emissions using
default method and countryspecific data (Tier 2).

No

Box 2: Tier 2
Arerewetted organic soils
a key category or a significant
component of a key
category?2

Yes

Collect or compile historical andcurrent data from domestic orinternational sources, conservation
organisations, documentation ofrewetting projects

No

Estimate emissions using
default emission factors andactivity data (Tier 1).
Box 1: Tier 1
Note:

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

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

3.11

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORSEF C O 2
Tier 1
The implementation of the Tier 1 method requires the application of default EFs provided in Table 3.1, where
they are disaggregated by climate zone (boreal, temperate, tropical) and for boreal and temperate organic soils
only, by nutrient status (nutrient poor and nutrient rich).
Nutrient poor organic soils predominate in boreal regions, while in temperate regions nutrient rich sites are morecommon. In some cases, nutrient poor soil organic layers are underlain by nutrient rich layers; in some situations,after industrial extraction of the nutrient poor top layers the rewetted residual soil layers may be considered
nutrient rich due to the influence of incoming water and the high nutrient status of the bottom layers.
If the nutrient status of rewetted organic soils in boreal or temperate zones is not known, countries should use thedefault nutrient poor EF for sites in the boreal zone, and nutrient rich EF for sites in the temperate zone (Table
3.1).
The derivation of the default EF values for CO2 is fully described in Annex 3A.1, including the quality criteria
for data selection. In summary, robust data indicated that CO2 fluxes from both natural/undrained and rewettedorganic soils are correlated with mean water table depth. Furthermore, it was ascertained that, in temperate andboreal regions, these correlations were not significantly different between the natural/undrained group and therewetted group. These conclusions were also valid when the analysis was performed for sites under each of theseclimatic regions. Therefore in these regions CO2 fluxes from natural/undrained sites were used in addition to CO2
fluxes from rewetted sites to provide a robust estimation of the EFs shown in Table 3.1. There is currently
insufficient evidence to support the use of different default EF values for different site conditions, previous landuse or time since rewetting.
Since no data are available for rewetted tropical organic soils, a default EF of zero is provided; this value is
supported by observations in undrained sites and reflects the fact that successful rewetting effectively reduces the
decay of soil organic matter stops the oxidation of soil organic material, but does not necessarily re-establish asoil C sequestration function (see Annex 3A.1).
TABLE 3.1
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (EFCO2) AND ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTY, FOR CO2-C FROM REWETTED ORGANIC-1-1
SOILS ( ALL VALUES IN TONNES CO2-C HA YR ).
Climate zone
Boreal*Temperate*****

TropicalNutrient status

EFCO2

95% range

Poor-0.34 (n=26)-0.59 – -0.09

Rich-0.55 (n=39)-0.77 – -0.34

Poor-0.23 (n=43)-0.64 – +0.18

Rich+0.50 (n=15)-0.71 – +1.71

0Note: Negative values indicate removal of CO2-C from the atmosphere. n = number of sites. 95% confidence
interval is used to give the 95% range.
*

Emission factors for boreal rewetted organic soils derived from the following source material (see Annex 3A.1
for details): Bubier et al., 1999; Komulainen et al., 1999; Soegaard & Nordstroem, 1999; Tuittila et al., 1999;
Waddington & Price, 2000; Waddington & Roulet, 2000; Alm et al., 1997; Laine et al., 1997; Suyker et al.,
1997; Whiting & Chanton, 2001; Heikkinen et al., 2002; Harazono et al., 2003; Nykänen et al., 2003; Yli-Petäys
et al., 2007; Kivimäki et al., 2008; Nilsson et al., 2008; Sagerfors et al., 2008; Aurela et al., 2009; Drewer et al.,2010; Soini et al., 2010; Maanavilja et al., 2011.
**

Emission factor for temperate rewetted organic soils derived from the following source material but is not
significantly different from zero (see Annex 3 A.1 for details): Shurpali et al., 1995; Lafleur et al., 2001;
Wickland, 2001; Aurela et al., 2002; Schulze et al., 2002; Petrone et al., 2003; Roehm & Roulet, 2003; Billett etal., 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; Augustin & Chojnicki, 2008;
Cagampan & Waddington, 2008; Golovatskaya & Dyukarev, 2009; Kurbatova et al., 2009; Drewer et al., 2010;
Waddington et al., 2010; Adkinson et al., 2011; Augustin et al. in Couwenberg et al., 2011; Koehler et al., 2011;
Christensen et al., 2012; Urbanová, 2012; Strack & Zuback, 2013; Drösler et al., 2013; Herbst et al., 2013;
Wilson et al., 2013.
***

3.12

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

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Given the limitations in the available scientific literature, the Tier 1 basic methodology assumes that there is notransient period and that rewetted organic soils immediately behave like undrained/natural organic soils in termsof CO2 flux dynamics. Combining observations in the temperate and boreal regions soon after rewetting withlong-term ones was the simplest way to avoid any bias.
The default EF of rewetted tropical organic soils applies to sites where water saturation prevents furtheroxidation of the soil organic matter. Due to the lack of published scientific literature on CO 2 fluxes fromrewetted tropical organic soils, the emission factor was derived from undrained tropical organic soils (Annex
3A.1). When rewetted tropical organic soils are a significant component of a key category, it is good practice touse country-specific EFs as opposed to the default EF in Table 3.1.

Tier 2 and 3
Countries applying Tier 2 methods should use country-specific emission factors. Empirical flux measurements(eddy covariance or chamber methods) should be carried out at temporal resolutions sufficiently defined tocapture as wide a range as possible of the abiotic (e.g. irradiation, soil properties including soil temperature,mean water table depth) and biotic (e.g. vegetation composition) factors that drive CO 2 dynamics in rewettedorganic soils. Subsidence measurements can also be used to determine the medium to long term losses/gains
from rewetted organic soils. Emission factors could be developed further by taking into account other factors,
such as ‘previous land use’ or current vegetation composition as well as disaggregation by ‘time since rewetting’.
Countries where perennial woody biomass plays a significant role in the net CO 2-C exchange between rewettedorganic soils and the atmosphere should develop country-specific methods that reflect C stock changes in thetree biomass and tree DOM pools under typical management practices and their interaction with the soil pool.
Guidance can be found in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Tier 3 methods involve a comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO 2
emissions/removals in rewetted organic soils, including the impacts of management practices. The methodology
includes the fate of C in all pools and C transfers between pools upon conversion. In particular, the fate of the C
contained within the biomass pool must also be taken into account, including its eventual release on-site throughthe decay of DOM, or off-site following harvest of woody biomass (e.g. paludiculture). Woody biomass is notaccounted for in this chapter and care should be taken to avoid double-counting when using whole ecosystemdata (e.g. eddy covariance measurements). Tier 3 methodologies may also distinguish between immediate anddelayed emissions following rewetting. A Tier 3 approach could include the development of flux based
monitoring systems and the use of advanced models which require a higher level of information of processes
than required in Tier 2. It is good practice to ensure that the models are calibrated and validated against fieldmeasurements (Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

EF D O C _ r e we t t e dTier 1
Data show that natural/undrained organic soils export some DOC and these fluxes increase following drainage(see Chapter 2 in this supplement). Available data from rewetted sites is scant but suggest that the level of DOC
reduction after rewetting approximately equates to the DOC increase after drainage (Glatzel et al., 2003; O’Brienet al., 2008; Waddington et al., 2008; Armstrong et al., 2010; Strack and Zuback, 2013; Turner et al., 2013).
Consequently, it is assumed that rewetting leads to a reversion to natural DOC flux levels (see Annex 3A.2).
Therefore, to make best use of available data, EFs for rewetted organic soils have been calculated using datafrom natural/undrained sites as well as from rewetted ones following Equation 3.6:
EQUATION 3.6
EMISSION FACTOR FOR ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF C AS CO2 DUE TO DOC EXPORT FROM REWETTEDORGANIC SOILSEFDOC_REWETTED =DOCFLUX *FracDOC-CO2
Where:EFDOC_REWETTED = Emission factor for DOC from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C ha -1 yr-1
DOCFLUX = Net flux of DOC from natural (undrained) and rewetted organic soils , tonnes C ha -1 yr-1
FracDOC_CO2 = Conversion factor for proportion of DOC converted to CO2 following export from site andequates to 0.9

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

3.13

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

A detailed description of the derivation of default values for Tier 1 is provided in Annex 2A.3. In summary, data
show clear differentiation of natural DOC fluxes between boreal, temperate and tropical organic soils. Therefore,
the DOCFLUX values were calculated for each climate zone integrating data from rewetted sites where available(all DOC fluxes measured from rewetted sites were located in the temperate zone). The current data did notsupport disaggregation by nutrient status. The parameter FracDOC_CO2 sets the proportion of DOC exported fromorganic soils that is ultimately emitted as CO2. An understanding of the fate of DOC export, i.e. whether it isreturned to the atmosphere as CO2 (or CH4), is still poor but the form and amount are of significance in terms of
GHG reporting. A value of zero would coincide with all the DOC export being deposited in stable forms in lakeor marine sediments; as this would simply represent a translocation of carbon between stable stores, it would notneed to be estimated. However, most data on DOC processing do indicate that a high proportion is converted to
CO2 in headwaters, rivers, lakes and coastal seas (see Annex 2A.3 for discussion). Reflecting this current
scientific uncertainty, a Tier 1 default FracDOC_CO2 value of 0.9 is proposed, with an uncertainty range of 0.8 to 1.
EF DOC_REWETTED values are provided in Table 3.2 and the derivation of these values is fully described in Annex
3A.2.
TABLE 3.2
DEFAULT DOC EMISSION FACTORS (EFDOC_REWETTED IN TONNES CO2-C HA-1 YR-1) FOR REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
Climate zone

DOCFLUX(tonnes C ha-1 yr -1)

Number of sites

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

Boreal*0.08 (0.06 – 0.11)

10 undrained

0.08 (0.05 – 0.11)

0.26 (0.17 – 0.36)

12 undrained and3 rewetted

0.24 (0.14 – 0.36)

0.57 (0.49 – 0.64)

4 undrained

0.51 (0.40 – 0.64)

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

Tier 2
A Tier 2 approach for estimation of DOC may follow the Tier 1 methodology provided above, but should use
country–specific information where possible to refine the emission factors used as well as the conversion factor.
Refinements could entail greater disaggregation as follows:

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

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

Use of alternative values for the conversion factor FracDOC_CO2 where evidence is available to estimate
the proportion of DOC exported from rewetted organic soils that is transferred to stable long-term
carbon stores, such as lake or marine sediments.

3.14

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

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

3.2.2

CH4 emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils

CH4 emissions and removals from the soils of rewetted organic soils result from 1) the balance between CH4
production and oxidation and 2) emission of CH4 produced by the combustion of soil organic matter during fire
(Equation 3.7).
EQUATION 3.7
CH4-C EMISSIONS/REMOVALS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
CH4-Crewetted org soil = CH4-Csoil + Lfire-CH4-C
Where:

CH4-Crewetted org soil = CH4-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr -1
CH4-Csoil = emissions/removals of CH4-C from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr -1
Lfire-CH4-C = emissions of CH4-C from burning of rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr -1
The default EFs provided in this section will only cover CH4-Csoil. These CH4 emissions result from thedecomposition of the organic soil by microbes under anaerobic conditions and are strongly controlled by oxygen
availability within the soil and by soil temperature. Methane emissions also originate from the decay of non-tree
vegetation, since these pools cannot be easily separated on organic soils they are combined here as CH4-Csoil.
The probability of fire occurrence in rewetted organic soils is likely small if water table position is near thesurface, but possible soil emissions from fires are included here for completeness. If rewetting or restoration
practices involve biomass burning, CH4 emissions from biomass burning must be estimated in a way consistent
with the guidance provided in Chapters 2 (generic methods), 4 (Forest Land) and 5 (Cropland), Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. Emissions from soil burning (Lfire-CH4-C) should be estimated using the guidance
provided in Section 2.2.2.3 of this supplement applying the fuel consumption value for wildfire on undrainedorganic soil (Table 2.6) and CH4 emission factors given in Table 2.7. The EF of Table 2.7 should be multipliedby 12/16 to obtain tonnes of CH4-C yr-1.
Care should be taken to report fire emissions only once to avoid double-counting fire emissions.

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

Tier 1The default methodology covers CH4 emissions from rewetted organic soils (Equation 3.7).
As in Section 3.2.1, the basic approach makes no distinction on the basis of the objectives of site rewetting(restoration or other management activities). In addition, as in Section 3.2.1 the Tier1 methodology assumes
there is no transient period for rewetted organic soils and therefore default EFs are applicable from the year ofrewetting.

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

3.15

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

EQUATION 3.8
ANNUAL CH4-C EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

CH4 -Csoil=c, n A ∙ EFCH4 soil c, n

1000

Where:

CH4-Csoil = CH4 -C emissions from rewetted organic soils, tonnes C yr -1
Ac,n = area of rewetted organic soils in climate zone c and nutrient status n, ha
EFCH4 soil = emission factor from rewetted organic soils in climate zone c and nutrient status n, kg CH4-C
ha-1 yr-1
Rewetted areas should be subdivided by climate zone (boreal, temperate or tropical) and the appropriate
emission factors should be applied. Thus far flux data on CH4-C emissions from successfully rewetted tropicalsites are lacking. Thus, the default EF has been developed from data on undrained tropical peat swamp forests inSoutheast 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 tropicalorganic soils, for example the Papyrus marshes of Africa or the peatlands of Panama, the Guianas and otherparts of the Americas, are lacking. When information is available on the nutrient status of the organic soil, it isrecommended to further subdivide the rewetted area into nutrient-poor and nutrient-rich, multiply each one by
the appropriate emission factor and sum the products for the total CH4 emissions.

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

3.16

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

BOX 3.1
CONTROLS ON CH4 EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

CH4 fluxes from organic soils strongly depend on the depth of the water table (Annex 3A.3). Bothlow and high flux values have been observed from saturated organic soils (Augustin & Chojnicki,
2008; Couwenberg & Fritz, 2012; Glatzel et al., 2011). It is good practice, when developing andusing country-specific CH4 emission factors, to examine their relationship with water table
position. In this case, activity data on mean annual water table position and its distribution in space
would also be required.
Prior land use (e.g. agriculture, peat extraction, forestry) can influence CH4 fluxes from rewettedorganic soils. For example, CH4 emissions following the flooding of some agricultural land withnutrient enriched top-soil appear higher compared to average emission factors (Augustin &Chojnicki, 2008; Glatzel et al., 2011) whereas rewetted boreal cutover peatlands may have CH4
emissions below the average emission factors (Waddington and Day, 2007). It may therefore
increase accuracy to subdivide activity data and emission factors according to previous land use.
The influence of previous land use may diminish over time and countries are encouraged tomonitor emissions/removals of CH4 from rewetted organic soils to evaluate this effect.
As noted in Chapter 2, emissions of CH4-C from drainage ditches can be much higher than thesurrounding drained fields. Few data are available on CH4-C emissions from ditches of rewettedorganic soils and in some cases ditches are filled during rewetting activities. Moreover, rewetting
reduces the hydrological differences between fields and neighboring ditches creating a morehomogeneous surface from which CH4 is emitted/removed. In some cases rewetting practices may
retain ditches (e.g. Waddington et al., 2010) and when ditches remain, it is good practice toinclude estimates of CH4-C ditch emissions using methodology provided in Chapter 2 (Equation
2.6) and country-specific emission factors. Table 2A.1 can also be consulted for guidance onemission factors for remaining ditches.
The number of long-term rewetting studies is limited and changes in CH4 flux over time remain
unclear. Research on restored cutover peatlands in Canada indicates a steady increase in CH4emissions in the years immediately after rewetting as the emerging vegetation cover provides fresh
substrates for CH4 production (Waddington and Day, 2007). In contrast, rewetting of intensively
used grassland on fen peat suggests that CH4 emissions may decline over time as litter inundated
during rewetting activities is rapidly decomposed in the first few years (Limpens et al. 2008).
Changes in CH4 emissions and removals over time appear to be linked to vegetation succession(e.g. Tuittila et al., 2000) and thus understanding the pattern of emissions over time would require
the inclusion of vegetation information.
Several studies in both undisturbed and rewetted organic soils indicate the important role thatvegetation may play for providing substrate for CH4 production and for transporting CH4 from thesaturated soil to the atmosphere (e.g. Bubier, 1995; Shannon et al., 1996; Marinier et al., 2004;
Tuittila et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 2009; Dias et al., 2010). Species known to transport CH4 fromthe soil to the atmosphere include, but are not limited to Alnus, Calla, Carex, Cladium, Eleocharis,
Equisetum, Eriophorum, Glyceria, Nuphar, Nymphaea, Peltandra, Phalaris, Phragmites,
Sagittaria, Scheuchzeria, Scirpus, Typha and various peat swamp forest trees (Sebacher et al.,
1985; Brix et al., 1992; Chanton et al., 1992; Schimel, 1995; Shannon et al., 1996; Frenzel &Rudolph, 1998; Rusch & Rennenberg, 1998; Verville et al., 1998; Yavitt & Knapp, 1998; Grünfeld& Brix, 1999; Frenzel & Karofeld, 2000; Tuittila et al., 2000; Arkebauer et al., 2001; Gauci et al.,2010; Armstrong & Armstrong, 2011; Askaer et al., 2011; Konnerup et al., 2011; Pangala et al.,2012). The presence of these aerenchymous shunt species has a significant effect on CH4 efflux
from organic soils (Couwenberg & Fritz, 2012). Countries are encouraged to develop nationallyspecific emission factors that address vegetation composition (see Riutta et al., 2007; Dias et al.,2010; Couwenberg et al., 2011; Forbrich et al., 2011). The effect of biomass harvesting on CH4fluxes from rewetted organic soils has thus far remained unstudied.

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

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

3.17

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

CH4 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).

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS
Tier 1
The implementation of the Tier 1 method requires the application of default emission factors EFCH4 provided inTable 3.3, where they are disaggregated by climate zone (boreal, temperate, tropical) and nutrient status (nutrient
poor, rich). If the nutrient status of rewetted organic soils in boreal or temperate zones is not known, countries
should use the default nutrient poor EF for sites in the boreal zone, and the nutrient rich EF for sites in thetemperate zone The emission factor for rewetted tropical organic soils assumes a near surface water tablethroughout the year. For tropical areas experiencing a distinct dry season, where water tables drop below 20 cm
below surface, the emission factor in Table 3.3 should be multiplied by the number of wet months divided by 12.
Annex 3A.3 provides more details on the derivation of the default EFs and references used for theirdetermination.
TABLE 3.3
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR CH4 FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS(ALL VALUES IN KG CH4-C HA-1 YR-1)
Climate zone

Boreal*Temperate**
Tropical***Nutrient
StatusEFCH4

95% rangePoor

41 (n=39 sites)

0.5 – 246Rich

137 (n=35 sites)0 – 493Poor

92 (n=42 sites)

3 – 445Rich

216 (n=37 sites)0 – 856

41 (n=11 sites)

7 – 134* Derived from the following source material (see Annex 3 A.3 for details): Alm et al., 1997; Bubier et al.,
1993; Clymo & Reddaway, 1971; Drewer et al., 2010; Gauci et al., 2002; Juottonen et al., 2012; Komulainen
et al., 1998; Laine et al., 1996 ; Nykänen et al., 1995; Tuittila et al., 2000; Urbanová et al., 2012; Verma et al.,
1992; Waddington & Roulet, 2000; Whiting & Chanton, 2001; Yli-Petäys et al., 2007; Strack & Zuback,2013.
** Augustin & Merbach, 1998; Augustin, 2003; Augustin et al., 1996; Augustin in Couwenberg et al., 2011;
Bortoluzzi et al., 2006; Cleary et al., 2005; Crill in Bartlett & Harris, 1993; Dise & Gorham, 1993; Drösler,
2005; Drösler et al., 2013; Flessa et al., 1997; Glatzel et al., 2011; Harriss et al., 1982; Hendriks et al., 2007;
Jungkunst & Fiedler, 2007; Koehler et al., 2011; Nagata et al., 2005; Nilsson et al., 2008; Roulet et al., 2007;
Scottish Executive, 2007; Shannon & White, 1994; Sommer et al., 2003; Tauchnitz et al., 2008; Von Arnold,
2004; Waddington & Price, 2000; Wickland, 2001; Wild et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 2009, 2013; Beetz et al.,2013.
*** Derived from the following source material from undrained sites (see Annex 3 A.3 for details): Furukawa
et al., 2005; Hadi et al., 2001, 2005; Inubushi et al., 1998; Jauhiainen et al., 2001, 2004, 2005, 2008; Melling
et al., 2012; Pangala et al., 2012.

Tier 2 and 3
It is good practice to develop country-specific emission factors for each climate zone and nutrient status.
Differences in water table position explain a large proportion of variation in annual CH4 flux between sites(Annex 3A.3). Thus, estimation of CH4-C emissions/removals using country-specific EFs related to water table
position will greatly improve estimation. Estimates of CH4-C emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils
can be further improved by implementing scientific findings relating CH4-C emissions to specific cropping
practices, prior land use, vegetation cover and time since rewetting.
Default emission factors are not provided for specific wet cropping practices, such as for Sago, Taro or reed
plantations on wet organic soils where the scientific evidence is insufficient to support a globally applicable EF.
Where such practices are nationally important, it is good practice to derive country-specific emission factors
from pertinent publications (e.g. Inubushi et al., 1998; Melling et al., 2005; Watanabe et al., 2009; Chimner &Ewel 2004), taking into account water table dynamics. Emission factors for rice cropping on organic soils should
follow the guidance provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

3.18

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

3.2.3

N2O emissions from rewetted organic soils

The emissions of N2O from rewetted organic soils are controlled by the quantity of N available for nitrificationand denitrification, and the availability of the oxygen required for these chemical reactions. Oxygen availability
is in turn controlled by the depth of the water table. Raising the depth of the water table will cause N 2O
emissions to decrease rapidly, and fall practically to zero if the depth of the water table is less than 20cm below
the surface (Couwenberg et al., 2011). Saturated conditions may promote denitrification and the consumption of
N2O, but in practice this effect is very small and considered negligible in this chapter. This is because anoxic
conditions and low NH4+ availability reduce the rates of mineralisation and nitrification, two processes that are
prerequisites for denitrification.
Equation 3.9 includes the essential elements for estimating N2O emissions from rewetted organic soils:
EQUATION 3.9
N2O-N EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS
N2Orewetted org soil-N = N2Osoil-N + Lfire-N2O-N
Where:

N2Orewetted org soil-N = N2O-N emissions from rewetted organic soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
N2Osoil-N = N2O-N emissions from the soil pool of rewetted organic soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
Lfire-N2O-N = N2O-N emissions from burning of rewetted organic soils, kg N2O-N yr-1
Generic methodologies for estimating N2O emissions from the burning of vegetation and dead organic matter areprovided in Chapter 2, Volume 4 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, while methodologies specific to vegetation and
DOM burning in Forest land, Cropland, Grassland and Wetlands are provided in Chapters 4-7, Volume 4 in the2006 IPCC Guidelines. If rewetting practices involve burning, N2O emissions from the burning of organic soils
should in theory be estimated. Published data are insufficient to develop default N2O emission factors for theburning of organic soils (See Chapter 2 in this supplement); therefore Lfire-N2O-N of Equation 3.9 is notconsidered in this section.

Tier 1
Under Tier 1, emissions of nitrous oxides from rewetted soils are assumed to be negligible (Hendriks et al.,2007; Wilson et al., 2013).

Tier 2 & 3Countries where rewetted organic soils are a significant component of a key category should take into accountpatterns of N2O emissions from these sites, particularly where the nitrogen budget of the watershed is potentiallyinfluenced by significant local or regional N inputs such as in large-scale farmland development.
Country-specific emission factors should take into account fluctuations of the water table depth, which controls
oxygen availability for nitrification, and previous land use, which may have resulted in top soil enrichment(Nagata et al., 2005; 2010). The development of country-specific emission factors should take into considerationthat significant N inputs into rewetted ecosystems may originate from allochtonous (external) sources, such as
fertilizer use in the surrounding watershed. Measurement protocols should be designed in such a way as to allow
separating such inputs, to avoid double-counting N2O emissions that may already be reported as indirectemissions from anthropogenic N input within the watershed (Chapter 11, Volume 4 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
N2O emissions from soil fires on rewetted organic soils should be estimated on the basis of scientific evidence.

3.2.4

Choice of activity data

All methodological Tiers require data on areas of rewetted organic soils, broken down by climate zone andnutrient status (nutrient poor or nutrient rich) as appropriate. This section clarifies further data requirements andsuggests potential data sources.
Activity data used in the calculations can be obtained from various sources: scientific publications, databases andsoil map references, reports on rewetting projects, official communications. This information may have beendeveloped in government agencies, conservation organizations, research institutions and industry, subject to any
confidentiality considerations. It is good practice, when collecting activity data, to also obtain protocols for datacollection (frequency, measurement methods and time span), estimation methods, and estimates of accuracy andprecision. Reasons for significant changes in activity data and inter-annual fluctuations should be explained.

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

3.19

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Tier 1The default methodology assumes that a country has data on the area of rewetted organic soils, the nutrient statusof organic soils in temperate and boreal climates, and basic information on rewetting practices – such as theduration of the phase without vegetation and any remnant ditches - consistent with the guidance above on theapplicability of default emission factors.
Rewetted organic soils have been previously drained. A potential first step to determine the occurrence andlocation of rewetted organic soils is to investigate historical information on drained organic soils; chapter 2
provides guidance to identify such information.
Depending on national circumstances, it may be more effective to directly identify rewetted organic soils. The
data can be obtained from domestic soil statistics and databases, spatial or not, land cover (in particularwetlands), land use and agricultural crops (for example specialty crops typically grown on organic soils); thisinformation can be used to identify areas with significant coverage of organic soils. Useful information on
existing or planned activities may be available from the domestic peat extraction industry, regional or national
forestry or agricultural agencies or conservation organisations. Agricultural, forestry or other type of government
extension services may be able to provide specific information on common management practices on organicsoils, for example for certain crop production, forest or plantation management or peat extraction. Information
relative to rewetting practices is more likely available from regional practitioners, either in extension services,
conservation organizations or environmental engineering firms. Data may also exist on water monitoring or
management, including water management plans, areas where water level is regulated, floodplains or
groundwater monitoring data. Such information could be available from government agencies involved in water
management or the insurance industry, and be used in the determination of areas where the water level isnaturally high, has been lowered or is managed for various purposes.
Remote sensing can also be used for wet area detection and mapping of vegetation type, biomass, and othercharacteristics. Time series of remotely-sensed imagery (e.g. aerial photography, satellite imagery etc.) can assist
in the detection of rewetted organic soils and in the determination of time since rewetting. Such imagery may be
produced either by research institutes, departments or agencies, universities or by the private sector.
In the absence of domestic data on soils, it is recommended to consult the International Soil Reference andInformation Centre (ISRIC; www.isric.org; FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, 2012. Harmonized World Soil
Database (version 1.2). FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria). Inventory compilers should also
investigate available documentation on rewetting or restoration projects with the International Peat Society(Commission V: Restoration, rehabilitation and after-use of peatlands, www.peatsociety.org), the International
Mire Conservation Group (www.imcg.net) and the Verified Carbon Standard (v-c-s.org).
When information is gathered from a variety of sources, cross-checks should be made to ensure complete andconsistent representation of land management practices and areas. For example, an area should not be counted
twice if it is subject to several management practices over the course of a year. Rather, the combined effect ofthese practices should be estimated as a single rewetting for the area in question.

Tier 2Tier 2 mehodology is likely to involve a more detailed spatial stratification than in Tier 1, and further subdivisions based on time since rewetting, previous land use history, current land use and management practices aswell as vegetation composition. It is good practice to further sub-divide default classes based on empirical datathat demonstrate significant differences in GHG fluxes among the proposed categories. At Tier 2, higher spatial
resolution of activity data is expected and can be obtained by disaggregating global data in country-specificcategories, or by collecting country-specific activity data.
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.
To make use of remote sensing data for inventories, and in particular to relate land cover to land use, it is goodpractice to complement the remotely sensed data with ground reference data (often called ground truth data).
Land uses that are rapidly changing over the estimation period or that are easily misclassified should be more
intensively ground-truthed than other areas. This can only be done by using ground reference data, preferablyfrom actual ground surveys collected independently. High-resolution aerial photographs or satellite imagery may
also be useful. Further guidance can be found in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
More sophisticated estimation methodologies will require the determination of annual average water table depth;
land use and management practices prior to rewetting; and vegetation composition and the succession changes invegetation community composition and biomass with time since rewetting. This type of information can beobtained by long-term monitoring of rewetted sites under various conditions, and should be combined with an

3.20

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

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

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

3.2.5

Sources of uncertainty

Uncertainty in estimated GHG emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils will arise from uncertainties in
EFs and other parameters, uncertainties in activity data, and model structure/parameter error for Tier 3 modelbased methods. Further guidance on error estimation and the combination of errors is given in Volume 1,
Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
For Tier 1, uncertainty level for default emission factors represent the 95% confidence interval for CO2-C and
DOC as presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Due to the skewed distribution of CH4-C emissions/removals data, theuncertainty is given as the (asymmetric) range of 95% of the data as outlined in Chapter 3, Volume 1 of the 2006
Guidelines. While there may be still considerable uncertainty around each datapoint used in the derivation of theEFs, the 95% confidence interval values presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 primarily reflect the uncertainty of
the use of a single default EF that has been derived from many rewetted and undrained sites that may varyconsiderably from each other in terms of (1) their current abiotic and biotic characteristics and (2) their land use
prior to rewetting. The confidence intervals also capture the uncertainty associated with the spatial variation
reported in fluxes from the various study sites. Uncertainty also arises from inter-annual variability, although it
has been reduced by using the mean of multi-year datasets from the same site.
Sources of uncertainty when using default emission factors also include under-represented environmental
conditions in the dataset (including initial conditions and rewetting practices), lack of data representative of
various phases and end-points of the rewetting process (e.g. a transient period).
Countries developing emission factors for their inventories at higher tiers should assess the uncertainty of thesefactors. Possible sources of uncertainty in country-specific emission factors include limited data for GHG
emissions/removals on rewetted organic soils in a given region, application of emission factors measured in asmall number of rewetted areas to wide areas with different land-use and rewetting histories, application ofemission factors derived from short duration studies regardless of the time since rewetting. It is good practice forcountries using numerical models for estimating GHG emissions/removals at Tier 3 to estimate uncertainty ofthese models.
Uncertainty in activity data will depend on its source. Aggregated land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g.
FAO), may require a correction factor to minimize possible bias. Sources of uncertainty about activity data may
include the omission or duplication of rewetted areas, especially if data are gathered from a variety of sources,
missing historical data on rewetted organic soils, insufficient information on rewetting practices, post-rewetting
vegetation succession, variation on the water table depths, and on the end-point(s) of the rewetting process.
Accuracy can be improved by using country-specific activity data from various national, regional and local
institutions, with uncertainty estimated based on data collection method and expert judgment. When information
regarding activity data is gathered from a variety of sources, cross-checks should be made to ensure complete
and consistent representation of land management practices and areas.

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

3.21

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

3.3

COMPLETENESS, TIME SERIESCONSISTENCY, AND QA/QC

3.3.1

CompletenessComplete GHG inventories include estimates of emissions from all GHG emissions and removals on rewettedorganic soils for which Tier 1 guidance is provided in this chapter, for all types of organic soils that occur on thenational territory.
Not all drained soils in the national territory may have been rewetted, but all rewetted sites were drained at somepoint in the past. A complete inventory will include all drained organic soils, as well as those that have beensubsequently rewetted.
Information should be provided, for each land-use category, on the proportion of drained and rewetted areas withorganic soils. Overall, the sum of rewetted areas with organic soils reported under each land-use categories
should equal the total national area of rewetted organic soils.

3.3.2

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures should be developed and implemented as outlined in
Chapter 7 of this supplement.
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.
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 with 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. It is useful to incorporate scientific expertise
actively 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.
It is good practice to develop additional, category-specific quality control and quality assurance procedures foremissions and removals in this category. Examples of such procedures include, but are not limited to, examining
the time series of the total area of managed land on organic soils across all land-use categories to ensure there isno unexplained gains or losses of land; conducting a comparative analysis of emission factors applied torewetted land on organic soils and fluxes from un-drained similar ecosystems; ensuring consistency of the areaand location of rewetted organic soils with the information provided on drained organic soils.

3.22

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Annex 3A.1

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

Methodologies
An extensive literature review was conducted to collate all CO2 studies that are currently available for (1)rewetted organic soils (as defined in the Introduction of this chapter and including rewetted, restored and wet
managed sites) and (2) natural/undrained organic soils. Literature sources included both published and non-peer
reviewed (grey literature) studies. In the case of the latter the study was reviewed by all Lead Authors in thischapter and expert judgement was exercised as to whether the study was scientifically acceptable for inclusion.
In total, 3 non-peer reviewed studies were included.
All studies included in the database reported CO2 flux based estimation methodologies using either the chamberor eddy covariance (EC) techniques. The chamber method involves the measurement of gas fluxes at high spatial
resolution and is widely employed in conditions where the vegetation is either low or absent. The EC towers are
typically used at sites that are relatively flat and homogeneous which includes open and treed organic soils. For a
more detailed description of both methodologies see Alm et al. (2007). A detailed database of annual CO2 fluxes
was then constructed to determine the main drivers (if any) of CO2 dynamics in rewetted organic soils. Whenavailable, the following parameters were extracted from the literature source and included in the database foranalysis: climate zone (see Table 4.1, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), nutrient status, meanwater table depth (WTD), median water table depth (as well as minimum and maximum), soil pH, thickness ofthe organic soil layer, C/N ratio, degree of humification, soil moisture, soil bulk density, plant cover and species,
previous land use and time since rewetting.
The CO2 flux database initially contained a total of 216 annual flux estimates taken from 52 locations. At eachstudy location a number of sites could be identified with similar dominant vegetation and hydrology, and each as
such represented an entry in the database. For multi-year studies from the same site, annual flux estimates wereaveraged over the years. The final number of entries came to 123 and was distributed as follows:(i)

Degradation status (Natural/undrained = 74; Rewetted= 49)(ii)

Climate zone (Boreal = 65; Temperate = 58)(iii)

Nutrient status (Nutrient rich = 54; Nutrient poor = 69).

The criteria for inclusion in the database were as follows: (1) the study reported CO 2 fluxes from either rewettedorganic soils, abandoned and naturally rewetted organic soils or natural undrained organic soils. All natural sitesthat had a water table deeper than 30 cm were not included in the final database to calculate the EF, as thesewere assessed as not being ‘wet’. In other words, 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 soil surface) weredeemed suitable as a proxy for rewetted sites since the mean water table depths recorded at all the rewetted sites
in our database was always at, or shallower than -30 cm. The mean WTD is calculated over one year where theflux measurements cover the full 12 months. In boreal regions, the mean WTD applies to the growing season
only. (2) The study had to report either seasonal or annual CO2 fluxes. Studies in the database that reported daily
CO2 flux values were not used as upscaling to an annual flux value would have led to very high under- or 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, although this may represent a slight overestimation given thatphotosynthesis (and hence C uptake) may have occurred for a short time following the ending of those seasonalstudies. For studies where such data were not available, a value of 30g CO2-C m-2 for non-growing season fluxes
was used. (3) Studies had to indicate a mean WTD for each annual CO2 flux reported. In some cases, thisinformation 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 that included a woody biomass pool(e.g. treed organic soils) as this would have resulted in double accounting at the Tier 1 level. Calculated default
EFs for CO2 exclude woody biomass.
Results
To determine Tier 1 CO2-C EFs, descriptive statistics allowed the data to be grouped by (1) climate zone and insome cases by (2) nutrient status (poor or rich) and descriptive analysis for each group was computed.
1) Temperate and boreal sites
A comparison was made between individual annual net CO2 fluxes from rewetted sites and natural/undrained
sites as found in the literature (see reference list in footnote of Table 3.1 in the main text). The wide range offluxes recorded in rewetted sites can be explained by a number of factors such as 1) vegetation cover (includes

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

3.23

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

non-vegetated surfaces), 2) average annual water table depth, 3) restoration practices (other than rewetting).
While noting this large variation, especially within the temperate climate zone (-2115 to 2786 g CO2-C m-2 yr-1),
the array from both groups, natural/undrained vs rewetted is analogous (Figure 3A.1a and b).

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

Figure 3A.1

a) Boreal climate zone (n=110)
1000

Flux g CO2 m-2 yr-1

500
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-500

Undrained
Rewetted

-1000
-1500
-2000

Individual annual flux measurementsb) Temperate climate zone (n=129)
3000

Flux g CO2 m-2 yr-1

2000
1000
Undrained
0

Rewetted
0

50

100

150

-1000
-2000
-3000

3.24

Individual annual flux measurements

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Mean water table depth (WTD) was plotted against annual CO2 flux. The fitted regression lines (CO2 flux =a+b1*WTD) were compared between rewetted and natural/undrained organic soils for each climate zone (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 organic soils. Therefore, EFs were calculated using rewetted andnatural/undrained data points for each climatic zone. Means of fluxes with their 95% confidence interval were
calculated for each of the categories.

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

3.25

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Figure 3A.2

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

-40

-30

Water table depth (cm)
-20
-10
0

10

20
1500

500
0
-500

g CO2 m-2 yr-1

1000

-1000
-1500
Undrained

RewettedLinear (Undrained)

Linear (Rewetted)b) Temperate climate zone

-40

-30

Water table depth (cm)
-20
-10
0

10

20
3000

1000
0
-1000

g CO2 m-2 yr-1

2000

-2000
-3000
Undrained
Linear (Undrained)

RewettedLinear (Rewetted)

Note:
1. fitted regression line is CO2 flux = a+b1*WTD.
2. Negative water table values indicate a mean water table position below the soil surface and positive values indicate a meanwater table position above the soil surface.

3.26

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Nutrient rich sites generally display a wider range of flux values than nutrient-poor sites. This wider range can be
explained by the higher diversity of nutrient rich sites. For example, plant associations in rich fens are diverse,
commonly dominated by brown mosses, sedges and grasses. The majority of the nutrient rich organic soils usedin the calculation of the EF for the boreal zone are sedge rich fens which are known to be highly productive
ecosystems (Bellisario et al., 1998, Alm et al., 1997, Bubier et al., 1999, Yli-Petäys et al., 2007). The wider
range of flux values can also be explained by the diversity of previous land-uses as nutrient rich organic soils
have been used more intensively than nutrient poor sites, especially across the temperate zone.
Some studies on natural/undrained nutrient rich organic soils in the temperate zone have reported net annual
carbon sources (Nagata et al. 2005, Wickland 2001, Drösler et al 2013), although this may appear inconsistent
with the fact that they hold large, long-term stores of carbon. Considerable uncertainty is attached to individual
data points used in the derivation of the default EF, as the studies are generally of a short duration (1-2 years)
and do not take into account the longer-term natural variation. It should be re-affirmed that over longer timescales, natural and successfully rewetted nutrient rich organic soils (i.e. with vegetation that accumulates SOM)
are CO2 sinks unless another anthropogenic activity is impacting on the site (e.g. pollution, atmosphericdeposition, climate change).
By contrast, nutrient poor organic soils displayed less variation in CO2 fluxes across both boreal and temperatezones; the associated EFs suggest that for both boreal and temperate (Table 3.1), they are net long-term sinks foratmospheric CO2, confirming that natural/undrained and rewetted nutrient poor organic soils play as important arole in the contemporary global C cycle as they have in the past.
2) Tropical sites
Data on net CO2-C fluxes from successfully rewetted tropical organic soils are lacking. Subsidence
measurements provide a good measure of carbon losses from drained organic soils (see Chapter 2 of this
supplement) and in tropical organic soils subsidence is near zero when the water table approaches the surface(Figure 3A.3; Hooijer et al., 2012, see also Couwenberg et al., 2010). In undrained/natural conditions tropicalorganic soils constitute a CO2-C sink of 0.3 – 1.1 t CO2-C ha-1 y-1 (Lähteenoja et al., 2009, 2011; Dommain et al.,2011). In light of the available evidence the Tier1 default EF is set at 0 t CO2-C ha-1 y-1. This value is consistent
with observations on subsidence and reflects the fact that rewetting effectively stops soil organic matteroxidation but does not necessarily re-establish the soil C sink function.

Figure 3A.3

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

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

3.27

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Annex 3A.2

Estimation of default emission factors for off-site
CO2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses (CO2DOC) from rewetted organic soils

Waterborne carbon export has been found to be an important pathway linking the organic soils carbon pool tothe atmosphere as there is a growing evidence that aquatic system is characterised by high levels of
allochthonous Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) , a high proportion of which is processed and converted to CO2.
A full characterisation of waterborne C losses comprises not only DOC, but also particulate organic carbon(POC), the dissolved gases CO2 and CH4 and the dissolved carbonate species: HCO3- and CO32-. Particulate
inorganic carbon (PIC) losses are considered negligible from all types of organic soils.
The various sources, behaviour and fate of these different forms of waterborne C within organic soil systems arefurther described in Chapter 2 (Annex 2A.3). However, in temperate and boreal, natural/undrained sites, as well
as rewetted organic soils, DOC has been found to be by far the major component of fluvial C export, while POC,
DIC and dissolved CO2 are minor components of the total land-atmosphere CO2 exchange and are therefore notestimated here.
Very little data exist pertaining to POC losses from rewetted organic soils and these losses are likely to be sitespecific. However, while in-stream processing of POC (respiration/evasion) may be occurring, the greater
proportion may be simply translocated from the rewetted organic soil to other stable C stores, such as freshwateror marine sediments where it will not lead to CO2 emission. Therefore, due to current scientific uncertainty of
the ultimate fate of POC export, no estimation methodology is presented here for emissions produced from thedecomposition of POC lost from rewetted organic soils (see Appendix 2a.1 for future methodologicaldevelopment to estimate POC).
This section describes the methodology that has been used to derive emission factors for DOC losses fromrewetted organic soils as this has been shown to be the largest component of waterborne carbon loss from alltypes of organic soils (see Chapter 2). Collated data from seven rewetting studies suggest a median DOC
reduction of 36%, with a range of 1-83% (Table 3A.1). While the number of studies is limited, and results arevariable, the median reduction is almost exactly equivalent to the observed increase following drainage (a 33%
decrease in DOC would be required to fully reverse a 50% increase).
Some studies observed similar DOC concentrations in rewetted and restored bogs (previously used for peat
extraction) as in a nearby intact reference bog. Therefore, there is some evidence to suggest that rewetting will
return DOC loss fluxes to natural levels. It should be noted here that this reversal is likely to occur after an initial
pulse of DOC associated with disturbance during the rewetting process, depending on the techniques used. Thishypothesis is proposed as an explanation behind the variability shown in Table 3A.1, where some measurements
were made less than a year or during the first two years after rewetting.
While there are a limited number of published studies of rewetting impact on DOC loss, a larger number ofstudies are available that provide reliable DOC flux estimates from natural/undrained organic soils. These werecombined with rewetted sites to derive best estimates of the DOC flux (Table 3A.2).
Finally, the proportion of DOC exported from organic soils which is ultimately converted to CO2, called here
(FracDOC_CO2) is also explained in Annex 2A.3 of Chapter 2.

3.28

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

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

∆DOCRewetting

Previous land-use

Climate
zone

Study

DrainedRewetted(%)

Peat extraction bog

BorealGlatzel et al.(2003)

110

70

-36%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

Wallage et al. (2006)

43

13

-69%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

Armstrong et al. (2010)

34

30

-10%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

Gibson et al. (2009)

39

39

-1%

Drained agricultural fen

Temperate

Höll et al. (2009)

86

57

-34%

Drained extraction bog

Temperate

Strack & Zuback (2013)

100

86

-14%

DOC (g C m-2 yr-1)
DrainedRewetted

Peat extraction bog

Temperate

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

7.5
29

3.5
5

-53%
-83%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

O’Brien et al. (2008)

7.0

4.1

-41%

Drained blanket bog

Temperate

Turner et al. (2013)

79

61

-23%

TABLE 3A.2
ANNUAL DOC FLUX ESTIMATES FROM NATURAL/UNDRAINED AND REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS USED TO DERIVEDEFAULT VALUES FOR DOCFLUX
StatusClimate zone
BorealCountry
FinlandStudy
Juutinen et al. (2013)

Natural/undrained

DOC flux(t C ha-1 yr-1)
0.037

BorealCanadaMoore (2003)

Natural/undrained

0.043

BorealCanadaKoprivnjak & Moore (1992)

Natural/undrained

0.052

BorealCanadaMoore (2003)

Natural/undrained

0.060

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al. (2006)

Natural/undrained

0.060

BorealFinland

Jager et al. (2009)

Natural/undrained

0.078

BorealSwedenAgren et al. (2008)

Natural/undrained

0.099

BorealFinland

Rantakari et al. (2010)

Natural/undrained

0.120

BorealSwedenNilsson et al. (2008)

Natural/undrained

0.130

BorealFinland

Kortelainen et al. (2006)

Natural/undrained

0.159

Temperate

CanadaStrack et al. (2008)

Natural/undrained

0.053

Temperate

CanadaRoulet et al. (2007)

Natural/undrained

0.164

Temperate

USA

Urban et al. (1989)

Natural/undrained

0.212

Temperate

USA

Kolka et al. (1999)

Natural/undrained

0.235

Temperate

CanadaMoore et al. (2003)

Natural/undrained

0.290

Temperate

CanadaClair et al. (2002)

Natural/undrained

0.360

Temperate

UK

Dawson et al. (2004)

Natural/undrained

0.194

Temperate

UK

Dinsmore et al. (2011)

Natural/undrained

0.260

Temperate

UK

Billett et al. (2010)

Natural/undrained

0.234

Temperate

UK

Billett et al. (2010)

Natural/undrained

0.276

Temperate

Ireland

Koehler et al. (2009,2011)

Natural/undrained

0.1402013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

3.29

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

3.30

Temperate

Australia

Di Folco & Kirkpatrick (2011)

Natural/undrained

0.134

Temperate

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

Rewetted

TemperateUK

O’Brien et al. (2008)

Rewetted

0.041

Temperate

UK

Turener et al. (2013)

Rewetted

0.609

TropicalIndonesia

Baum et al. (2007)

Natural/undrained

0.470

TropicalIndonesia

Alkhatib et al. (2007)

Natural/undrained

0.549

TropicalMalaysia

Yule et al. (2009), Zulkifli(2002)Natural/undrained

TropicalIndonesia

Moore et al. (2013)

Natural/undrained

0.043

0.632
0.625

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Annex 3A.3

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

The same literature database and general approach were used to develop default CH4 emission factors as was
described in Annex 3A.1. A detailed database of annual CH4 fluxes was constructed to determine the main
drivers (if any) of CH4 emissions in rewetted organic soils. The collated data are based on closed chamber andeddy covariance flux measurements with a temporal coverage of at least one measurement per month during thesnow-free period. Seasonal fluxes (typically May to October) were converted to annual fluxes by assuming that
15% of the flux occurs in the non-growing season (Saarnio et al., 2007). For tropical Southeast Asia, annual data
are scarce and direct, non-annualized measurement values were used. Similar to CO2 flux measurements, datafrom undrained organic soils only were available and used as proxy for rewetted organic soils.
Where possible, the analysis considered the same parameters as those described in Annex 3A.1: climate zone
(latitude), nutrient status, mean annual water table, median annual water table (as well as minimum andmaximum), soil pH, organic soil thickness, soil C/N ratio, degree of humification, soil moisture, soil bulk density,
plant cover and species, previous land use and time since rewetting. For all subsets mentioned below thecollected data show a near log-normal distribution, which, however, did not allow for derivation of standard
deviation as a measure of variance. Variance pertains to the 95% interval of the observed data.
Methane fluxes from rewetted boreal organic soils (mean 76.3 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance -0.1 – 338.7; n=171)
are not significantly different from undrained sites (mean 80.6 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0.3 – 420.0; n=682).
The increase in efflux with rising water table (Figure 3A.4) does not differ significantly between undrained(n=41 data pairs) and rewetted sites (n= 11 pairs). Methane efflux from rewetted nutrient rich organic soils(mean 161.6 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance -0.1 – 338.7; n=6) is half an order of magnitude higher than efflux
from rewetted nutrient poor organic soils (mean 36.5 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 3.6 – 155; n=8), which ismirrored by efflux values from undrained nutrient rich organic soils (mean 131.5 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance
0.2 – 492.8; n=29) and poor organic soils ( 42.5 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0.3 – 245.9; n=31). The derived
emission factors for nutrient rich (n=35) and poor sites (n=39) are based on the total respective datasets.

Figure 3A.4

methane flux

3,0

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

Borealrewetted

Temperate
rewetted

undrained

undrained

2,0

1,0

0,0
-30

-20

-10

0

mean water table [cm]

10

20

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

mean water table [cm]1

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

2

Alm et al., 1997; Bubier et al., 1993; Clymo & Reddaway, 1971; Drewer et al., 2010; Gauci et al., 2002; Laine et al.,1996 ; Nykänen et al., 1995 ; Verma et al., 1992 ; Waddington & Roulet, 2000 ; Whiting & Chanton, 2001 ; Strack &Zuback, 20132013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

3.31

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Whereas methane fluxes from rewetted temperate organic soils (mean 173.8 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1; variance 0 –856.3; n=38)3 ) are considerably higher than from undrained organic soils (mean 117.6 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1;
variance 0 – 528.4; n=48)4), this finding is based mainly on inclusion of sites that were slightly flooded during
rewetting. Extremely high efflux values from sites on enriched agricultural soil that were turned into shallow
lakes during rewetting are not included (Augustin & Chojnicki, 2008; Glatzel et al., 2011). The increase in efflux
with rising water table is not significantly different between undrained (n=33 pairs) and rewetted sites (n=33
pairs). Methane effluxes from rewetted temperate nutrient poor organic soils (mean 69.1 kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1;
variance 3.5 – 444.5; n=15) are lower than from rewetted nutrient rich organic soils (mean 242.2 kg CH4-C ha-1
yr-1; variance -0.5 – 1027.5; n=23). Combined, the increase in efflux with rising water table in undrained andrewetted sites does not show a significant difference between nutrient poor organic soils (n=32 pairs) andnutrient rich ones (n=33 pairs). The emission factors presented are based on the total dataset of rewetted andundrained nutrient poor (n=42) and nutrient rich sites (n=37). 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.

Figure 3A.5

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

Temperate

poor

rich

poor

rich

rw

rw

rw

rw

un

un

un

un

methane flux

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

Note:
1.

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

2.

Bars indicate mean values.

3.

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

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

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

4

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

3.32

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

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

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

Drained forest

0.13 (0 – 0.35)

9*

Furukawa et al., 2005

Swamp forest

0.67

1

Swamp forest

0.74 (0.58 – 0.91)

2Secondary forest

0.14

1

Hadi et al., 2001

Secondary forest

0.46 (0 – 2.29)

13

Hadi et al., 2005

Secondary forest

0.85

1

Inubushi et al., 1998

Site

Conservation swamp forest

0.22 (0.03 – 0.70)

20*Jauhiainen et al., 2001, 2005

Drained and selectively logged forest

0.05 (-0.09 – 0.38)

76*Jauhiainen et al., 2004, 2008

Young secondary forest

0.19 (0.10 – 0.26)

6*Jauhiainen et al., 2004

Tropical peat swamp forest

1.53 (1.28 – 1.78)

2Melling et al., 2012

Conservation swamp forest

0.14

1

Pangala et al., 2012

Mean

0.47 (0.05 – 1.53)
kg CH4-C ha-1 y-1)

Annual flux

41.2 (7.0 – 134.0)

Note:
n denotes number of observations*only measurements pertaining to wet site conditions (water table ≤30 cm below the surface) are considered2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

3.33

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

References
Adkinson, A. C., Syed, K. H. & Flanagan, L. B. (2011) Contrasting responses of growing season ecosystem CO 2
exchange to variation in temperature and water table depth in two peatlands in northern Alberta, Canada. J.
Geophys. Res. 116(G1): G01004.
Alkhatib, M., Jennerjahn, T. C. & Samiaji, J. (2007) Biogeochemistry of the Dumai River estuary, Sumatra,Indonesia, a tropical blackwater river. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52: 2410–2417.
Alm, J., Shurpali, N., Tuittila, E., 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(2): 85-100.
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.
Agren, A., Jansson, M., Ivarsson, H., Bishop, K. & Seibert, J. (2008) Seasonal and runoff-related changes intotal organic carbon concentrations in the River Öre, Northern Sweden. Aquatic Sciences 70(1): 21-29.
Arkebauer, T. J., Chanton, J. P., Verma, S. B. & Kim, J. (2001) Field measurements of internal pressurization in
Phragmites australis (Poaceae) and implications for regulation of methane emissions in a midlatitude prairie
wetland. American Journal of Botany 88(4): 653-658.
Armstrong, A., Holden, J., Kay, P., Francis, B., Foulger, M., Gledhill, S., McDonald, A. & 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(1-2): 112-120.
Armstrong, J. & Armstrong, W. (2011) Reasons for the presence or absence of convective (pressurized)
ventilation in the genus Equisetum. New Phytologist 190(2): 387-397.
Askaer, L., Elberling, B., Friborg, T., Jorgensen, C. & Hansen, B. (2011) Plant-mediated CH4 transport and C
gas dynamics quantified in-situ in a Phalaris arundinacea-dominant wetland. Plant and Soil 343(1-2): 287301.
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.
Augustin, J. (2003) Gaseous emissions from constructed wetlands and (re)flooded meadows. publicationes
instituti geographici universitatis tartuensis 94: 3-8.
Augustin, J. & Chojnicki, B. (2008) Austausch von klimarelevanten Spurengasen, Klimawirkung undKohlenstoffdynamik in den ersten Jahren nach der Wiedervernässung von degradiertem Niedermoorgrünland.
In: Phosphor- und Kohlenstoff-Dynamik und Vegetationsentwicklung in wiedervernässten Mooren desPeenetals in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern - Status, Steuergrößen und Handlungsmöglichkeiten., eds. J.
Gelbrecht, D. Zak & J. Augustin, pp. 50-67. Berichte des IGB Heft 26. IGB, Berlin.
Augustin, J. & Merbach, W. (1998) Greenhouse gas emissions from fen mires in Northern Germany:
quantification and regulation. In: Beiträge aus der Hallenser Pflanzenernährungsforschung: pp. 97-110.
Augustin, J., Merbach, W., Käding, H., Schmidt, W. & Schalitz, G. (1996) Lachgas- und Methanemission aus
degradierten Niedermoorstandorten Nordostdeutschlands unter dem Einfluß unterschiedlicher
Bewirtschaftung. In: Von den Ressourcen zum recycling, ed. Alfred-Wegener-Stiftun, pp. 131-139. Berlin:
Verlag Ernst & Sohn.
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.
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.
Baird, A. J., Belyea, L. R. & Morris, P. J. (2009) Upscaling of peatland-atmosphere fluxes of methane: smallscale heterogeneity in process rates and the pitfalls of "bucket-and-slab" models. In: Carbon Cycling inNorthern Peatlands, eds. A. J. Baird, L. R. Belyea, X. Comas, A. S. Reeve & L. D. Slater, pp. 37-43.
Washington: American Geophysical Union.
Baum, A., Rixen, T. & Samiaji, J. (2007) Relevance of peat draining rivers in central Sumatra for the riverine
input of dissolved organic carbon into the ocean. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 73(3-4): 563-570.

3.34

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Beetz, S., Liebersbach, H., Glatzel, S., Jurasinski, G., Buczko, U. & Höper, H. (2013) Effects of land use
intensity on the full greenhouse gas balance in an Atlantic peat bog. Biogeosciences 10: 1067-1082.
Bellisario, L., Moore, T. & Bubier, J. (1998) Net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland, northern
Manitoba. Ecoscience 5(4): 534-541.
Billett, M. F., Charman, D. J., Clark, J. M., Evans, C. D., Evans, M. G., Ostle, N. J., Worrall, F., Burden, A.,
Dinsmore, K. J., Jones, T., McNamara, N. P., Parry, L., Rowson, J. G. & Rose, R. (2010) Carbon balance ofUK peatlands: current state of knowledge and future research challenges. Climate Research 45(1): 13-29.
Billett, M. F., Palmer, S. M., Hope, D., Deacon, C., Storeton-West, R., Hargreaves, K. J., Flechard, C. & Fowler,
D. (2004) Linking land-atmosphere-stream carbon fluxes in a lowland peatland system. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 18(1): GB1024.
Bortoluzzi, E., Epron, D., Siegenthaler, A., Gilbert, D. & Buttler, A. (2006) Carbon balance of a European
mountain bog at contrasting stages of regeneration. New Phytologist 172(4): 708-718.
Brix, H., Sorrell, B. K. & Orr, P. T. (1992) Internal pressurization and convective gas flow in some emergent
freshwater macrophytes. Limnology and Oceanography 37(7): 1420-1433.
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.
Bubier, J. L. (1995) The relationship of vegetation to methane emission and hydrochemical gradients in northernpeatlands. Journal of Ecology 83(3): 403-420.
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.
Cagampan, J. & Waddington, J. M. (2008) Net ecosystem CO2 exchange of a cutover peatland rehabilitated witha transplanted acrotelm. Ecoscience 15(2): 258-267.
Chanton, J. P., Martens, C. S., Kelley, C. A., Crill, P. M. & Showers, W. J. (1992) Methane transportmechanisms and isotopic fractionation in emergent macrophytes of an Alaskan tundra lake. Journal ofGeophysical Research-Atmospheres 97(D15): 16681-16688.
Chimner, R. A. & Ewel, K. C. (2004) Differences in carbon fluxes between forested and cultivated micronesiantropical peatlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12(5): 419-427.
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 MicrometeorologicalTechniques. Ambio 41(3): 207-217.
Clair, T. A., Arp, P., Moore, T. R., Dalvac, M. & Meng, F.-R. (2002) Gaseous carbon dioxide and methane, as
well as dissolved organic carbon losses from a small temperate wetland under a changing climate. Environ.l
Pollut. 116: S143-S148.
Cleary, J., Roulet, N. & Moore, T. (2005) Greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian peat extraction, 1990-2000:
A life-cycle analysis. Ambio 34(6): 456-461.
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.1926, Nos. 1991-1994: 1261-1320.).
Couwenberg, J. (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions from managed peat soils: is the IPCC reporting guidance
realistic? Mires and Peat 8, Article 2: 1-10.
Couwenberg, J., Dommain, R. & Joosten, H. (2010) Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in south-east
Asia. Global Change Biology 16(6): 1715-1732.
Couwenberg, J. & Fritz, C. (2012) Towards developing IPCC methane 'emission factors' for peatlands (organicsoils). Mires and Peat 10(3): 1-17.
Couwenberg, J., Thiele, A., Tanneberger, F., Augustin, J., Barisch, S., Dubovik, D., Liashchynskaya, N.,
Michaelis, D., Minke, M., Skuratovich, A. & Joosten, H. (2011) Assessing greenhouse gas emissions frompeatlands using vegetation as a proxy. Hydrobiologia 674(1): 67-89.
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.).
Dawson, J. J. C., Billett, M. F., Hope, D., Palmer, S. M. & Deacon, C. M. (2004) Sources and sinks of aquatic
carbon in a peatland stream continuum. Biogeochemistry 70: 71–92.

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

3.35

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

di Folco, M.-B. & Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2011) Topographic variation in burning-induced loss of carbon fromorganic soils in Tasmanian moorlands. Catena 87: 216-255.
Dias, A. T. C., Hoorens, B., Van Logtestijn, R. S. P., Vermaat, J. E. & Aerts, R. (2010) Plant species
composition can be used as a proxy to predict methane emissions in peatland ecosystems after land-use
changes. Ecosystems 13(4): 526-538.
Dinsmore, K. J., Smart, R. P., Billett, M. F., Holden, J., Baird, A. J. & Chapman, P. J. (2011) Greenhouse gas
losses from peatland pipes: A major pathway for loss to the atmosphere? Journal of Geophysical Research
116(G0341).
Dise, N. B., Gorham, E. & Verry, E. S. (1993) Environmental factors controlling methane emissions frompeatlands in northern Minnesota. Journal of Geophysical Research 98(D6): 10583-10594.
Dommain, R., Couwenberg, J. & 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(7-8): 999-1010.
Drewer, J., Lohila, A., Aurela, M., Laurila, T., Minkkinen, K., Penttilä, T., Dinsmore, K. J., McKenzie, R. M.,
Helfter, C., Flechard, C., Sutton, M. A. & Skiba, U. M. (2010) Comparison of greenhouse gas fluxes andnitrogen budgets from an ombotrophic bog in Scotland and a minerotrophic sedge fen in Finland. European
Journal of Soil Science 61: 640-650.
Drösler, M. (2005) Trace gas exchange and climatic relevance of bog ecosystems, southern Germany. Ph.D
thisis. In: Department für Ökologie, p. 182. Universität München.
Drösler, M., Adelmann, W., Augustin, J., Bergman, L., Beyer, C., Chojnicki, B., Förster, C., Freibauer, A.,
Giebels, M., S., G., Höper, H., Kantelhardt, J., Liebersbach, H., Hahn-Schöfl, M., Minke, M., Petschow, U.,
Pfadenhauer, J., Schaller, L., Schägner, P., Sommer, M., Thuille, A. & Wehrhan, M. (2013) Klimaschutz
durch Moorschutz. Schlussbericht des BMBF-Vorhabens: Klimaschutz - Moornutzungsstrategien 2006-2010.
published online at TIB/UB-Hannover: http://edok01.tib.uni978hannover.de/edoks/e01fb13/735500762.pdf:
201.
FAO.
(2005)
Helping
Forests
Take/www.fao.org/docrep/008/ae945e/ae945e05.htm.

Cover.

RAP

Publication.

2005/13.

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.
Forbrich, I., Kutzbach, L., Wille, C., Becker, T., Wu, J. & Wilmking, M. (2011) Cross-evaluation of
measurements of peatland methane emissions on microform and ecosystem scales using high-resolution
landcover classification and source weight modelling. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 151(7): 864-874.
Frenzel, P. & Karofeld, E. (2000) CH4 emission from a hollow-ridge complex in a raised bog: The role of CH4
production and oxidation. Biogeochemistry 51(1): 91-112.
Frenzel, P. & Rudolph, J. (1998) Methane emission from a wetland plant: the role of CH4 oxidation in
Eriophorum. Plant and Soil 202(1): 27-32.
Frolking, S., Roulet, N. T., Moore, T. R., Lafleur, P. M., Bubier, J. L. & Crill, P. M. (2002) Modeling seasonal toannual carbon balance of Mer Bleue Bog, Ontario, Canada. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16(3).
Furukawa, Y., Inubushi, K., Ali, M., Itang, A. M. & Tsuruta, H. (2005) Effect of changing groundwater levels
caused by land-use changes on greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peat lands. Nutrient Cycling inAgroecosystems 71(1): 81-91.
Gauci, V., Dise, N. & Fowler, D. (2002) Controls on suppression of methane flux from a peat bog subjected tosimulated acid rain sulfate deposition. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16(1): 4-1 to 4-12.
Gauci, V., Gowing, D., Hornibrook, E., Davis, J. & Dise, N. (2010) Woody stem methane emission in mature
wetland alder trees. Atmospheric Environment 44(17): 2157-2160.
Gibson, H. S., Worrall, F., Burt, T. P. & Adamson, J. K. (2009) DOC budgets of drained peat catchments
implications for DOC production in peat soils. Hydrological Processes 23(13): 1901-1911.
Glatzel, S., Kalbitz, K., Dalva, M. & Moore, T. (2003) Dissolved organic matter properties and their relationshipto carbon dioxide efflux from restored peat bogs. Geoderma 113(3-4): 397-411.
Glatzel, S., Koebsch, F., Beetz, S., Hahn, J., Richter, P. & Jurasinski, G. (2011) Maßnahmen zur Minderung derTreibhausgase Freisetzung aus Mooren im Mittleren Mecklenburg. Telma 4: 85-106.

3.36

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Golovatskaya, E. & Dyukarev, E. (2009) Carbon budget of oligotrophic mire sites in the Southern Taiga ofWestern Siberia. Plant and Soil 315(1): 19-34.
Grünfeld, S. & Brix, H. (1999) Methanogenesis and methane emissions: effects of water table, substrate type andpresence of Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany 64(1): 63-75.
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 emission of greenhouse gases. Microbes and Environment
16(2): 79-86.
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(1): 7380.
Harazono, Y., Mano, M., Miyata, A., Zulueta, R. & Oechel, W. C. (2003) Inter-annual carbon dioxide uptake ofa wet sedge tundra ecosystem in the Arctic. Tellus 55B: 215-231.
Harriss, R. C., Sebacher, D. I. & Day, F. P. (1982) Methane flux in the Great dismal Swamp. Nature 297(5868):
673-674 (cited in: Bartlett K.B. & Harris R.C. 1993. Review and assessment of Methane Emissions from
Wetlands. Chemosphere. Vol.1926, Nos. 1991-1994: 1261-1320.).
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.
Hendriks, D. M. D., van Huissteden, J., Dolman, A. J. & van der Molen, M. K. (2007) The full greenhouse gasbalance of an abandoned peat meadow. Biogeosciences 4: 411-424.
Herbst, M., Friborg, T., Schelde, K., Jensen, R., Ringgaard, R., Vasquez, V., Thomsen, A. & Soegaard, H. (2013)
Climate and site management as driving factors for the atmospheric greenhouse gas exchange of a restored
wetland. Biogeosciences 10(1): 39-52.
Hooijer, A., Page, S., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W., Lu, X., Idris, A. & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss
in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9(3): 1053-1071.
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(1): 78-83.
Inubushi, K., Hadi, A., Okazaki, M. & Yonebayashi, K. (1998) Effect of converting wetland forest to sage palm
plantations on methane gas flux and organic carbon dynamics in tropical peat soil. Hydrological Processes
12(13-14): 2073-2080.
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.
Jager, D. F., Wilmking, M. & Kukkonen, J. V. K. (2009) The influence of summer seasonal extremes on
dissolved organic carbon export from a boreal peatland catchment: Evidence from one dry and one wet
growing season. Sci. Total Environ. 407: 1373-1382.
Jauhiainen, J., Heikkinen, J., Martikainen, P. J. & Vasander, H. (2001) CO2 and CH4 fluxes in pristine peatswamp forest and peatland converted to agriculture in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Peat
Journal 11: 43-49.
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(12): 3503-3514.
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(10): 1788-1797.
Jauhiainen, J., Vasander, H., Jaya, A., Inoue, T., Heikkinen, J. & Martikainen, P. (2004) Carbon balance inmanaged tropical peat in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Wise use of peatlands: proceedings of the 12th
International Peat Congress: Tampere, Finland, 6-11 June 2004, ed. J. Päivänen, pp. 653-659.
Joosten, H. (2009) The Global Peatland CO2 Picture - Peatland status and drainage-related emissions in all
countries of the world. In: Wetlands International and University of Greifswald University.
Jungkunst, H. & 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(12):2668-2683.

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

3.37

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Juottonen, H., Hynninen, A., Nieminen, M., Tuomivirta, T., Tuittila, E.-S., Nousiainen, H., Kell, D. K., Yrjälä,
K., Tervahauta, A. & Fritze, H. (2012) Methane-cycling microbial communities and methane emission innatural and restored peatlands. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78(17): 6386-6389.
Juutinen, S., Väliranta, M., Kuutti, V., Laine, A. M., Virtanen, T., Seppä, H., Weckström, J. & Tuittila, E.-S.
(2013) Short-term and long-term carbon dynamics in a northern peatland-stream-lake continuum: A
catchment approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 118: 171-183.
Kivimäki, S. K., Yli-Petäys, M. & Tuittila, E.-S. (2008) Carbon sink function of sedge and Sphagnum patches ina restored cut-away peatland: increased functional diversity leads to higher production. Journal of Applied
Ecology 45: 921-929.
Koehler, A.-K., Murphy, K., Kiely, G. & Sottocornola, M. (2009) Seasonal variation of DOC concentration andannual loss of DOC from an Atlantic blanket bog in South Western Ireland. Biogeochemistry 95: 231-242.
Koehler, A.-K., Sottocornola, M. & Kiely, G. (2011) How strong is the current carbon sequestration of an
Atlantic blanket bog? Global Change Biology 17: 309-319.
Kolka, R. K., Grigal, D. F., Verry, E. S. & Nater, E. A. (1999) Mercury and organic carbon relationships instreams draining forested upland peatland watersheds. J. Environmental Quality 28: 766-775.
Komulainen, V.-M., Nykänen, H., Martikainen, P. J. & Laine, J. (1998) Short-term effect of restoration onvegetation change and methane emissions from peatlands drained for forestry in southern Finland. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 28(3): 402-411.
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.
Konnerup, D., Sorrell, B. & Brix, H. (2011) Do tropical wetland plants possess convective gas flow mechanisms?
New Phytologist 190(2): 379-386.
Koprivnjak, J.-F. & Moore, T. R. (1992) Sources, sinks and fluxes of dissolved organic carbon in subarctic fen
catchments. Arctic and Alpine Research 24: 204-210.
Kortelainen, P., Mattsson, T., Finér, L., Ahtiainen, M., Saukkonen, S. & Sallantaus, T. (2006) Controls on theexport of C, N, P and Fe from undisturbed boreal catchments, Finland. Aquat. Sci. 68: 453-468.
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.
Lafleur, P. M., Roulet, N. T. & Admiral, S. W. (2001) Annual cycle of CO2 exchange at a bog peatland. Journalof Geophysical Research 106(D3): 3071 - 3081.
Laine, A., Byrne, K., Kiely, G. & Tuittila, E.-S. (2007) Patterns in vegetation and CO2 dynamics along a waterlevel gradient in a lowland blanket bog. Ecosystems 10(6): 890-905.
Laine, J., Minkkinen, K., Sinisalo, J., Savolainen, I. & Martikainen, P. J. (1997) Greenhouse impact of a mire
after drainage for forestry. In: Northern Forested Wetlands, Ecology and Management, eds. C. C. Trettin, M.
F. Jurgensen, D. F. Grigal, M. R. Gale & J. J.K., pp. 437-447. Baco Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Laine, J., Silvola, J., Tolonen, K., Alm, J., Nykänen, H., Vasander, H., Sallantaus, T., Savolainen, I., Sinisalo, J.
& Martikainen, P. (1996) Effect of water-level drawdown on global climatic warming: Northern peatlands.
Ambio 25(3): 179-184.
Li, T., Huang, Y., Zhang, W. & Song, C. (2009) CH4MODwetland: A biogeophysical model for simulating
methane emissions from natural wetlands. Ecological Modelling 221(4): 666-680.
Limpens, J., Berendse, F., Blodau, C., Canadell, J., Freeman, C., Holden, J., Roulet, N., Rydin, H. &Schaepman-Strub, G. (2008) Peatlands and the carbon cycle: from local processes to global implications - asynthesis. Biogeosciences 5(5): 1475-1491.
Lund, M., Lindroth, A., Christensen, T. R. & Strom, L. (2007) Annual CO2 balance of a temperate bog. Tellus B
59(5): 804-811.
Lähteenoja, O., Reátegui, Y. R., Räsänen, M., Torres, D. D. C., Oinonen, M. & Page, S. (2011) The large
Amazonian peatland carbon sink in the subsiding Pastaza-Marañón foreland basin, Peru. Global Change
Biology 18(1): 164-178.
Lähteenoja, O., Ruokolainen, K., Schulman, L. & Oinonen, M. (2009) Amazonian peatlands: an ignored C sinkand potential source. Global Change Biology 15(9): 2311-2320.

3.382013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Maanavilja, L., Riutta, T., Aurela, M., Pulkkinen, M., Laurila, T. & Tuittila, E. (2011) Spatial variation in CO 2
exchange at a northern aapa mire. Biogeochemistry 104(1-3): 325-345.
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 andBiochemistry in July 2012.
Marinier, M., Glatzel, S. & Moore, T. (2004) The role of cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum) in the exchange
of CO2 and CH4 at two restored peatlands, eastern Canada. Ecoscience 11(2): 141-149.
Melling, L., Goh, K. J., Kloni, A. & Hatano, R. (2012) Is water table the most important factor influencing soil C
flux in tropical peatlands? In: Proceedings of the 14th International Peat Congress. Extended Abstract
No.330, p. 6.
Melling, L., Hatano, R. & Goh, K. (2005) Methane fluxes from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak,
Malaysia. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37(8): 1445-1453.
Meng, L., Hess, P. G. M., Mahowald, N. M., Yavitt, J. B., Riley, W. J., Subin, Z. M., Lawrence, D. M., Swenson,
S. C., Jauhiainen, J. & Fuka, D. R. (2012) Sensitivity of wetland methane emissions to model assumptions:application and model testing against site observations. Biogeosciences 9(7): 2793-2819.
Moore, S., Evans, C. D., Page, S. E., Garnett, M. G., Jones, T. G., Freeman, C., A., H., Wiltshire, A., Limin, S.
& Gauci, V. (2013) Deep instability of deforested tropical peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon fluxes.
Nature 493: 660-664.
Moore, T. R. (2003) Dissolved organic carbon in a northern boreal landscape. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 17:1109, doi: 1110.1029/2003GB002050.
Moore, T. R., Matos, L. & Roulet, N. T. (2003) Dynamics and chemistry of dissolved organic carbon in
Precambrian Shield catchments and an impounded wetland. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 612-623.
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.
Nagata, O., Yazaki, T. & Yanai, Y. (2010) Nitrous oxide emissions from drained and mineral soil-dressedpeatland in central Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology 66: 23-30.
Nellemann, C. & Corcoran, E. (eds.) (2010) Dead planet, living planet: biodiversity and ecosystem restoration
for sustainable development. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme,
GRID-Arendal. Birkeland Trykkeri AS, Norway.: 112 pp.
Nilsson, M., Sagerfors, J., Buffam, I., Laudon, H., Eriksson, T., Grelle, A., Klemedtsson, L., Weslien, P. E. R. &Lindroth, A. (2008) Contemporary carbon accumulation in a boreal oligotrophic minerogenic mire – asignificant sink after accounting for all C-fluxes. Global Change Biology 14(10): 2317-2332.
Nykänen, H., Alm, J., Lang, K., Silvola, J. & Martikainen, P. J. (1995) Emissions of CH4, N2O and CO2 from avirgin fen and a fen drained for grassland in Finland. Journal of Biogeography 22(2/3): 351-357.
Nykänen, H., Heikkinen, J. E. P., Pirinen, L., Tiilikainen, K. & Martikainen, P. J. (2003) Annual CO2 exchange
and CH4 fluxes on a subarctic palsa mire during climatically different years. Global Biogeochem. Cycles
17(1): 1018,doi:1010.1029/2002GB001861.
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. In: Nottingham Trent University.
Page, S. E., Rieley, J. O. & Banks, C. J. (2011) Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon
pool. Global Change Biology 17(2): 798-818.
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(2): 524-531.
Petrone, R. M., Waddington, J. M. & Price, J. S. (2003) Ecosystem-scale flux of CO2 from a restored vacuum
harvested peatland. Wetlands Ecology and Management 11: 419–432.
Rantakari, M., Mattsson, T., Kortelainen, P., Piirainen, S., Finér, L. & Ahtiainen, M. (2010) Organic andinorganic carbon concentrations and fluxes from managed and unmanaged boreal first-order catchments. Sci.
Total Environ. 408: 1649-1658.
Reddy, K. R. & DeLaune, R. D. (2008) Biogeochemistry of Wetlands, Science and Applications. Boca Raton,
London, New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis group. 744 p.

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

3.39

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

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.
Roehm, C. L. & Roulet, N. T. (2003) Seasonal contribution of CO2 fluxes in the annual C budget of a northernbog. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(1): 1029.
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:310.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01292.
Rusch, H. & Rennenberg, H. (1998) Black alder (Alnus Glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.) trees mediate methane andnitrous oxide emission from the soil to the atmosphere. Plant and Soil 201(1): 1-7.
Rydin, H. & Jeglum, J. K. (2006) The biology of peatlands. Oxford University Press. 360 p.
Saarnio, S., Morero, M., Shurpali, N., Tuittila, E., Makila, M. & Alm, J. (2007) Annual CO 2 and CH4 fluxes ofpristine boreal mires as a background for the lifecycle analyses of peat energy. Boreal Environment Research
12(2): 101-113.
Sagerfors, J., Lindroth, A., Grelle, A., Klemedtsson, L., Weslien, P. & Nilsson, M. (2008) Annual CO 2 exchange
between a nutrient-poor, minerotrophic, boreal mire and the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 113(G1): G01001.
Samaritani, E., Siegenthaler, A., Yli-Petäys, M., Buttler, A., Christin, P.-A. & Mitchell, E. A. D. (2011) Seasonal
net ecosystem carbon exchange of a regenerating cutaway bog: How long does it take to restore the C
sequestration function. Restoration Ecology 19: 480–489.
Schimel, J. P. (1995) Plant - transport and methane production as controls on methane flux from arctic wet
meadow tundra. Biogeochemistry 28(3): 183-200.
Schulze, E. D., Prokuschkin, A., Arneth, A., Knorre, N. & Vaganov, E. A. (2002) Net ecosystem productivity
and peat accumulation in a Siberian Aapa mire. Tellus 54B: 531-536.
Scottish Executive. (2007) Ecosse - Estimating Carbon in Organic Soils, Sequestration and emissions. Scottish
Executive, Edinburgh. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/16170508 [febr. 2008]. 177 p.
Sebacher, D. I., Harriss, R. C. & Bartlett, K. B. (1985) Methane emissions to the atmosphere through aquaticplants. Journal of Environmental Quality 14(1): 40-46.
Shannon, R. D. & White, J. R. (1994) A three-year study of controls on methane emissions from two Michigan
peatlands. Biogeochemistry 27(1): 35-60.
Shannon, R. D., White, J. R., Lawson, J. E. & Gilmour, B. S. (1996) Methane efflux from emergent vegetation inpeatlands. Journal of Ecology 84(2): 239-246.
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.
Soegaard, H. & Nordstroem, C. (1999) Carbon dioxide exchange in a high-arctic fen estimated by eddy
covariance measurements and modelling. Global Change Biology 5(5): 547-562.
Soini, P., Riutta, T., Yli-Petäys, M. & Vasander, H. (2010) Comparison of vegetation and CO2 dynamics
between a restored cut-way peatland and a pristine fen: evaluation of the restoration success. Restoration
Ecology 18(6): 894-903.
Sommer, M., Fiedler, S., Glatzel, S. & Kleber, M. (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(1): 251-257.
Strack, M., Kellner, E. & Waddington, J. M. (2005) Dynamics of biogenic gas bubbles in peat and their effects
on peatland biogeochemistry. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19(GB1003).
Strack, M., Waddington, J. M., Bourbonniere, R. A., Buckton, L., Shaw, K., Whittington, P. & Price, J. S. (2008)
Effect of water table drawdown on peatland dissolved organic carbon export and dynamics. Hydrol. Process.
22: 3373-3385.
Strack, M., Waddington, J. M., Rochefort, L. & Tuittila, E.-S. (2006) Response of vegetation and net ecosystemcarbon dioxide exchange at different peatland microforms following water table drawdown. Journal ofGeophysical Research-Biogeosciences 111(G02006).
Strack, M. & Zuback, Y. C. A. (2013) Annual carbon balance of a peatland 10 yr following restoration.
Biogeosciences 10(5): 2885-2896.

3.40

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

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Suyker, A. E., Verma, S. B. & Arkebauer, T. J. (1997) Season-long measurement of carbon dioxide exchange ina boreal fen. Journal of Geophysical Research 102(D24): 29,021 - 029,028.
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(1-2): 131-138.
Tuittila, E.-S., Komulainen, V.-M., Vasander, H. & Laine, J. (1999) Restored cut-away peatland as a sink foratmospheric CO2. Oecologia 120: 563 - 574.
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(5): 569-581.
Turner, E. K., Worrall, F. & Burt, T. P. (2013) The effect of drain blocking on the dissolved organic carbon(DOC) budget of an upland peat catchment in the UK. Journal of Hydrology 479: 169-179.
Urban, N. R., Bayley, S. E. & Eisenreich, S. J. (1989) Export of dissolved organic carbon and acidity frompeatlands. Water Resour. Res. 25: 1619-1628.
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).
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).
van Huissteden, J., van den Bos, R. & Alvarez, I. (2006) Modelling the effect of water-table management on
CO2 and CH4 fluxes from peat soils. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences-Geologie En Mijnbouw 85(1): 318.
Verma, S. B., Ullman, F. G., Billesbach, D., Clement, R. J., Kim, J. & Verry, E. S. (1992) Eddy-correlation
measurements of methane flux in a northern peatland ecosystem. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 58(3): 289304 (cited in: Bartlett K.B. & Harris R.C. 1993. Review and assessment of Methane Emissions from
Wetlands. Chemosphere. Vol.1926, Nos. 1991-1994: 1261-1320.).
Verville, J. H., Hobbie, S. E., Chapin, F. S. & Hooper, D. U. (1998) Response of tundra CH4 and CO2 flux tomanipulation of temperature and vegetation. Biogeochemistry 41(3): 215-235.
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: 48.
Waddington, J. & Day, S. (2007) Methane emissions from a peatland following restoration. Journal ofGeophysical Research-Biogeosciences 112: G03018, doi:03010.01029/02007JG000400.
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.
Waddington, J. M. & Roulet, N. T. (2000) Carbon balance of a boreal patterned peatland. Global Change
Biology 6(1): 87- 97.
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:01010.01029/02009JG001090.
Waddington, J. M., Toth, K. & Bourbonniere, R. (2008) Dissolved organic carbon export from a cutover andrestored peatland. Hydrological Processes 22(13): 2215-2224.
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(2-3): 811-821.
Walter, B. P., Heimann, M. & Matthews, E. (2001) Modeling modern methane emissions from natural wetlands
1. Model description and results. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 106(D24): 34189-34206.
Watanabe, A., Purwanto, B. H., Ando, H., Kakuda, K.-i. & Jong, F.-S. (2009) Methane and CO2 fluxes from an
Indonesian peatland used for sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) cultivation: Effects of fertilizer andgroundwater level management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 134(1–2): 14-18.
Whiting, G. J. & Chanton, J. P. (2001) Greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon
sequestration. Tellus 53B: 521-528.
Wickland, K. (2001) Carbon gas exchange at a southern Rocky Mountain wetland, 1996-1998. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 15(2): 321-335.

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

3.41

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils

Wild, U., Kamp, T., Lenz, A., Heinz, S. & Pfadenhaeur, J. (2001) Cultivation of Typha spp. in constructedwetlands for peatland restoration. Ecological Engineering 17(1): 49-54.
Wilson, D., Alm, J., Laine, J., Byrne, K., Farrell, E. & Tuittila, E. (2009) Rewetting of Cutaway Peatlands: Are
We Re-Creating Hot Spots of Methane Emissions? Restoration Ecology 17(6): 796-806.
Wilson, D., Farrell, C. A., Muller, C., Hepp, S. & Renou-Wilson, F. (2013) Rewetted industrial cutaway
peatlands in western Ireland: a prime location for climate change mitigation? Mires and Peat 11(1): 1-22.
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.
Wilson, J. O., Crill, P. M., Bartlett, K. B., Sebacher, D. I., Harriss, R. C. & Sass, R. L. (1989) Seasonal variationof methane emissions from a temperate swamp. Biogeochemistry 8(1): 55-71. (cited in: Bartlett K.B. &Harris R.C. 1993. Review and assessment of Methane Emissions from Wetlands. Chemosphere. Vol.1926,
Nos. 1991-1994: 1261-1320.).
Yavitt, J. B. & Knapp, A. K. (1998) Aspects of methane flow from sediment through emergent cattail (Typha
latifolia) plants. New Phytologist 139(3): 495-503.
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.
Yule, C. M. & Gomez, L. N. (2009) Leaf litter decomposition in a tropical peat swamp forest in Peninsular
Malaysia. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 17: 231–241.
Zulkifli, Y. (2002) Hydrological attributes of a disturbed peat swamp forest. In: Prevention and control of fire inpeatlands. Proceedings of workshop on prevention and control of fire in peatlands, 19–21 March 2002, eds.
F. Parish, E. Padmanabhan, C. L. Lee & H. C. Thang, pp. 51–55. Kuala Lumpur. Global Environment Centre& Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia. Cetaktama, Kuala Lumpur.

3.42

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

CHAPTER 4

COASTAL WETLANDS

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

4.1

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Coordinating Lead Authors
Hilary Kennedy (UK), Daniel M. Alongi (Australia) and Ansarul Karim (Bangladesh)

Lead Authors
Guangcheng Chen (China), Gail L. Chmura (Canada), Stephen Crooks (USA), James G. Kairo (Kenya), Baowen
Liao (China) and Guanghui Lin (China)

Cont ributing Author
Tiffany G. Troxler (IPCC TFI TSU)

Review Editors
Nuria Marba Bordalba (Spain) and Georgi Karl Hiebaum (Bulgaria)

4.2

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Contents
4

Coastal Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 6
4.1

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

4.2

CO2 emissions and removals ........................................................................................................... 11

4.2.1

Forest management practices in mangroves .................................................................................. 11

4.2.1.1 Biomass ................................................................................................................................. 12
4.2.1.2 Dead organic matter ............................................................................................................... 16
4.2.1.3 Soil carbon ............................................................................................................................. 18
4.2.2

Extraction.................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.2.1 Biomass ................................................................................................................................. 19
4.2.2.2 Dead organic matter ............................................................................................................... 23
4.2.2.3 Soil carbon ............................................................................................................................. 24
4.2.3

Rewetting, revegetation and creation of mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows ............. 26

4.2.3.1 Biomass ................................................................................................................................. 26
4.2.3.2 Dead organic matter ............................................................................................................... 27
4.2.3.3 Soil carbon ............................................................................................................................. 27
4.2.4

Drainage in mangroves and tidal marshes ................................................................................. 29

4.2.4.1 Biomass ................................................................................................................................. 30
4.2.4.2 Dead organic matter ............................................................................................................... 30
4.2.4.3 Soil carbon ............................................................................................................................. 30
4.3

Non-CO2 emissions......................................................................................................................... 32

4.3.1

CH4 emissions from rewetted soils and created mangroves and tidal marshes................................ 32

4.3.1.1 Choice of method ................................................................................................................... 33
4.3.1.2 Choice of emission factors...................................................................................................... 33
4.3.1.3 Choice of activity data............................................................................................................ 34
4.3.1.4 Uncertainty assessment .......................................................................................................... 34
4.3.2

N2O emissions during aquaculture use in mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows ........... 34

4.3.2.1 Choice of method ................................................................................................................... 35
4.3.2.2 Choice of emission factors...................................................................................................... 35
4.3.2.3 Choice of activity data............................................................................................................ 36
4.3.2.4 Uncertainty assessment .......................................................................................................... 36
4.4

Completeness, time series consistency, and Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) .......... 36

4.4.1

Completeness .............................................................................................................................. 36

4.4.2

Time series consistency ............................................................................................................... 36

4.4.3

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) ............................................................................... 36

Annex 4A.1 Salinity-based definitions ............................................................................................................ 37
Annex 4A.2 Estimation of above-ground mangrove biomass: higher tier methodology ..................................... 38
Annex 4A.3 Wood density of mangrove species .............................................................................................. 39

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

4.3

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Annex 4A.4 Percent refractory carbon ............................................................................................................. 40
Annex 4A.5 Derivation of N2O emission factor for aquaculture ....................................................................... 41
Appendix 4a.1 Future methodological development for estimating carbon export............................................. 42
References............................................................................................................................................... 43

Equations
Equation 4.1

Estimation of BCEF using BEF and wood densities ...................................................... 12

Equation 4.2

Tier 1 estimation of initial change in carbon stocks with extraction (all C pools) ........... 18

Equation 4.3

Initial change in carbon stocks with excavation (all C pools) ......................................... 18

Equation 4.4

Tier 1 estimation of initial change in biomass carbon stocks due to extraction activities . 20

Equation 4.5

Tier 1 estimation of initial change in dead organic matter carbon stocks due to extraction
activities....................................................................................................................... 23

Equation 4.6

Tier 1 estimation of initial change in soil carbon stocks due to extraction activities ....... 24

Equation 4.7

CO2 emissions from rewetting, revegetation and creation of coastal wetlands ................ 28

Equation 4.8

CO2 emissions on drained organic and mineral soils ...................................................... 30

Equation 4.9

CH4 emissions from rewetted soils and created tidal marshes and mangroves................. 33

Equation 4.10 Direct N2O emissions from Aquaculture use ................................................................. 35

FiguresFigure 4.1

Decision tree to indicate relevant section for Tier 1 estimation of GHG emissions andremovals due to specific management activities in coastal wetlands. ................................ 9

Tables

4.4

Table 4.1

Specific management activities in coastal wetlands ......................................................... 6

Table 4.2

Carbon fraction of above-ground biomass (tonnes C (tonnes d.m.)-1) in mangroves ........ 13

Table 4.3

Above-ground biomass in mangroves (tonnes d.m. ha-1) ................................................ 14

Table 4.4

Above-ground biomass growth in mangroves (tonnes d.m. ha-1 yr-1) .............................. 14

Table 4.5

Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R) in mangroves .................. 14

Table 4.6

Average density (D; tonnes m-3) of mangrove wood ...................................................... 15

Table 4.7

Tier 1 default values for litter and dead wood carbon stocks in mangroves ..................... 17

Table 4.8

Summary of Tier 1 estimation of initial changes in carbon pools for extraction
activities....................................................................................................................... 19

Table 4.9

Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R) for tidal marshes ............. 21

Table 4.10

Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R) for seagrass meadows ..... 21

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Table 4.11

Soil carbon stocks for mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows for extraction
activities....................................................................................................................... 26

Table 4.12

Annual emission factors associated with rewetting (EFRE) on aggregated organic andmineral soils (tonnes C ha-1 yr-1) at initiation of vegetation reestablishment.................... 29

Table 4.13

Annual emission factors associated with drainage (EFDR) on aggregated organic andmineral soils (tonnes C ha-1 yr-1) ................................................................................... 31

Table 4.14

Emission factors for CH4 (EFREWET) for Tier 1 estimation of rewetted land previously
vegetated by tidal marshes and mangroves .................................................................... 34

Table 4.15

Emission factor (EFF) for N2O emission from aquaculture use in mangroves, tidal marshes
and seagrass meadows .................................................................................................. 35

Boxes

Box 4.1

The following examples illustrate different management practices which may result in achange of a land-use category depending on how countries define mangroves and othercoastal wetlands ............................................................................................................. 82013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

4.5

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

4 COASTAL WETLANDS
4.1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides guidance on estimating and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions andremovals from managed coastal wetlands. Coastal wetlands hold large reservoirs of carbon (C) in biomass andespecially soil [global stocks: mangroves, ~8 Pg C (Donato et al., 2011); tidal marshes, ~0.8 Pg C (midrange;
Pendleton et al., 2012); and seagrass meadows, 4.2 – 8.4 Pg C (Fourqurean et al., 2012)]. Soil carbon originates
largely in situ, from root biomass and litter, and can result in a significant pool in coastal wetlands, especiallywhen compared with terrestrial forests (Pidgeon, 2009).
Coastal wetlands generally consist of organic and mineral soils that are covered or saturated, for all or part of theyear, by tidal freshwater, brackish or saline water (Annex 4A.1) and are vegetated by vascular plants. The
boundary of coastal wetlands may extend to the landward extent of tidal inundation and may extend seaward to
the maximum depth of vascular plant vegetation. Countries need to develop a nationally appropriate definition ofcoastal wetland taking into account national circumstances and capabilities. This chapter refers specifically totidal freshwater1 and salt marshes, seagrass meadows, and mangroves. For non-tidal inland mineral wetland soils,
refer to Chapter 5, this supplement.
TABLE 4.1
SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN COASTAL WETLANDS

Activity

Subactivity

Vegetation types
affected

Activities relevant to CO2 emissions and removals
Forestmanagement
practices inmangroves

Planting, thinning, harvest, wood removal, fuelwood removal, charcoal
production1

Mangrove2

Excavation to enable port, harbour and marina construction and filling or
dredging to facilitate raising the elevation of land

Mangrove, Tidal
marsh, Seagrassmeadow4

Aquaculture (construction)

Mangrove, Tidal
marsh

Salt production (construction)

Mangrove, Tidal
marsh

Drainage

Agriculture, forestry, mosquito control

Mangrove, Tidal
marsh

Rewetting,revegetationand creation3

Conversion from drained to saturated soils by restoring hydrology andreestablishment of vegetation

Mangrove, Tidal
marsh

Reestablishment of vegetation on undrained soils

Seagrass meadow4

Extraction

Activities relevant to non-CO2 emissions

1

Aquaculture(use)

N2O emissions from aquaculture use

Mangrove, Tidal
marsh, Seagrassmeadow

Rewetted soils

CH4 emissions from change to natural vegetation following modifications
to restore hydrology

Mangrove, Tidal
marsh

Including conversion to Forest Land or conversion from Forest Land to other land uses.

2

It is good practice to report mangroves in the appropriate national land-use category according to the national forest definition and to
consider when forest management practices may occur on mangroves classified under land-use categories other than Forest Land(similar types of examples in inventory reporting include wood harvest from orchards or other perennial Cropland or harvest of trees
from Wetlands).
3

The term revegetation is used to refer to practices within the framework of UNFCCC reporting.

4

Countries need to report on emissions from extraction and revegetation only if necessary data are available.

1

At the present time, insufficient data are available to provide generic default data for C pools in tidal freshwater swamps.

4.6

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

It is good practice that inventory compilers determine a country-specific definition of coastal wetlands,
recognizing national circumstances. Having applied the country-specific definition, the specific management
activities (Table 4.1) need to be identified and emissions and removals reported using the methodologies
provided in this chapter. When identifying the nature and location of these activities, inventory compilers need
only report GHG emissions or removals for activities where the anthropogenic contribution dominates overnatural emissions and removals. Management activities resulting in extraction of soils, such as construction of
aquaculture ponds, can result in large carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in mangroves and tidal marshes. Nitrous
oxide (N2O) emissions can be significant from aquaculture activities. Rewetting increases methane (CH4)emissions from drained freshwater tidal systems and increases carbon accumulation in mangrove biomass, deadwood and soils.
Coastal wetlands can potentially occur in any land-use category defined in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines and the management activity may or may not result in a land-use change (see Box 4.1).
Regardless of whether a land-use change occurs, it is good practice to quantify and report significant emissions
and removals (Table 4.1) resulting from management activities on coastal wetlands in line with the countryspecific definition. To cover all potential reporting options, new Wetland subcategories Other Wetlands
Remaining Other Wetlands and Land Converted to Other Wetlands are included. Coastal wetlands can also occur
on areas that are not part of the total land area of the country. Emissions and removals from these areas should bereported separately under the relevant land-use category, however the associated land areas should be excluded
from the total area of the land-use category (refer to Chapter 7, this supplement). In this way, countries need not
be concerned with areas of coastal wetland, with small impacts on carbon stock changes and emissions of nonCO2 gases, which are not included in the total land area.
Readers are referred to Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for many of the basic equations to estimate GHG
emissions, and new guidance is provided in this chapter, as necessary. The decision tree (Figure 4.1) guides theinventory compiler to the appropriate estimation methodology for each of the specific management activities
covered in this chapter.

COVERAGE OF THIS CHAPTER
This Chapter updates guidance contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to:provide default data for estimation of carbon stock changes in mangrove living biomass and dead woodpools for coastal wetlands at Tier 1.

This Chapter gives new: guidance for CO2 emissions and removals from organic and mineral soils for the management activities
of extraction (including construction of aquaculture and salt production ponds), drainage and rewetting,revegetation and creation;
 default data for estimation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and removals for soils in mangrove, tidal
marsh and seagrass meadows;
 guidance for N2O emissions during aquaculture use;
 guidance for CH4 emissions for rewetting, revegetation and creation of mangroves, tidal marshes andseagrass meadows.
The Appendix to this Chapter provides the basis for future methodological development to address:
Anthropogenic emissions and removals associated with dissolved or particulate organic carbon (DOC,
POC) loss during drainage as affected by tidal exchange.

For constructed wetlands that occur in coastal zones that are modified to receive and treat wastewater, refer to
Chapter 6 (this supplement). Chapter 6 also covers semi-natural treatment wetlands, which are natural wetlands
where wastewater has been directed for treatment but the wetland is otherwise unmodified.
While countries will follow their own national definitions of coastal wetlands, some general features that may
help in consistent identification can be found throughout this guidance. It is good practice to maintain consistentidentification of lands for the purpose of reporting.

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

4.7

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

BOX 4.1
THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHICH MAY RESULT IN A
CHANGE OF A LAND-USE CATEGORY DEPENDING ON HOW COUNTRIES DEFINE MANGROVES AND OTHER
COASTAL WETLANDS

For Land remaining in a Land-use category (i.e. no change in land-use category), when:Seagrass meadows or tidal marshes classified as Wetlands remain reported as Wetlands following
introduction of aquaculture activity.
Mangroves classified as Forest Land according to the national forest definition undergo selective
harvesting or biomass clearing remain reported as Forest Land unless they undergo a land-use
change.
Mangroves, which do not meet all thresholds of a country’s definition of forest, but are coastal
wetlands with trees are classified as Wetlands, and when subject to selective harvesting or biomass
clearing remain reported as Wetlands.
Conversely, management activities may result in a change in reporting category, for example,
when:Seagrass meadows are initially classified as Wetlands, but are considered a Settlement following
introduction of aquaculture activity.
Tidal marshes are classified as Wetlands and are drained for agriculture and subsequently
classified as a Cropland or Grassland.
Mangroves are classified as Forest Land and undergo clearing, or drainage and converted toanother land-use category.

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIE S IN COASTAL WETLAND S
Coastal wetlands that have been modified by anthropogenic activities are often reduced in area. Globally about
35% of the area of mangroves has disappeared since 1980, with a current global areal rate of loss of between 0.7
and 3% yr-1 (Pendelton et al., 2012). The management activities that have led to the majority of mangrove loss
include forestry activities (26%) and aquaculture, comprising the construction (and extraction of soil) for shrimp
ponds (38%) and fish farms (14%) (Vaiela et al., 2009). Other management activities may lead to the removal ofmangrove biomass without necessarily resulting in mangrove clearance i.e. harvesting for fuelwood, charcoaland construction. The current global areal rate of loss of tidal marsh is estimated to be between 1 and 2% yr -1(Pendelton et al., 2012). Draining for agriculture, diking to isolate marsh from tides, filling (after extraction)with sediment, and the extraction of soil during the construction of ponds for salt production are common
management activities affecting tidal marshes. Seagrass meadows are experiencing a global areal rate of loss
currently of between 0.4 and 2.5% yr-1 (Pendelton et al., 2012). Globally, the main reasons for seagrass loss aremanagement activities such as dredging, leading to the excavation of soil to raise the elevation of land in low
lying areas and contribute to new land areas for settlement and aquaculture.
Revegetation efforts with mangroves, tidal marsh plants and seagrass, have been made worldwide to compensate
or mitigate for coastal wetland loss resulting from management activities (e.g. Bosire et al., 2008; Orth et al.,2011). Recovery of vegetation that characterised the coastal zone generally requires reestablishment of the preexisting environmental setting, such as rewetting (restored hydrology), to maintain saturated soils and facilitate
plant growth. Management activities do not always affect all vegetation types (i.e. mangroves, tidal marsh plants
and seagrasses) or occur in all countries and not all coastal wetlands will be managed. To identify areas affectedrefer to respective sections on Activity Data and throughout this supplement.

4.8

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Figure 4.1

Decision tree to indicate relevant section for Tier 1 estimation of GHG
emissions and removals due to specific management activities in coastal
wetlands 2.
Start

Does this coastal wetland
retain saturated soils and are mangrove forests
managed for wood harvesting or otherpractices?

Yes

Forest management
practices in mangroves
Go to section 4.2.1. for CO2

No

Is biomass, DOM and soil
being extracted from this coastal
wetland?

Yes

Extraction (including
excavation, construction of
aquaculture and salt
production ponds)
Go to section 4.2.2 for CO2

Yes

Aquaculture use
Go to section 4.3.2 for N2O

Yes

Rewetting, revegetation &creation
Go to section 4.2.3 for CO2
OR
Rewetted soils
Go to section 4.3.1 for CH4

Yes

Rewetting, revegetation &creation
Go to section 4.2.3 for CO2

Yes

Drainage
Go to section 4.2.4 for CO2

No

Is the management activity
aquaculture and is it in use?

No
Was thisa drained coastal wetland
and is now being rewetted or managed
to create or reestablish its
natural vegetation?
No
Is this an area being
managed to create or reestablish
seagrass meadows?

No
Has this coastal wetland
been drained?
No
No guidance in this chapter

2

For extraction activities, CO2 emissions and removals are estimated for the initial change in carbon stocks that occur during
the year the extraction activities take place. Once the activity/activities is/are completed, these lands are continually track ed
but CO2 emissions and removals are reported as zero at Tier 1. Forest management practices in mangroves, drainage andrewetting are reported based on the area of land where it occurs, lands are tracked and CO 2 emissions and removals
subsequently are reported in the annual inventory.

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

4.9

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

The following sections provide some general information on the specified management activities in coastal
wetlands that result in large anthropogenic emissions and removals.

Fo res t manag eme nt pract ices in ma ngrov es
Removal of wood occurs throughout the tropics where mangrove forests are harvested for fuelwood, charcoal,and construction (Ellison and Farnsworth, 1996; Walters et al., 2008). The wood removal can range fromextensive forest clearing to more moderate, selective harvesting of individual trees, or to minimally invasive
activities such as bark removal. Natural disturbances are another form of biomass carbon stock loss. There may
also be conversion to forest land where mangrove replanting can take place on rewetted, or already saturated,soils.

Ext ract io n
Extraction collectively refers to:(A) Excavation of saturated soils leading to unsaturated (drained) soils and removal of biomass and dead organic
matter. Activities that lead to the excavation of soil often lead to loss of coastal wetlands. The excavated ordredged soil is also commonly used to help develop coastal infrastructure where there is a need to raise theelevation of land in low lying areas and/or contribute to new land areas for settlement.
(B) Excavation during the “construction” phase of aquaculture and salt production ponds in mangroves and tidal
marshes followed by the “use” of these facilities.
Aquaculture and salt production are common activities in the coastal zone and similarly require excavation ofsoil and removal of biomass and dead organic matter for construction. There is a range of aquaculture practices,
but the most important are fish farming and production from shrimp ponds (World Bank, 2006). Salt production,from the evaporation of seawater, is also a widespread activity with sites along tropical and subtropical coasts
worldwide, some of which have been producing salt for centuries (Oren, 2009; Thiery and Puente, 2002). In bothactivities, ponds are constructed in mangroves and tidal marshes by clearing vegetation, levelling the soil andsubsequently excavating the surface soils to build berms where water is held. Depending on the type ofaquaculture (intensive, extensive etc.) and the species stocked in the ponds (shrimp, fish) the soils can be
excavated to make ponds of 0.5 m to 2.5 m depth (Cruz, 1997; Kungvankij et al., 1986; Wang, 1990; Robertsonand Phillips, 1995). In a similar manner the depth of salt production ponds can vary between depths of about 0.5
to 2.5 m (e.g. Ortiz-Milan, 2006; Madkour and Gaballah, 2012).
Construction is only the first phase in aquaculture and salt production. The second phase, termed “use” is whenfish ponds, cages or pens are stocked and fish production occurs. In seagrass meadows, aquaculture ismaintained by housing fish in floating cages or pens that are anchored to the sediment (Alongi et al., 2009) andthese settings are considered during the use phase. N2O is emitted from aquaculture systems primarily as a byproduct of the conversion of ammonia (contained in fish urea) to nitrate through nitrification and nitrate to N 2
gas through denitrification. The N2O emissions are related to the fish production (Hu et al., 2012). When use of
the aquaculture systems has been stopped, often due to disease or declining water clarity (Stevenson et al., 1999),
the systems transition to a final phase i.e. “discontinued”. All three phases (construction, use and discontinued)of aquaculture and salt production are considered together with the other extraction activities, because theactivity data are linked. However, only construction is addressed at Tier 1 for CO2, with higher tiers addressing
use and discontinued phases. For non-CO2, only the use phase is considered at Tier 1.

Rew ett ing, rev eget at io n and creat io n
Rewetting is a pre-requisite for vegetation reestablishment and/or creation of conditions conducive to purposefulplanting of vegetation that is characteristic of coastal wetlands. This activity is also used to describe themanagement activities designed to reestablish vegetation on undrained soils in seagrass meadows. Once thenatural vegetation is established, soil carbon accumulation is initiated at rates commensurate to those found innatural settings (Craft et al., 2002, 2003; Osland et al., 2012).
Rewetting in mangroves and tidal marshes occurs where hydrologic modifications reverse drainage or remove
impoundments or other obstructions to hydrologic flow (e.g. levee breach). Also included in this activity are
mangroves and tidal marshes that have been created, typically by raising soil elevation or removing the upper
layer of upland soil or dredge spoil, and grading the site until the appropriate tidal elevation is reached tofacilitate reestablishment of the original vegetation. Revegetation can occur by natural recolonisation, direct
seeding and purposeful planting. Alternatively, created wetlands with mangroves can be found where highriverine sediment loads lead to rapid sediment accumulation, so that previously sub-aqueous soils can beelevated above tidal influence. This naturally created land can be reseeded or purposefully vegetated.

4.10

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

The rewetting of tidal marshes and mangroves through reconnection of hydrology may lead to CH4 emissions(Harris, 2010), particularly at low salinities, with an inverse relationship between CH4 emissions and salinity(Purvaja and Ramesh, 2001; Poffenbarger et al., 2011).
In coastal wetlands where seagrass loss has occurred due to anthropogenic activities, soils remain saturated.
Initiatives to allow revegeation can include natural or purposeful dispersal of seed or planting of seagrass
modules (Orth et al., 2011). These same techniques can also be used to create (rather than re-establish) seagrassmeadows (Jones et al., 2012).

Drainage
Mangroves and tidal marshes have been diked and drained to create pastures, croplands and settlements since
before the 11th century (Gedan et al., 2009). The practice continues today on many coastlines. On some diked
coasts, groundwater of reclaimed former wetlands is pumped out to maintain the water table at the required level
below a dry soil surface, while on other coasts drainage is achieved through a system of ditches and tidal gates.
Due to the substantial carbon reservoirs of coastal wetlands, drainage can lead to large CO2 emissions.

4.2

CO 2 EMISSIONS AND REMOVALSThis section provides the methodology to estimate CO2 emissions and removals from human activities in coastal
wetlands comprising forest management practices in mangroves, extraction, drainage and rewetting. The
methodological guidance provided here is consistent with methods for biomass and dead organic matter inVolume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and are in large part based on that methodological guidance: (1) forforest management practices in mangroves, methods for biomass and dead organic matter are in large part basedon Chapter 4 of Volume 4; (2) for extraction activities, the methodological guidance is generally consistent withguidance for peat extraction Chapter 7 of Volume 4; and (3) for rewetting and drainage activities, updated
methodological guidance found in other chapters of this supplement is consistent with the methodologies
presented here. Activities covered by this chapter are described in Table 4.1. Separate guidance is provided on
estimation of changes in carbon stock from the five carbon pools.
Depending on circumstances, practices and definitions, specific coastal wetland management activities may or
may not involve a change in land-use category. The guidance in this chapter needs to be applied regardless of thereporting categories. In particular, no recommendation is provided in relation to transition periods between landuse categories; countries can apply the existing transition period of appropriate land-use categories.
Consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the Tier 1 default approach assumes that the change in biomass anddead organic matter carbon stocks are zero on all lands except on Forest Land or on Cropland, Grassland andWetlands with perennial woody biomass. On Forest Land and on Cropland, Grassland, or Wetlands with woody
biomass, the woody biomass and woody dead organic matter pools are potentially significant and need to be
estimated in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in Chapters 2 (generic methods), 4 (Forest Land), 5(Cropland), 6 (Grassland) and 7 (Wetlands) in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Guidance provided here
refers to Equations 2.7, 2.8 and the subsequent equations in Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines which split
the carbon stock changes in the biomass pool or ΔCB into the various possible gains and losses.
If specific management activities in coastal wetlands (Table 4.1) are accompanied by a change in land use thatinvolves Forest Land or Cropland, Grassland or Wetlands with perennial woody biomass, changes in carbon
stocks in biomass, dead wood and litter pools are equal to the difference in carbon stocks in the old and current
land-use categories (see Section 2.3.1.2, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). These changes incarbon stock occur only in the year of the conversion (extraction activities), or are uniformly distributed over thelength of the transition period (e.g. planting, harvesting). In soils the change in carbon stocks for extraction
activities occurs in the year of conversion, while for drainage, emissions persist as long as the soil remains
drained or as long as organic matter remains, following the methodological guidance in this chapter.

4.2.1

Forest management practices in mangroves

This section deals with CO2 emissions and removals associated with forest management practices in mangroves.
It is good practice to follow a country’s national definition of forest, but also to apply the appropriate guidance
when mangrove wetlands have trees, but that do not necessarily satisfy all thresholds of the national definition offorest. Depending on how the land is classified, forest management practices in mangroves may or may not leadto a change in land-use category (examples provided in Box 4.1). For estimation methodologies refer to thegeneric guidance provided in Chapter 2 of Volume 4 and more specific guidance in the relevant chapters of the2006 IPCC Guidelines for reporting CO2 emissions and removals for above-ground biomass, below-groundbiomass and dead organic matter (litter and dead wood).

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

4.11

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

4.2.1.1

B IOMASS

Biomass can be stored in mangroves that contain perennial woody vegetation. The default methodology for
estimating carbon stock changes in woody biomass is provided in Section 2.2.1, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. The change in biomass is only estimated for perennial woody vegetation of mangroves.
Changes in mangrove biomass may be estimated from either: 1) annual rates of biomass gain and loss (Equation
2.7, Chapter 2) or 2) changes in carbon stocks at two points in time (Equation 2.8, Chapter 2). The first approach(Gain-Loss method) can be used for Tier 1 estimation (with refinements at higher tiers) whereas the second
approach can be used for Tier 2 or 3 estimations. It is good practice for countries to strive to improve inventory
and reporting approaches by advancing to the highest possible tier given national circumstances. For coastal
wetlands with non-woody vegetation (i.e. seagrass meadows and many tidal marshes), increase in biomass stocks
in a single year is assumed equal to biomass losses from mortality in that same year leading to no net change.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Tier 1
If the land (1) satisfies a country’s definition of forest or (2) is a mangrove wetland with trees, that nonetheless
do not meet the national definition of forest, and is managed for forest activities where no land-use change has
occurred, guidance is provided in “Section 2.3.1.1 Land Remaining in a Land-Use Category” and in the specificguidance in Volume 4, of the IPCC 2006 Guidelines. Guidance is applied using the default data provided in thischapter (Table 4.2 – 4.6) and specific guidance below. Examples may include Forest Land to Forest Land,
Wetlands to Wetlands or Other Wetlands to Other Wetlands.
If the land (1) satisfies a country’s definition of forest or (2) is a mangrove wetland with trees, and is managed
for forest activities where land-use change has occurred or trees have been cleared, guidance is provided in“Section 2.3.1.2 Land Converted to a Another Land-Use Category” and in the specific guidance in the relevant
chapters of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Guidance is applied using the default data provided in thischapter (Table 4.2 – 4.6) and specific guidance below.
When either the biomass stock or its change in a category (or sub-category) is significant or a key category, it isgood practice to select a higher tier for estimation. The choice of Tier 2 or 3 methods depends on the types andaccuracy of data and models available, level of spatial disaggregation of activity data and national circumstances.
If using activity data collected via Approach 1 (see Chapter 3 of Volume 4 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and it
is not possible to use supplementary data to identify land converted from and to the respective land category, theinventory compiler needs to estimate carbon stocks in biomass following Section 2.3.1.1 and specific relevant
guidance as indicated above.
Because a biomass conversion and expansion factor (BCEF) is not available for mangroves, when above-groundbiomass is estimated from merchantable growing stock, for conversion of net annual increment, or for
conversion of woody and fuelwood removal volume to above-ground biomass removal, BCEF is derived fromwood density (Table 4.6) and a default value of BEF (Table 3A.1.10- Annex 3A.10 of the Good PracticeGuidance for Land Use, Land-use Change, and Forestry). This formulation follows Equation 4.1 and is
described in Box 4.2 of Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
EQUATION 4.1
ESTIMATION OF BCEF USING BEF AND WOOD DENSITIESBCEF = BEF • D(Section 2.3.1.1, Chapter 2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines)
Where:
BCEF = biomass conversion and expansion factor for conversion of growing stock, net annual increment orwood removals into above-ground biomass, above-ground biomass growth or biomass removals; tonnes
d.m. m-3
BEF = biomass expansion factor to expand the dry weight of the merchantable volume of growing stock,
net annual increment or wood removals to account for non-merchantable components; dimensionless
D = wood density; tonnes d.m. m-3

Tier 2
As in Tier 1, the Gain-Loss method can be applied using country-specific data. In addition, the Stock-Difference
method can also be applied using country-specific emission factors. If using the Stock-Difference method,country-specific BEF or BCEF data or species specific wood density values (provided in Annex 4A.3) could beapplied. For Tier 2, countries may also modify the assumption that immediately following conversion to another4.12

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

land-use category, or after mangrove trees are cleared, biomass is zero. Refer to the relevant sections in Volume
4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for further guidance on Tier 2 methodologies for forest management practices inmangroves.

Tier 3Tier 3 approach for biomass carbon stock change estimation allows for a variety of methods including processbased models that simulate the dynamics of biomass carbon stock changes. Country-defined methodology can bebased on estimates of above-ground biomass through use of allometric equations (Annex 4A.2) or include
detailed inventories based on permanent sample plots. Tier 3 could also involve substantial national data on
disaggregation by vegetation type, ecological zone and salinity. Tier 3 approaches can use growth curves
stratified by species, ecological zones, site productivity and management intensity. If developing alternative
methods, these need to be clearly documented. Refer to the relevant sections in Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines for further guidance on Tier 3 methodologies for forest management practices in mangroves.
Spaceborne optical and radar data can be used for mapping changes in the extent of mangroves and transitions toand from other land covers. Such techniques currently cannot routinely provide estimates of a sufficient level ofaccuracy, although this may become more feasible in the future (refer to this section, “Choice of Activity Data”).

CHOICE OF EMISSION/R EMOVAL FACT ORS
Tier 1For countries using the Gain-Loss method as a Tier 1 approach, the estimation of the annual carbon gains inliving biomass requires the following: carbon fraction of above-ground biomass, average above-ground biomass,mean annual above-ground biomass growth, ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass andaverage wood density. The default values for these parameters are provided in Tables 4.2-4.6, respectively. It isgood practice to apply annual growth rates that lead neither to over- nor underestimates. Losses due to wood
removals, fuelwood removals and disturbances are also needed (refer to Choice of Activity Data for Tier 1 anduncertainty analysis in this section).

Tier 2National data could include country specific values of any parameter used in the Tier 1 method or values that
permit biomass carbon stock changes using the Stock-Difference method. Refer also to the relevant sections ofVolume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for further guidance.

Tier 3Tier 3 methods may employ the use of data that are of higher order spatial disaggregation and that depend on
variation in salinity or further disaggregation of regional differences within a country. Forest growth rates of
specific age ranges could be applied. Refer also to the relevant sections of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for further guidance.

TABLE 4.2
CARBON FRACTION OF ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS ( TONNES C ( TONNES D.M.)-1) IN MANGROVES 1

1

Component%C

95% CI3

Range

Leaves + wood2

45.1 (n = 47)

42.9, 47.1

42.2-50.2

This Table provides supplementary values to those presented in Table 4.3, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2

Sources: Spain and Holt, 1980; Gong and Ong, 1990; Twilley et al., 1992; Bouillon et al., 2007; Saenger, 2002; Alongi et al., 2003, 2004;
Kristensen et al., 20083

95% CI of the geometric mean

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

4.13

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

TABLE 4.3
ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS IN MANGROVES ( TONNES D.M. HA-1) 1
DomainTropicalRegionAbove-ground biomass

Range

187, 2048.7-384

n49

Tropical Wet

192

Tropical Dry

923

88, 97

3.2-201

13

754

66, 84

3.9-129

10

Subtropical1

2

95% CI5

This Table provides supplementary values to those presented in Table 4.7-4.9, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2

Sources: Golley et al., 1975; Christensen, 1978; Ong et al., 1982; Putz and Chan, 1986; Tamai et al., 1986; Komiyama et al., 1987; 1988,
2000, 2008; Lin et al., 1990; Mall et al., 1991; Amarasinghe and Balasubramaniam, 1992; Kusmana et al., 1992; Slim et al., 1996; Fromard
et al., 1998; Norhayati and Latiff, 2001; Poungparn, 2003; Sherman et al., 2003; Juliana and Nizam, 2004; Kirui et al., 2006; Kairo et al.,2008; Fatoyinbo et al., 2008; Camacho et al., 2011; Kauffman et al., 2011; Thant and Kanzaki, 20113

Sources: Golley et al, 1962; Briggs, 1977; Suzuki and Tagawa, 1983; Steinke et al., 1995; Alongi et al., 2003; Medeiros and Sampoia, 2008;
Khan et al., 2009
4

Sources: Lugo and Snedaker, 1974; Woodroffe, 1984; Lee, 1990; Mackey, 1993; Tam et al., 1995; Saintilan, 1997; Ross et al., 2001;
Coronado-Molina et al., 2004; Simard et al., 2006; Fatoyinbo et al., 2008; Komiyama et al., 2008; Abohassan et al., 2012
595% CI of the geometric mean

TABLE 4.4
ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS GROWTH IN MANGROVES ( TONNES D.M. HA-1 YR-1)1
DomainTropicalRegionAbove-ground biomass
growth2,3

95% CI4

Range

Tropical Wet

9.9

9.4, 10.4

0.1-27.4

23

Tropical Dry

3.3

3.1, 3.5

0.1-7.5

6

18.1

17.1, 19.1

5.3-29.1

4

Subtropical1

This Table provides supplementary values to those presented in Table 4.10, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2

Sources: Ajonina 2008; Kairo et al., 2008; Alongi, 2010n3

Biomass growth rates are from forests of varying age and such default values should only pertain to forests until the carbon biomass stock(Table 4.3) is reached.
4

95% CI of the geometric mean

TABLE 4.5
RATIO OF BELOW- GROUND BIOMASS TO ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS (R) IN MANGROVES1
DomainRegionR[tonne root d.m.

95% CI5

Rangen(tonne shoot d.m.)-1]
TropicalTropical Wet

0.492

0.47, 0.51

0.04-1.1

18

Tropical Dry

30.28, 0.30

0.09-0.79

9

0.964

0.91, 1.0

0.22-0.27

18

Subtropical

0.29

1

This Table provides supplementary values to those presented in Table 4.4, Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

2

Sources: Golley et al., 1975; Tamai et al., 1986; Komiyama et al., 1987, 1988; Gong and Ong, 1990; Lin et al., 1990; Poungparn, 2003

3

Sources: Golley et al, 1962; Alongi et al., 2003; Hoque et al., 2010

4

Sources: Briggs, 1977; Lin, 1989; Tam et al., 1995; Saintilan, 1997

595% CI of the geometric mean

4.14

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

TABLE 4.6
AVERAGE DENSITY (D; TONNES M-3) OF MANGROVE WOOD1
Wood

D

95% CI2

Range

n

0.71

0.64, 0.74

0.41-0.8785

1

Sources: Global Wood Density Database http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.234/1?show=full; Saenger, 2002; Komiyama etal., 2005; Donato et al., 20122

95% CI of the geometric mean

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
All tiers require information on areas of forest management practices in mangroves. Information on mangrove
forest types as well as soil types can be obtained from national wetland and soil type maps (if available) or theInternational Soil Reference and Information Centre (www.isric.org). Mangrove distributions for most countries
can be obtained from the RAMSAR web site (www.ramsar.org). When information is gathered from multiple
sources, it is good practice to conduct crosschecks to ensure complete and consistent representation and avoid
omissions and double-counting.

Tier 1
For Tier 1, these data can be obtained from one of the following sources 3:
FAOSTAT http://faostat.fao.org/
Global Mangrove Database & Information System: http://www.glomis.com/
The UNESCO Mangrove Programme: http://www.unesco.org/csi/intro/mangrove.htm
Mangrove and the Ramsar Convention: http://www.ramsar.org/types_mangroves.htm
USGS Global Mangrove Project http://lca.usgs.gov/lca/globalmangrove/index.php
Mangrove.org: http://mangrove.org/
Mangrove Action Project: http://www.mangroveactionproject.org/
FAO Mangrove Management: http://www.fao.org/forestry/mangrove/en/
USGS National Wetlands Research Center: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/index.html
World Atlas of Mangrove: http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/22
World Distribution of Coral Reefs and Mangroves: http://www.unep-wcmc.org
For Tier 1 estimation, FAO data sources can be used to estimate wood removal and fuelwood removal. Further
sources of activity data can be found in the relevant sections of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Additional resources can be found in IPCC (2010).
Global mangrove cover has been mapped by the United States Geological Service (USGS) for three epochs“1975” (1973-1983), “1990” (1989 – 1993), and “2000” (1997 -2000) and is available for download at
http://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/ip/mangrove/download.php. Global distribution of Mangroves (V3.0, 1997) has been
compiled by UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) in collaboration with theInternational Society for Mangrove Ecosystems (ISME).
The Kyoto & Carbon Initiative of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Global Mangrove Watch
project has used Synthetic Aperture Radar mosaics to create maps of global mangrove extent for the years 1995
and 2007-2010 (JAXA 2010a) and maps of annual changes in mangrove areas between the years 1995-2007,
2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. (http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/kyoto/mangrovewatch.htm).
Resources providing recent trends in coastal wetland area can help countries understand circumstances of thosetrends and what management activities contribute to them (FAO, 2007; Green and Short, 2003;
http://archive.org/stream/worldatlasofseag03gree#page/n5/mode/2up; JAXA, 2010b; Sifleet et al., 2011;
http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications?topics=34; Fatoyinbo and Simard, 2013).
Sources providing international data can be verified, validated and updated data with national sources.

3

If these links do not work, either paste into your browser or do a web search for the resources or institution.

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

4.15

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Tiers 2 and 3
At Tiers 2 and 3, country-specific activity data is applied, and at Tier 3, at the resolution required for Tier 3
methods. At higher tiers, these data may be obtained from local, state or regional government department
websites as many countries and regional government authorities report this information. Countries also havetheir own remote sensing systems which can be used for land change mapping (Nasciemto et al., 2013) Wooddensity values (Annex 4A.3) of specific species need to be applied at Tiers 2 and 3. Areas of extensive
harvesting of mangroves may be assessed with aerial imagery. When the ALOS-2 satellite is operational,
generation of annual radar mosaics and mangrove extent and change maps is planned(http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/kyoto/mangrovewatch.htm).

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
The major sources of uncertainty for all wetland types, especially mangroves, are dominant species-specificdifferences in carbon content and differences due to forest age, species composition, intertidal location, soil
fertility and community structure. The confidence intervals presented in Tables 4.2 - 4.6, range from about 24%
to 200%. To reduce uncertainty, countries are encouraged to develop country- or region-specific BEFs and
BCEF values. In case country- or region-specific values are unavailable, it is good practice to check the sourcesof default parameters and their correspondence with species present, as well as with the conditions in country.
The causes of variation of annual increment of mangrove growth include climate, site growth conditions, andsoil fertility. Artificially regenerated and managed stands are less variable than natural forests. One of the ways
to improve accuracy of estimates of these wetlands includes the application of country-specific or regional
estimates of growth stratified by the dominant species present. If the default values of growth increments areused, the uncertainty of the estimates need to be clearly indicated and documented.
For mangroves, data on commercial fellings are relatively accurate, although they may be incomplete or biased
due to illegal fellings and under-reported due to tax regulations. Traditional wood that is gathered and useddirectly, without being sold, is not likely to be included in any statistics. Countries must carefully consider theseissues. The amount of wood removed from forests after storms and pest outbreaks varies both in time andvolume. No default data can be provided on these types of losses. The uncertainties associated with these losses
can be estimated from the amount of damaged wood directly withdrawn from the forest or using data on
damaged wood subsequently used for commercial and other purposes. If fuelwood gathering is treated separatelyfrom fellings, the relevant uncertainties might be high, due to the level of uncertainty associated with traditional
gathering.

4.2.1.2

D EAD ORGANIC MATTERThe guidance for changes in the carbon pools in dead organic matter (DOM; dead wood and litter) in mangroves
provided in the 2006 IPCC Guideline remains unchanged. Dead roots ≤2 cm diameter are included in the soil
pool and not considered within the dead organic matter pool. This fraction of dead roots turns over rapidly(Alongi, 2009) with the assumption of approximating steady state. Dead organic matter C stocks can varydepending on tidal inundation and frequency, as well as soil oxidation and vegetation cover. Fine litter can beexported with tidal activity (Alongi, 2009) while a larger fraction of senesced woody biomass is buried or
decomposed in-situ. In wetlands, decomposition of DOM, especially wood, is slow (Robertson and Daniel, 1989)
and accumulates as soil organic matter. Careful consideration of pools is needed in estimating inputs, outputs orchanges of dead organic matter carbon stocks to avoid double-counting. Consistent with the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, it is good practice to consider dead organic matter carbon stock changes when management
activities in coastal wetlands result in changes in mangrove cover due to human-induced impacts.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Tier 1
If the land (1) satisfies a country’s definition of forest or (2) is a mangrove wetland with trees, that nonethelessdoes not meet the national definition of forest, and is managed for forest activities, where no land-use change has
occurred, guidance is provided in “Section 2.3.1.1 Land Remaining in a Land-Use Category” and in the specificguidance in Volume 4, of the IPCC 2006 Guidelines and applied using the default data provided in this chapter(Table 4.7) and specific guidance below. Examples may include Forest land to Forest land, Wetlands to
Wetlands or Other Wetlands to Other Wetlands.
If the land (1) satisfies a country’s definition of forest or (2) is a mangrove wetland with trees, and is managed
for forest activities where land-use change has occurred or trees have been cleared, guidance is provided in“Section 2.3.1.2 Land Converted to a Another Land-Use Category” and in the specific guidance in the relevant
chapters of Volume 4 of the IPCC 2006 Guidelines and applied using the default data provided in this chapter(Table 4.7) and specific guidance below.

4.16

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Tier 2Estimation methodologies for Tier 2 can follow Tier 1 methods, but apply country-specific data. The StockDifference method (Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) could also be applied if countries havesample plot data from forest inventories for two points in time. Literature data or carbon databases may provide
more feasible and cost-effective data to apply this method.

Tier 3
Loss estimates of dead wood and litter due to tidal movement (export) can also be considered (Appendix 4a.1).
Tier 3 methods may further employ stratification by ecological zone or disturbance regime to reduce
uncertainties. It is good practice to sum changes in both dead wood and litter to report changes in total deadorganic matter. Additional Tier 3 guidance is provided in Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

CHOICE OF EMISSION/R EMOVAL FACT ORS
Tier 1
Default values are provided in Table 4.7 of this supplement for use in Tier 1 assessment of emissions andremovals.

Tier 2Tier 2 methods using country-specific data can be used if such country-specific data can be acquired atreasonable cost.

Tier 3Tier 3 emission factors include model output and validation and disaggregated data sources. Field measurements
can be developed and used to inform and validate model output at Tier 3. For mangroves, Tier 3 methodologies
can employ empirical relationships to provide estimates of canopy litter fall and census of downed wood lying
on the forest floor.

TABLE 4.7
TIER 1 DEFAULT VALUES FOR LITTER AND DEAD WOOD CARBON STOCKS IN MANGROVES
DomainEcosystem
type

Litter C stocks of mature stands(tonnes C ha-1) with 95% CI1

Dead wood C stocks of mature stands(tonnes C ha-1) with 95% CI1

Tropical/Subtropicalmangroves

0.7 (0-1.3)

10.7 (6.5-14.8)

Litter: Utrera-Lopez and Moreno-Casasola, 2008; Liao et al., 1990; Chen et al., 2008; Richards et al., 2011; Ramose-Silva et al., 2007;
Twilley et al., 1986
Dead Wood: Kauffman et al., 2011; Donato et al., 2012; Allen et al., 2000; Steinke et al., 1995; Robertson et al., 1989; Tam et al., 1995;
Krauss et al., 2005
1

95% CI of the geometric mean

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Tier 1
Carbon stock changes in dead organic matter are generally not reported at Tier 1 when management activities incoastal wetlands do not result in changes in mangrove cover due to human-induced impacts (following guidancein Section 4.2.2.3 of Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and thus no activity data are required.
If a land-use change has occurred resulting from an increase in woody biomass stock, it is good practice toreport the change in dead organic matter carbon stock. For a Tier 1 method, the annual rate of conversion to
Forest Land or other land-use categories with woody mangrove biomass is required, following Section 4.3.2.3 ofChapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Activity data should be consistent with those used for
estimating changes in carbon stock.

Tier 2 and T ier 3
Inventories using higher tiers will require more comprehensive information on the establishment of new forests,
using climate, for example, as a disaggregating factor and at higher spatial and temporal resolution. Additional
resources can be found in IPCC (2010).

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
The uncertainty assessment given in section 4.2.2.5 in Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
identifies sources of uncertainty in estimates of carbon stock changes in the dead organic matter pool of2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

4.17

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

mangroves. Other sources of uncertainty include output of dead organic matter due to decomposition or tidal
export.

4.2.1.3

S OIL CARBONThe Tier 1 default assumption is that soil CO2 emissions and removals are zero (EF=0) for forest management
practices in mangroves. This assumption can be modified at higher tiers. At higher tiers, it is recommended toconsider CO2 emissions from soils due to forest clearing in carbon stock estimations (Alongi et al., 1998). It
should also be considered that at Tier 1, rewetting (section 4.2.3) and drainage activities (section 4.2.4) can occur
as a result of forest management practices. In this case, follow the guidance for estimating CO2 emissions andremovals from soil carbon stock changes (Sections 4.2.3.3 and 4.2.4.3, respectively).

4.2.2

Extraction

Extraction refers collectively to the following activities: (A) excavation (associated with dredging used toprovide soil for raising the elevation of land, or excavation to enable port, harbour and marina construction andfilling), (B) construction of aquaculture ponds and (C) construction of salt production ponds (where soil is
excavated to build berms where water is held in ponds). Each of these extraction activities is associated with theremoval of biomass, dead organic matter and soil, which results in significant emissions when their removal isfrom saturated (water-logged) to unsaturated (aerobic) conditions (World Bank, 2006). The Tier 1 methodology
assumes that the biomass, dead organic matter and soil are all removed and disposed of under aerobic conditions
where all carbon in these pools is emitted as CO2 during the year of the extraction with no subsequent changes.
Tier 1 guidance is given here for reporting the intial changes in carbon (Table 4.1). Regardless of whether the
extraction activities result in a change in land-use category, CO2 emissions and removals associated withextraction are the same, following Equation 4.2 below. This approach follows the methodology applied for peat
extraction in Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

EQUATION 4.2
TIER 1 ESTIMATION OF INITIAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS WITH EXTRACTION(ALL C POOLS)ΔCEXT = ΔCexcav + ΔCaq-constr + ΔCsp-constr
Where:ΔCEXT = Changes in carbon stocks from all extraction activities; tonnes C
ΔCexcav = Initial change in biomass, dead organic matter and soil carbon stocks from extraction due to
excavation; tonnes C
ΔCaq-constr = Initial change in biomass, dead organic matter and soil carbon stocks from extraction during
construction of aquaculture ponds; tonnes C
ΔCsp-constr = Initial change in biomass, dead organic matter and soil carbon stocks from extraction during
construction of salt production ponds; tonnes C
Equation 4.2 is applied to the total area of coastal wetland where extraction activities take place. The terms
ΔCexcav, ΔCaq-constr, and ΔCsp-constr are estimated as ΔCCONVERSION (Equations 4.4 - 4.6) for intial change in carbon
stocks of each of the C pools for each of the respective activities comprising extraction. Equation 4.3 is applied
for each of the extraction activities (and A-C as described above) to estimate the intial change in stocks of eachof the C pools.
EQUATION 4.3
INITIAL CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS WITH EXCAVATION (ALL C POOLS)
ΔCexcav = ΔCexcav-AB + ΔCexcav-BB + ΔCexcav-DOM + ΔCexcav-SO
Where:
ΔCexcav = Initial change in biomass, dead organic matter and soil carbon stocks with excavation; tonnes C
ΔCexcav-AB = Initial change in above-ground biomass carbon stock changes with excavation; tonnes C
ΔCexcav-BB = Initial change in below-ground biomass carbon stock changes with excavation; tonnes C
ΔCexcav-DOM = Initial change in dead organic matter carbon stock changes with excavation; tonnes C

4.18

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

ΔCexcav-SO = Initial change in soil carbon stock changes with excavation as annual CO2 emissions andremovals; tonnes C
At Tier 1,
ΔCexcav-AB + ΔCexcav-BB= ΔCB-CONVERSION (Equation 4.4, Section 4.2.2.1)
ΔCexcav-DOM = ΔCDOM-CONVERSION (Equation 4.5, Section 4.2.2.2)
ΔCexcav-SO = ΔCSO-CONVERSION (Equation 4.6, Section 4.2.2.3)
Equation 4.3 provides the formulation to estimate the initial change in carbon stock in each C pool for the
specific extraction activity, excavation. To estimate the initial changes in intial carbon stock change for thesepools for construction of aquaculture and salt production ponds, replace ΔC excav with ΔCaq-constr and ΔCsp-constr inEquation 4.3, respectively.
The Tier 1 methodology assumes that the biomass, dead organic matter and soil are all removed and disposed ofunder aerobic conditions where all carbon in these pools is emitted as CO2 during the year of extraction(consistent with the assumption applied for peat extraction in Section 7.2.1.1, Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines) and that no subsequent changes occur.
Table 4.8 summarises the Tier level guidance provided for extraction activities, which deals with excavation in
general and excavation during the construction phase of aquaculture and salt production, in particular. Estimates
are not made at Tier 1 for CO2 emissions and removals while (1) fish ponds are stocked and salt production is
occuring (use phase of aquaculture and salt production) or (2) when the activity has ceased (discontinued phase),although they are considered together with other extraction activities because the activity data are linked.
TABLE 4.8
SUMMARY OF TIER 1 ESTIMATION OF INITIAL CHANGES IN CARBON POOLS FOR EXTRACTION ACTIVITIESC pools

Extraction
activities

Mangrovebiomass,dead woodand litter1
Excavation
Aquaculture
Construction
and
Use
Salt
Discontinued
Production

Tier 1
Tier 1

Soils
Mangrove and Tidal Marsh

Seagrass
Meadow

Organic

Mineral2

Tier 1
Tier 1

MineralTier 1
Tier 1
No guidance4
No guidance4

1

Removal of biomass resulting from extraction activities is estimated at Tier 1 level in mangroves only.

2

Tier 1 assumption is that all seagrass soils are mineral.

3

Extraction activity of aquaculture pond construction, is not applicable for seagrass meadows.

4

No suitable Tier 1 methodologies are available for C pools during these phases/activities.

4.2.2.1

Tier 1NA3B IOMASS

This section addresses estimation of changes in living (above and below-ground) biomass pools associated withextraction activities comprising excavation, and construction of aquaculture and salt production ponds in coastal
wetlands. For extraction in coastal wetlands with tidal marshes and seagrass meadows, changes in biomass
carbon stocks are reported at only Tier 2 or higher estimations. It is good practice to report the conversion ofabove-ground and below-ground biomass that occurs with extraction of mangroves.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Following Box 4.1 extraction may or may not result in a change in land-use category, however the same
methodologies apply for mangrove wetlands with forest regardless of how the land is classified.

Tier 1
Changes in carbon stock of living biomass during extraction are associated with clearing and removal ofvegetation. The area applied is that of a certain year in which the conversion occurs. Regardless of the land-use
category, the loss in biomass associated with extraction activities is estimated as ∆Cconversion following the2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

4.19

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

methodology for peat extraction (Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), modified here as Equation
4.4.
EQUATION 4.4
TIER 1 ESTIMATION OF INITIAL CHANGE IN BIOMASS CARBON STOCKS DUE TO EXTRACTION
ACTIVITIESΔCB-CONVERSION = ∑v,c{BAFTER • (1+R) − BBEFORE * (1+R)} • CF • ACONVERTEDv,cWhere:ΔCB-CONVERSION = Changes in biomass carbon stock from conversion due to extraction activities; tonnes C
BAFTER = Carbon stock in above-ground biomass per unit of area immediately after the conversion byvegetation type (v) and climate (c); tonnes d.m. ha-1; default value = 0
BBEFORE = Carbon stock in above-ground biomass per unit of area immediately before the conversion;
tonnes d.m. ha-1
R = ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass by vegetation type (v) and climate (c); tonnes
d.m. below-ground biomass (tonnes d.m. above ground biomass)-1
CF = carbon fraction of dry matter; tonnes C (tonnes d.m.)-1
ACONVERTED = Area of conversion by vegetation type (v) and climate (c); ha
The Tier 1 methodology assumes that the biomass is removed and disposed of under aerobic conditions where all
carbon is emitted as CO2 during the year of the extraction and that no subsequent changes occur. At Tier 1,
initial change in carbon stocks of biomass {BAFTER • (1+R) − BBEFORE • (1+R)} is assumed to be zero for coastal
wetlands without perennial biomass or trees. For mangrove wetlands with perennial biomass or trees, the stock
after the conversion (BAFTER) at Tier 1 is taken to be zero.

Tier 2
At Tier 2, changes of carbon stock in living above-ground biomass of tidal marsh and seagrass meadow
vegetation can be estimated and reported for the specified activities employing the equation for ΔCB-CONVERSION,
using country-specific emission factors and default values for R given in Tables 4.9 and 4.10, in conjunction
with country-specific data on above-ground biomass. At Tier 2, the Gain-Loss or Stock-Difference methods canbe applied to estimate biomass carbon stock changes of mangrove in lands where extraction activities(aquaculture and salt production) are discontinued (i.e. regrowth). Tier 2 approaches could also include
evaluation of the assumption of instantaneous oxidation of the converted biomass pool.

Tier 3
In Tier 3, estimation could include methods to incorporate data on the fraction of biomass carbon stock that is
retained under saturated conditions to improve estimation of proportion of carbon that is oxidized.

CHOICE OF EMISSION/R EMOVAL FACT ORS
Tier 1
Default data for Tier 1 method is provided for mangroves in Tables 4.2-4.6, Section 4.2.1, including aboveground biomass carbon stock, carbon fraction and below-ground to above-ground ratio, for the different climate
domains and regions, where applicable.

Tier 2
Under Tier 2, countries apply country-specific data to estimate changes in carbon stock in above-ground biomass.
The conversion of above-ground and below-ground biomass that occurs with extraction activities in tidal marshand seagrass meadows may be estimated using Tables 4.9 and 4.10 for tidal marshes and seagrass meadowsrespectively. These data are to be used in conjunction with the carbon fraction of dry matter alongside countryspecific data on above-ground biomass carbon stock.

Tier 3
Field measurements can be developed and used to inform and validate model output at Tier 3. It is expected thatdata improvements for excavation activities such as ground-truth estimates of overall area impacted, the depth atwhich removal of biomass has occurred, or the fraction of biomass removal, could be used to develop and verify
models.

4.20

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

TABLE 4.9
RATIO OF BELOW- GROUND BIOMASS TO ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS (R) FOR TIDAL MARSHES
DomainR[tonne root d.m.
(tonne shoot d.m.)-1]

95% CI5

Rangen

Mediterranean

3.631

3.56, 3.70

1.09-7.15

5Subtropical

3.65

2

3.56, 3.74

2.23-9.41

5

Temperate
freshwater tidal

1.153

1.12, 1.18

0.36-3.85

7Temperate

2.114

2.07, 2.15

0.33-10.15

17

1

Sources: Scarton et al., 2002; Neves et al., 2007; Boyer et al., 2000

2

Sources: Lichacz et al., 1984; da Cunha Lana et al., 1991

3

Sources: Birch and Cooley, 1982; Whigham et al., 1978

4

Sources: Kistritz et al., 1983; Hussey and Long, 1982; Smith et al., 1979; Dunn, 1981; Connor and Chmura, 2000; Gross et al.,
1991; Whigham et al., 1978; Elsey-Quirk et al., 2011; Adams et al., 2012
595% CI of the geometric mean

TABLE 4.10
RATIO OF BELOW- GROUND BIOMASS TO ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS (R) FOR SEAGRASS MEADOWS
DomainR[tonne root d.m.
(tonne shoot d.m.)-1]

95% CI4

Rangen

Tropical

1.71

1.5, 1.9

0.05-25.62

396

2.4

2

2.3, 2.6

0.07-16.8

391

1.3

3

1.1, 1.5

0.14-13.8

91

Subtropical
Temperate
1

Sources: Aioi and Pollard, 1993; Brouns, 1985; Brouns, 1987; Coles et al., 1993; Daby, 2003; Devereux et al., 2011; Fourqurean
et al., 2012; Halun et al., 2002; Holmer et al., 2001; Ismail, 1993; Lee, 1997; Lindeboom and Sandee, 1989; McKenzie, 1994;
Mellors et al., 2002; Moriarty et al., 1990; Nienhuis et al., 1989; Ogden and Ogden, 1982; Paynter et al., 2001; Poovachiranon
and Chansang, 1994; Povidisa et al., 2009; Rasheed, 1999; Udy et al., 1999; van Lent et al., 1991; van Tussenbroek, 1998;
Vermaat et al., 1993; Vermaat et al., 1995; Williams, 1987
2

Sources: Aioi, 1980; Aioi et al., 1981; Asmus et al., 2000; Bandeira, 2002; Boon, 1986; Brun et al., 2009; Collier et al., 2009; deBoer, 2000; Devereux et al., 2011; Dixon and Leverone, 1995; Dos Santos et al., 2012; Dunton, 1996; Fourqurean et al., 2012;
Hackney, 2003; Herbert and Fourqurean, 2008; Herbert and Fourqurean, 2009; Holmer and Kendrick, 2012; Jensen and Bell,2001; Kim et al., 2012; Kirkman and Reid, 1979; Kowalski et al., 2009; Larkum et al., 1984; Lee et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2005b;
Lipkin, 1979; Longstaff et al.,1999; Masini et al., 2001; McGlathery et al., 2012; McMahan, 1968; Meling-Lopez and IbarraObando, 1999; Mukai et al., 1979; Paling and McComb, 2000; Park et al., 2011; Powell, 1989; Preen, 1995; Schwarz et al., 2006;
Stevensen, 1988; Townsend and Fonseca, 1998; Udy and Dennison, 1997; van Houte-Howes et al., 2004; van Lent et al., 1991;
van Tussenbroek, 1998; Walker, 1985; West and Larkum, 1979; Yarbro and Carlson, 2008
3

Sources: Agostini et al., 2003; Cebrian et al., 2000; Fourqurean et al., 2012; Hebert et al., 2007; Holmer and Kendrick, 2012;
Larned, 2003; Lebreton et al., 2009; Lillebo et al., 2006; Marba and Duarte, 2001; McRoy, 1974; Olesen and Sand-Jensen, 1994;
Rismondo et al., 1997; Sand-Jensen and Borum, 1983; Terrados et al., 2006
4

95% CI of the geometric mean

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Extraction: Submissions of licenses for prospecting and exploitation and associated environmental impact
assessments (EIAs) can be used to obtain areas under extraction activities. Relevant regulation for extraction canbe found at international and national levels. International regulation is covered by the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 (www.un/org/Depts/los/index.htm). Contracting Parties are under the
obligation to publish/communicate reports on monitoring and assessment of potential harmful effects ofextraction. The OSPAR Convention 1992 (www.ospar.org) provides guidance for programmes and measures forthe control of the human activities in the North-East Atlantic region. The “Agreement on Sand and Gravel
Extraction” provides that authorisation for extraction of marine soils from any ecologically sensitive site should
be granted after consideration of an EIA. The Helsinki Convention 1992 (www.helcom.fi) covers the Baltic Sea
Area and requires EIAs to be carried out as part of the extraction process and that “monitoring data” and “resultsof EIA’s………be made available for scientific evaluation”. The Barcelona Convention 1995

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

4.21

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands(www.unepmap.org), covers the regulatory framework for the Mediterranean. The ICES Convention 1964
(www.ices.dk) provides data handling services to OSPAT and Helsinki Commissions. An overview of theregulation of marine aggregate operations in some European Union Member States is reported in Radzevicius etal. (2010) and includes relevant EC Directives and national legislation/regulation. Other such sources of activity
data include, for example, statistics on sand and gravel extraction for the OSPAR martime area (e.g.
www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p0043) as well as information on sand and gravel activities andrelated statistics for North Sea Continental Shelfs and UK waters (http://www.sandandgravel.com/).
If time series data back to 1990 are unavailable, it is suggested that surrogate data be used, derived fromstatistical reports/databases containing information on temporal changes in proxy factors such as humanpopulation density, port or marina development, port revenue, shipping tonnage, and commodity exports. Suchdata can be obtained from the internet e.g. for the Asia-Pacific region from the UN ESCAP Commission(http://www.
unescap.org/stat/)
and
for
the
Balticfrom
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/themes. Data on shipping indices can be obtained
from http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/global trade/trade-statistics. Such data for most countries
can also be obtained from http://datacatalog.worldbank.org.
Aquaculture and salt production: Annual data (1950 – present) providing statistics on aquaculture production
is collated by the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Additional data on type aquaculture (e.g.
freshwater or brackish) and area under aquaculture production is summarised in country profiles enablingstratificationofaquaculture
into
those
occurringincoastalwetlands(http://www.fao.org/fishery/countryprofiles/search/en). As local regulations typically apply for developing new
aquaculture activites (i.e licensing, permitting), regulations also typically apply to report such activities to the
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Affairs (or country equivalent). For example an aquaculture farm needs to get alicense (or permission) to operate. Depending on the country, it is given by the regional (e.g. in Spain it is theautonomic, e.g. Balearic- government, who approves it) or local (e.g. at Bolinao, The Philipines) and maybe inothers the national government. For example, in Indonesia local government must be consulted on land-use
change including aquaculture pond construction and are obliged to report activities to the Ministry of Fisheries
and Marine Affairs.
Similar project information for salt production activities can be obtained from the Salt Institute atwww.saltinstitute.org.
Literature sources can also provide national area change statistics from aerial photographs of ponds or structures
used for aquaculture and salt production.
A map of available tidal marsh distribution (with area data) is in production by the World Conservation andMonitoring Center (WCMC; http://data.unep-wcmc.org/) currently holding layers for Europe, the United States,
Australia and China. It is the intent to expand mapping of tidal marsh to global coverage.
A map of global distribution of seagrasses (V2.0, 2005) is also available at the WCMC (http://data.unepwcmc.org/) and prepared in collaboration with Dr. Frederick T. Short. Other regional and national maps are alsoavailable (e.g. http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00426_zostera_beds). A tabulated list of
web sites for existing seagrass monitoring programmes is given in Borum et al., (2000;
http://www.seagrasses.org/handbook/european_seagrasses_high.pdf).
These data sources, and those provided in Section 4.2.1.1, can be used in conjunction with activity data
described above to improve estimations of areas of mangroves, tidal marsh and seagrass meadow undergoing
extraction activities.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
For uncertainty assessment for mangroves, see Section 4.2.1 (this chapter). The uncertainties involved in
extraction in mangroves also follow those outlined in Section 4.3.1.5 of Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Variability in tidal marsh biomass will be due to differences in dominant species and competition
between species, as well as salinity of flood waters, frequency of tidal flooding and climate. For example, thehigh biomass in mediterranean climates is due to the frequent dominance of perennial shrubs. For all vegetation
there can be considerable interannual variability in production of biomass and seasonal variability in standing
biomass that contributes to uncertainty in ratios of below-ground to above-ground biomass. Most empirical data
are available from temperate regions and North America and there are limited data available for tidal freshwaterand boreal and subtropical tidal marshes. The average ratio of below-ground to above-ground biomass forseagrass is variable depending on the dominant species, and fertility of the soil. The data are mainly derived
from observations along the coasts of North America, Western Europe and Australia. Data were scarce fromSouth America and Africa.

4.22

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

4.2.2.2

D EAD ORGANIC MATTER

Previously saturated dead organic matter (DOM), which is exposed to aerobic conditions, can contribute to large
sources of CO2 emissions from extraction activities. Consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for Forest Land,in coastal wetlands, it is good practice to consider dead organic matter carbon stock changes when extraction
activities result in changes in mangrove cover due to these human-induced impacts.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Tier 1
During extraction activities, existing dead organic matter pools may be reduced to zero as vegetation is cleared
and removed while at the same time no new carbon enters the dead organic matter pool. At Tier 1, changes incarbon stock in dead organic matter in tidal marshes and seagrass meadows are assumed to be zero. It is noted,
however, that extraction activities that result in vegetation or soil disturbance in tidal marsh with perennial
woody biomass may have significant impacts on CO2 emissions and removals. It is good practice for countryspecific methods to be developed to cover these cases, if feasible. Regardless of the land-use category, the loss indead organic matter associated with extraction activities is estimated as ∆C conversion following the methodology
applied for peat extraction (Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), modified here as Equation 4.5:

EQUATION 4.5
TIER 1 ESTIMATION OF INITIAL CHANGE IN DEAD ORGANIC MATTER CARBON STOCKS DUE TO
EXTRACTION ACTIVITIESΔCDOM-CONVERSION = ∑v(DOMAFTER − DOMBEFORE)v • ACONVERTEDv
Where:ΔCDOM-CONVERSION = Initial changes in dead organic matter carbon stock from conversion due to extraction
activities by vegetation type (v); tonnes C
DOMAFTER = Carbon stock in dead organic matter per unit of area immediately after the conversion byvegetation type (v); tonnes d.m. ha-1; default value = 0
DOMBEFORE = Carbon stock in dead organic matter per unit of area immediately before the conversion byvegetation type (v); tonnes d.m. ha-1
ACONVERTED = Area of conversion by vegetation type (v); ha
The Tier 1 methodology assumes that the dead organic matter is removed and disposed of under aerobic
conditions where all carbon is emitted as CO2 during the year of the extraction and that no subsequent changes
occur. The choice of method follows that in Section 4.2.2.

Tiers 2 and 3
The choice of method follows that in Section 4.2.2. For these management activities that impact dead organic
matter pools in tidal marshes with perennial or woody biomass, Tier 2 and higher estimation methods arerecommended.

CHOICE OF EMISSION/R EMOVAL FACT ORS
Tier 1
Default values of dead organic matter carbon stock (for dead wood and litter) for mangroves are provided inTable 4.7 of this supplement for use in Tier 1 estimations. In tidal marsh and seagrass meadows the Tier 1
assumption is that carbon stocks in the dead organic matter pools resulting from extraction activities are zero.

Tier 2
At Tier 2, the assumption that all dead organic matter lost in the year of conversion is oxidized can be reassessed.
Tier 2 assumption of zero for dead organic matter pools in tidal marsh can also be assessed. It is good practicefor countries, in such cases, to use national estimates for dead organic matter carbon stocks for mangroves andtidal marshes with perennial biomass, if such country-specific data can be acquired at reasonable cost.

Tier 3Tier 3 emission factors include model output and validation and disaggregated data sources.

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

4.23

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Choice of activity data follows from guidance provided in Section 4.2.2.1. The area in which the extraction
activities occur will be the same area applied for each carbon pool, especially forest biomass.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
The discussion on uncertainty outlined in Section 4.3.2.5 of Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines isalso relevant for extraction of mangroves.

4.2.2.3

S OIL CARBON

Extraction activities that occur within coastal wetlands can influence organic and mineral stocks of carbon insoils and both soil types are covered at Tier 1 (Table 4.11). During extraction activities, the stock of soil carbon
that is removed depends on the soil type (i.e. carbon stock is higher in organic soils). For Tier 1 estimation, in theabsence of soil map data or other resources to differentiate soil type, the following assumptions can be applied.
i. Assume that soils in which seagrass grow are mineral.
ii. Assume all soils, regardless of dominant vegetation in or at the mouth of estuaries or adjacent to any river
characterised by a large and/or mountainous catchment and high flow, are mineral. For all othermangroves and tidal marshes the soils are organic. See Durr et al. (2011) for additional national levelguidance.
iii. If soils cannot be dissagregated into organic and mineral, use the aggregated default data given in Table
4.11.

CHOICE OF METHOD - ORGANIC AND MINERAL SOILS
Tier 1
Regardless of the land-use category, the loss in soil carbon associated with extraction activities is estimated as∆Cconversion following the methodology applied for peat extraction (Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines), modified here as Equation 4.6.
EQUATION 4.6
TIER 1 ESTIMATION OF INITIAL CHANGE IN SOIL CARBON STOCKSDUE TO EXTRACTION ACTIVITIESΔCSO-CONVERSION = ∑v,s(SOAFTER − SOBEFORE)v,s • ACONVERTEDv,s
Where,
ΔCSO-CONVERSION = Initial changes in soil carbon stock from conversion due to extraction activities byvegetation type (v) and soil type (s); tonnes C
SOAFTER = Soil carbon stock per unit of area, immediately after the conversion, by vegetation type (v) andsoil type (s); tonnes C ha-1; default value = 0
SOBEFORE = Soil carbon stock per unit of area, immediately before the conversion, by vegetation type (v)and soil type (s); tonnes C ha-1
ACONVERTED = Area of conversion by vegetation type (v) and soil type (s); haAt Tier 1, soil extraction depth to 1 m approximates the mid-range of the extraction depth for construction of
aquaculture and salt production ponds (see extraction activities in section 4.1). Countries may modify theassumption of 1 m extraction depth at higher tiers.
The Tier 1 methodology assumes that the soil is removed and disposed of under aerobic conditions where thecarbon stock is emitted as CO2 (oxidised) during the year of the extraction. The carbon stock is taken as all soil
carbon except any refractory (unoxidisable) carbon. In mangrove soils, 4% of the carbon stock is refractory(Annex 4A.4) and this is taken to be representative of the refractory carbon in tidal marshes and seagrassmeadows as well. Therefore, after the initial conversion of the soil pool in the year in which the activity occurs,
CO2 emissions are reported as zero. It is good practice to track these lands to consider management activities
that may occur on those lands in the future and for higher tier estimations. The choice of method follows that in
Section 4.2.2. For Tier 1, CO2 emissions are reported as the conversion in soil carbon where this activity occurs;
the type of vegetation and the available activity data to distinguish between organic and mineral soils determines
which data are applied from Table 4.11.

4.24

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Tier 2
At Tier 2, methodology can be applied to disaggregate by vegetation type and soil type. For the specificextraction activity, countries may use national data to determine their particular extraction processes and thevolume of soil removed, if sufficient data are available. Because tidal marshes can occur in a range of climates,
disaggregating by climate may also be applied to improve estimates if those country-specific data are available.
Tier 2 may also refine the estimate for the soil carbon stock that is excavated to construct the aquaculture or salt
production ponds by including country-specific information on the depth excavated during the construction
phase.

Tier 3Tier 3 methods can employ models to estimate CO2 emissions based on the effect of temperature and salinity on
soil oxidation both seasonally and with climate and vegetation type. At Tier 3, it is good practice for countries tovalidate models with field measurements. Tier 3 methods may also include site-specific measurements of, forexample, carbon content, bulk density, clay content, salinity, redox potential, etc., to determine the underlying
processes of emissions.

CHOICE OF EMISSION FACTORS - ORGANIC AND MINER AL SOILS
Tier 1
Default Tier 1 soil carbon stocks (to 1 m depth) for mangrove, tidal marsh and seagrass meadows for the
calculation of CO2 emissions are given in Table 4.11. These values are to be used in conjunction with Equation
4.6 to estimate emissions. If soil type is not known, a generic default value for aggregated organic and mineralsoils can be applied (Table 4.11).

Tier 2Tier 2 includes the use of country-specific emission factors that can be applied to disaggregate by soil type andvegetation type to improve on Tier 1 estimates. Country-specific data may include excavation depth to improveon the default estimation of soil extracted.

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach could use models that take into account the time-dependent nature of the CO2 fluxes over arange of timescales. For example, during the construction phase, a pulse of CO2 efflux from soil directly after
mangrove clearing and prior to excavation, followed by a logarithmic decline in CO 2 fluxes over time, has beenshown to occur (Lovelock et al., 2011). For fish and shrimp ponds, the actual area excavated and the depth towhich soil is excavated, could be taken into account as this varies with aquaculture and salt production practices.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Choice of activity data follows from guidance above provided in Section 4.2.2.1 as the area in which theextraction activities occur will be the same area applied for each C pool.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Variability in soil carbon stocks will derive from a number of sources. The soil stock represents global averages
and may therefore under or over-estimate emissions and removals when applied to specific countries. Deriving
country-specific carbon stocks can reduce uncertainties using Tier 2 methodology. There may also be significant
within country differences due to: (1) the dominant species present in mangroves, tidal marshes or seagrassmeadows, (2) climatic conditions and (3) general environmental setting in which the vegetation is found, all ofwhich may influence the carbon stock. When deriving global emission factors, uncertainties can also be
introduced by areas where there is greater prevalence of data from specific regions of the globe. The change incarbon stock on extraction is dependent on the value assigned to the percent refractory organic carbon. The value
applied is taken from soil in mangroves and may not be fully representative of the value for tidal marshes andseagrass meadows.

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

4.25

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

TABLE 4.11
SOIL CARBON STOCKS FOR MANGROVES, TIDAL MARSHES AND SEAGRASS MEADOWS FOR EXTRACTION ACTIVITIESORGANIC SOILS ( TONNES C HA-1)
Vegetation type

95% CI1

range

n

471

2

436, 510

216-93543

3315, 366

221-579

35

SOBEFORE

MangroveTidal marsh

340

4

Seagrass meadow

NA
MINERAL SOILS ( TONNES C HA-1)
95% CI1

rangen

Mangrove286

5247, 330

55-1376

77

Tidal marsh

2266

202, 252

15.6-623

82

8

84, 139

9.1-82989

Vegetation type

SOBEFORE

108

7

Seagrass meadow

AGGREGATED ORGANIC AND MINERAL SOILS ( TONNES C HA-1)

Mangrove

SOBEFORE
386

95% CI1
351, 424

range
55-1376n
119

Tidal marsh

255

254, 297

15.6-623

117

Vegetation type1

95% CI of the geometric mean

2

Sources: Adame et al., 2012; Breithaupt et al., 2012; Chmura et al., 2003; Donato et al., 2011; Kauffman et al., 2011; Osborne
et al., 2011; Vegas-Vilarrúbia et al., 2010
3

Sources: Anisfeld et al., 1999; Callaway et al., 1996; Callaway et al., 2012; Chmura and Hung, 2004; Craft et al., 1988; Craft,
2007; Hussein et al., 2004; Kearney and Stevenson, 1991; Orson et al., 1998; Markewich et al., 1998; McCaffrey and Thomson,
1980
4

Seagrass meadows are assumed to be on mineral soils.

5

Sources: Donato et al., 2011; Chmura et al., 2003; Breithaupt et al., 2012; Fujimoto et al., 1999; Adame et al., 2012; Perry and
Mendelssohn, 2009; Ren et al., 2010; Kauffman et al., 2011; Ray et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2007; Matsui,
1998
6

Sources: Cahoon et al., 1996; Callaway et al., 2012; Chmura and Hung, 2004; Connor et al., 2001; Craft et al., 1988; Craft,
2007; Hatton, 1981; Kearney and Stevenson, 1991; Livesley and Andrusiak, 2012; Loomis and Craft, 2010; Morris and Jensen,
2003; Oenema and DeLaune, 1988; Patrick and DeLaune, 1990; Roman et al., 1997; Yu and Chmura, 20097

For extraction only

8

Source: Fourqurean et al., 2012

4.2.3

Rewetting, revegetation 4 and creation of mangroves,tidal marshes and seagrass meadowsThis section addresses the carbon stock changes and CO2 emissions and removals for the rewetting, revegetationand creation activities relating to mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows.
The rewetting and revegetation activity refers collectively to the following (1) rewetting, which saturates the soilof drained sites previously colonised by mangrove and tidal marshes and is a prerequisite for, and thus facilitates,
reestablishment of the original vegetation by natural recolonisation, direct seeding and/or purposeful planting, (2)raising or lowering the soil elevation to facilitate reestablishment of the original vegetation by natural
recolonisation, direct seeding and/or purposeful planting, (3) creation of coastal wetlands where it may bedifficult to identify where they previously occurred and are in proximity to the coastal margin, and (4)reestablishment of seagrass on undrained soils by natural recolonisation, direct seeding and/or purposefulplanting.

4.2.3.1

B IOMASS

The initiation of soil carbon accumulation is only possible with the presence of vegetation, which is introducedby purposeful seeding/planting or natural recolonisation For mangroves, methodological guidance for estimating
4

The term revegetation is used to refer to practices within the framework of UNFCCC reporting.

4.26

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

carbon stock changes in the biomass pool, including choice of method and choice of emission and removal
factors, follows Section 4.2.1.1 of this Chapter. For tidal marshes and seagrass meadows, changes in biomass
carbon stocks, are reported only for Tier 2 or higher estimations. Guidance for estimating biomass carbon stockchanges for tidal marshes and seagrass meadows follow those presented in Volume 4, Section 6.2.1.1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines (Grassland Remaining Grassland) for Gain-Loss and Stock-Difference methods. These areused with country-specific data on above-ground biomass stocks and ratios of below-ground to above-groundbiomass provided in Tables 4.9 and 4.10. Refer to Volume 4, Section 6.2.1.4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines forcalculation steps useful in applying these methods.

4.2.3.2

D EAD ORGANIC MATTER

For mangroves, methodological guidance for estimating carbon stock changes in the dead organic matter pool,including choice of method and choice of emission and removal factors, follows Section 4.2.1.2 of this Chapter.
For tidal marshes and seagrass meadows, changes in biomass carbon stocks, are reported only for Tier 2 orhigher estimations. Guidance for estimating dead organic matter carbon stock changes for tidal marshes andseagrass meadows follows that presented in Volume 4, Section 6.2.2.1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Grassland
Remaining Grassland) for Gain-Loss and Stock-Difference methods. These are used with country-specific data.
Refer to Volume 4, Section 6.2.2.4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for calculation steps useful in applying thesemethods.

4.2.3.3

S OIL CARBON

The guidance provided in this section on soils differs from that in Chapter 3 (this supplement) because, on
coastal wetland soils, revegetation leads to the accumulation of soil organic carbon when vegetation isreestablished and a CO2 sink is then developed. The CO2 emission factor is approximated as zero whenresaturated soils are devoid of vegetation. This is consistent with the default EFs for rewetted soils for temperate
and tropical regions (but not the boreal region) presented in Chapter 3 of this supplement. Based on information
for natural fluxes from rewetted organic soils, it is consistent with data illustrating that rewetting effectively
stops soil organic matter oxidation but does not necessarily reestablish the soil carbon sink function.
Guidance for inventories of rewetting and revegetation activities of coastal wetlands follows the assumptions at
Tier 1 level of estimation that:i. upon rewetting and revegetation of previously drained soil, creation of a mangrove or tidal marsh or on
restablishment of a seagrass meadow, soil carbon accumulation is initiated when natural vegetation
becomes established andii. the rate of soil carbon accumulation is instantaneously equivalent to that in natural settings.
Craft et al. (2003) found that (a) soil carbon accumulation, developed almost instantaneously with theestablishment of vegetation along a chronosequence of 1- to 28-yr old constructed marshes and (b) a similar soil
carbon accumulation rate over 10 years in a natural and created marsh (Craft et al., 2002) and over 20 years in acreated mangrove (Osland et al., 2012). Given this equivalence, estimates of soil carbon accumulation rates inmangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows (Chmura et al., 2003; Breithaupt et al., 2012; Duarte et al.,2013) make it possible to quantify carbon gains at sites characterised by rewetting and revegetation activities. A
transition time for soil carbon stocks to become equivalent to those in natural/undrained settings with vegetation(Table 4.11) will exceed the default land-use transition time of the typically used land-use category conversions(i.e. 20 years). Instead it is suggested to apply the EF for soil carbon accumulation as long as the soil remains
rewetted and vegetated, until such time as stocks are equivalent to soil carbon stocks in natural/undrained
settings with vegetation (Table 4.11) or there is a change in management practice.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Changes in soil carbon resulting from rewetting, revegetation and creation activities for mangroves, tidal
marshes and seagrass meadows are estimated because they represent potentially large carbon removals from theatmosphere.

Tier 1
At Tier 1, the default method, EFRE values are to be used in conjunction with Equation 4.7 to estimate CO2
emissions.

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

4.27

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

EQUATION 4.7
CO2 EMISSIONS FROM REWETTING, REVEGETATION AND CREATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS
CO2SO-RE = ∑v,s,c(ARE • EFRE)v,s,cWhere:
CO2SO-RE = CO2 emissions associated with rewetting, revegetation and creation activities by vegetation
type (v), soil type (s) and climate (c); tonnes C yr-1
ARE = Area of soil that has been influenced by rewetting, revegetation and creation activities byvegetation type (v), soil type (s) and climate (c); ha
EFRE = CO2 emissions from aggregated mineral and organic soils that have been influenced by rewetting
and revegetation activities by vegetation type (v), soil type (s) and climate (c); tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
EFRE = 0 for rewetted and naturally saturated soils where no vegetation has been re-estabished or where reestablishment is expected to occur by recolonization.
At Tier 1, EFRE is applied (Table 4.12) when vegetation has been established through replanting or reseeding. If,
however, re-establishment of vegetation is expected to occur by recolonization, EFRE = 0 is applied at Tier 1. It isgood practice to document the basis on which the EFRE is applied. When vegetation has been established the
EFRE is disaggregated with respect to vegetation type. Organic and mineral soils are not differentiated at Tier 1
within any particular vegetation type, as the organic carbon inputs mainly derive from the production of aboveground and below-ground biomass under similar conditions of soil saturation. Land area estimates should bebased on land classification within the new land-use category (if applicable) to apply Tier 1 EFRE.

Tier 2
Under the Tier 2 method, country-specific carbon accumulation rates could be dissagregated with respect to areaof organic and mineral soils. Where such country-specific data can be acquired and used to improve estimations,disaggregation by climate zone could also be applied.

Tier 3
Under the Tier 3 method, the land use prior to rewetting, its climate and vegetation type could be taken into
account. A comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO 2 gas emission factors, basedon field measurements of, for example, carbon content, bulk density, clay content, salinity, redox potential, etc.,
could be employed at Tier 3. A Tier 3 approach could also use empirical measurements and models that take into
account the time-dependent nature of the CO2 fluxes over a range of timescales (Morris et al., 2012), location
relative to the low to high intertidal zone (Alongi, 2010) or other dynamics (Craft, 2007).

CHOICE OF EMISSION/R EMOVAL FACT ORS
Tier 1
The choice of EFs at Tier 1 is applied based on the coastal wetland vegetation type being established through therewetting, revegetation or creation activity. It is assumed that within each vegetation type, CO2 emissions are thesame regardless of how the suitable conditions for revegetation are facilitated. If vegetation is reestablishedthrough direct reseeding or purposeful planting, apply EFRE in Table 4.12. If the rewetting, revegetation or
creation activity is associated with recolonization (no direct replanting or reseeding), apply EF RE = 0. It is goodpractice to evaluate and document these activities (See Choice of Activity Data below) and modify what EF isapplied, as appropriate. If the rewetting and revegetation activity results in patches of biomass (if coverage data
are available), EFRE >0 should only be applied when the mangrove, tidal marsh plant or seagrass canopy covers
at least 10% of the overall area. This consideration follows the definition of forest (Table 4.2, Chapter 4, Volume
4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

Tier 2
In a Tier 2 approach, country-specific emission factors for rewetting, revegetation or creation activities could beapplied. The assumption of EFRE=0 in areas where vegetation had not been established could also be reassessed.
Country-specific emission factors could be applied based on disaggregation of organic and mineral soils andclimate.

Tier 3
In a Tier 3 approach, field measurement of soil organic carbon content and CO2 emissions from areas whererewetting and revegetation activities occur could be used to develop an empirical relationship (for example, asimple regression equation) that can be used across other sites where rewetting and revegetation activities occur
within a particular area or country. Country-specific values can be developed to model possible time-dependentchanges in CO2 emissions. Soil carbon accumulation rates will likely change, as vegetation grows and biomass

4.28

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

matures. Increased inundation and soil saturation, as a result of intertidal location in tidal marshes andmangroves, will accelerate development of soil characteristics of revegetated soils. Thus, rates of CO2 emissions
in these tidal wetlands will vary in relation to a combination of these factors and consideration of them would
result in more accurate estimation of CO2 emissions.

TABLE 4.12
ANNUAL EMISSION FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH REWETTING (EFRE) ON AGGREGATED ORGANIC AND MINERAL-1-1
SOILS ( TONNES C HA YR ) AT INITIATION OF VEGETATION REESTABLISHMENT
Ecosystem

EFREWET1

95% CI5

rangen

Mangrove-1.622

1.3, 2.0

0.10-10.2

69

Tidal marsh-0.9130.7, 1.1

0.05-4.65

66

Seagrass meadow-0.4340.2, 0.7

0.09-1.12

6

1

Negative values indicate removal (i.e. accumulation) of C

2

Sources: Breithaupt et al., 2012; Chmura et al., 2003; Fujimoto et al., 1999; Ren et al., 2010

3

Sources: Anisfeld et al., 1999; Cahoon et al., 1996; Callaway et al., 1996; Callaway et al., 1997; Callaway et al., 1998;
Callaway et al., 1999; Callaway et al., 2012; Chmura and Hung, 2003; Hatton, 1981; Craft, 2007; Kearney and Stevenson,
1991; Markewich et al., 1998; Oenema and DeLaune, 1988; Orson et al., 1998; Patrick and DeLaune,1990; Roman et al.,1997
4

Sources: Mateo and Romero, 1997; Serrano et al., 2012

595% CI of the geometric mean

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Historical photos and coastal wetland maps, if available at the appropriate spatial resolution, may be used toestimate the pre-restored wetland area. Information on regional wetland restoration and creation projects
worldwide can be obtained from the Global Gateway to Geographic Information Systems of the FAO(www.fao.org) as well as from the websites, www.wetlands.org and www.globalrestorationnetwork.org. Withina given country, government agencies responsible for issuance of permits for restoration/creation/alteration of
wetland are to be consulted for information of area data on the wetlands being considered. In addition, many
countries may have a process for reporting rewetting and revegetation activities as permission is often required.
For example, in Australia, the Environmental Protection Agency in Western Australia approves revegetation
projects as part of their Ministerial Conditions. The Australian Government Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities also directs the Federal Minister to approve or reject
revegetation programs. The establishment of vegetation and/or change in areal extent can be reviewed on a five
year period and assessed for accurate implementation of the appropriate soil EF. If data are lacking, expert
judgement about success rates of projects implemented under similar conditions could be used for initialassessments (examples are size of project, vegetation type, tidal range, proximity to coast, climate). In general,
for rewetting activities that include purposeful planting or direct reseeding, an EFRE (using Table 4.12) isappropriate for Tier 1 estimation. Information on which the choice in EF is based should be documented.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Uncertainties in estimating CO2 emissions and removals from rewetting, revegetation and creation of mangroves,tidal marshes and seagrass meadows largely lie in the underlying assumptions and area to which the EFs areapplied. The values for EFREWET in Table 4.12 represent global averages and have large uncertainties due tovariability in soil carbon accumulation rate with 1) depth of the intertidal zone, 2) the dominant species type, its
morphology and rate of growth, and 3) climate. The underlying assumption of EFRE=0 for rewetted/saturated
soils where vegetation has not been re-established may introduce uncertainty into estimates. Also, theassumption of complete areas with or without vegetation cover could introduce under- or overestimates.

4.2.4

Drainage in mangroves and tidal marshes

This section addresses the changes in carbon stock and CO2 emissions and removals for drainage in mangroves
and tidal marshes. Drainage may be accompanied by land clearing, also resulting in changes in biomass and deadorganic matter pools. If burning accompanies drainage, it is good practice to report emissions from changes inthose C pools. For methods to estimate changes in carbon stock in biomass, and for default data, refer to Section
4.2.1 of this report for guidance on mangroves and Section 4.2.2 for guidance on tidal marshes. It is important toretain information about drained coastal wetlands so that guidance in this supplement can be applied if a reversalof drainage conditions occurs.

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

4.29

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Drainage causes soils to dry and ordinarily increases rates of organic matter decomposition, resulting in loss ofsoil carbon via CO2 release (Armentano and Menges, 1986). This response varies with climate (Pozo and Colino,1992) and locally with soil salinity and texture, and the quantity of labile organic matter available (Setia et al.,2011). Activities associated with extensive lowering of the water table are often linked to the construction ofdrainage channels leading to CO2 fluxes due to oxidation of DOC and POC in the water carried by drainage
channels. However, there is currently not enough information to provide emission factors for DOC and POC
export (see Appendix 4a.1, “Future methodological development for estimating carbon export”).

4.2.4.1

B IOMASS

Methodological guidance for estimating carbon stock changes in the biomass pool, including choice of method
and choice of emission and removal factors, follows Section 4.2.3.1 of this chapter. For tidal marshes, increase inbiomass stocks in a single year is assumed equal to biomass losses from mortality in that same year at Tier 1.

4.2.4.2

D EAD ORGANIC MATTER

Methodological guidance for estimating carbon stock changes in the dead organic matter pool, including choiceof method and choice of emission and removal factors, follows Section 4.2.3.2 of this chapter. For tidal marshes,
CO2 emissions and removals from change in biomass and dead organic matter pools are reported as zero at Tier
1.

4.2.4.3

S OIL CARBON

Annual carbon losses from drained mineral and organic soils are applied similarly for mangroves and tidal
marshes (but not applicable to seagrass meadows) at Tier 1 level of estimation (Table 4.13). Data on CO2emissions from drainage in mangroves is limited, however, the CO2 emission rate from drainage in tidal marshes
was considered to provide an appropriate Tier 1 default emission factor. This value is also consistent withdrained forest default EF presented in Chapter 2 of this supplement.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Tier 1
Guidance for inventories on drainage in coastal wetlands follows the assumptions at Tier 1 level of estimation
that:
i.

emissions persist as long as the soil remains drained or as long as it takes for soil carbon stocks
equivalent to those in natural/undrained settings with vegetation (Table 4.11) to be oxidised andii.

the drainage condition is characterized by full drainage (i.e. the water table has been changed to 1 m
below the soil surface for organic and mineral soils), consistent with the Tier 1 approach in Chapter 2 ofthis supplement.

Emissions from drained coastal wetland soils are estimated at Tier 1 for mangrove forests and tidal marshes
using Equation 4.8.
EQUATION 4.8
CO2 EMISSIONS ON DRAINED ORGANIC AND MINERAL SOILS
CO2-SO-DR = (ADR • EFDR)
Where:
CO2-SO-DR = CO2 emissions from aggregated organic and mineral soil carbon associated with drainage;
tonnes C yr-1
ADR = land area under drainage; ha
EFDR, = CO2 emissions from organic or mineral soil carbon associated with drainage; tonnes C ha-1 yr-1
As described above, the Tier 1 emission factor is applied until the soil carbon stock (Table 4.11) is depleted anddetermines the time frame for emissions due to drainage regardless of whether a land-use change occurs. Once
depleted, guidance from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines applies.

Tier 2The Tier 2 estimation method is the same as the Tier 1 method, but national data can be used to additionallydisaggregate by vegetation, soil type and regional climatic factors, if such data are available at reasonable cost.

4.30

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Tier 3Tier 3 methods could take account of differences in the management of the drained wetland. Empiricalmeasurements of gas flux based on site-specific measurements of, for example, carbon content, bulk density,
clay content, salinity, redox potential, etc., to determine the underlying processes of emissions could be included.
Site differences in frequency of drainage activity could also be considered at Tier 3 methods. Other factors that
could be used to apply disaggregated data include salinity and tidal export of DOC and POC (Appendix 4a.1).

CHOICE OF EMISSION/R EMOVAL FACT ORS
Tier 1
At Tier 1, a generic default emission factor is applied for drainage, regardless of vegetation or soil type (Table
4.13). That is, the same EF is applied regardless of the management activity involving soil drainage.

TABLE 4.13
ANNUAL EMISSION FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH DRAINAGE (EFDR) ON AGGREGATED ORGANIC AND MINERAL SOILS(TONNES C HA-1 YR-1)
Ecosystem

EFDR

95%
CI2

Range

N

Tidal marshes and mangroves

7.91

5.2, 11.8

1.2-43.9

22

1

Sources: Camporese et al., 2008; Deverel and Leighton, 2010; Hatala et al., 2012; Howe et al., 2009; Rojstaczer and Deverel,1993

2

95% CI of the geometric mean

Tier 2Tier 2 emission factors apply country-specific data disaggregated by soil type, vegetation type, and climate,
where feasible. Data to address any change in emissions since initiation of drainage could additionally be
implemented.

Tier 3
In a Tier 3 approach, field measurements of soil organic carbon content and CO2 emissions from the drained sitewould be useful to develop an empirical relationship (for example, a simple regression equation of soil carbon
content versus rate of carbon removal) that can be used across other drained sites within a particular area orcountry. Country-specific values can thus be developed to model possible time-dependent changes in CO2emissions such as changes in relation to timing and rate of soil drainage, depth of drainage and additional
national information about mean annual water table and land-use type or intensity. A comprehensive
understanding and representation of the dynamics of CO2 emission factors, based on field measurements of, forexample, carbon content, bulk density, clay content, salinity, redox potential, etc., could be employed at Tier 3.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
Tier 1The Tier 1 approach requires area data of drained land for each land-use category that have been identified incoastal wetlands. Classification systems for activity data that form the basis for a Tier 1 inventory are provided
in the respective chapters of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For coastal wetlands, the predominant land-use category
conversion is to Cropland and Grassland.

Tier 2 and 3
Activity data for higher tier estimates are generally derived following the methods presented in Chapter 3 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. To disaggregate by soil type and vegetation type, several institutions, including ISRIC
and
FAO
have
country-specificandglobalmaps
thatincludeorganicsoils(http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home or http://www.isric.org/). A global consortium has been
formed to make a new digital soil map of the world at fine resolution (http://www.globalsoilmap.net/).
Drainage is assumed to result in persistent emissions from soils as long as the management system remains inplace. Activity data may be spatially explicit and could be disaggregated by type of management, if appropriate
emissions factors are available.
The combination of land-use databases and soil maps or spatially-explicit data allow delineation of combinationsof land-use categories, climate domains, and management systems and their changes over time on organic soils.
Information sources about drainage with adequate disaggregation may include that listed below.

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

4.31

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

National land-use statistics. Land-use maps and soil maps, maps of water and nature conservation zones
with restrictions for water management, wetlands.



National water management statistics. In most countries, the agricultural land base including croplands is
usually surveyed regularly, providing data on distribution of different land-uses and other aspects ofmanagement, often at sub-national, regional level. These statistics may originate, in part, from remotesensing methods, from which additional information about wetness or periods with seasonal flooding could
be extracted.

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



Water management plans and documentation from water management installations.



Drainage maps.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in estimating emissions and removals from drainage: 1) uncertainties inland-use and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in the emission/removal factors for Tier 1 or 2 approaches; and3) model structure/parameter error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, or measurement error/sampling
variability associated with Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. In general, precision of an inventory is
increased and confidence ranges are smaller with more sampling to estimate values for these categories, while
accuracy is more likely to be increased through implementation of higher Tier methods that incorporate countryspecific information.
For Tier 1, the default uncertainty level of emissions/removal factors is the 95% confidence interval in Table
4.13. Countries developing specific emission factors for their inventories at higher tiers should assess theuncertainty of these factors.
If using aggregate land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g. FAO data), the inventory agency may have toapply a default level of uncertainty for the land area estimates, for example. It is good practice for the inventory
compiler to derive uncertainties from country-specific activity data instead of using a default level of
uncertainty. Uncertainties in activity data may be reduced through a better national system, such as developing
or extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing toprovide additional coverage. Uncertainties in activity data and emission/removal factors need to be combinedusing an appropriate method, such as simple error propagation equations. Details are given in Chapter 3, Volume
1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and in Chapter 5 of the GPG-LULUCF.

4.3

NON-CO 2 EMISSIONSThis section provides methods for estimating the emissions of CH4 emissions from rewetted mangroves and tidal
marshes and N2O from aquaculture use.

4.3.1

CH4 emissions from rewetted soils and createdmangroves and tidal marshes

Rewetting of drained soils, through reconnection of hydrology, shifts microbial decomposition from aerobic toanaerobic conditions, increasing the potential for CH4 emissions (Harris et al., 2010). In environments where low
salinity also occurs (especially <5 ppt), microbial decomposition of organic matter may result in production of
CH4. However, in soils saturated with seawater, microbial reduction of sulfate to sulfide will generally occur
before methanogens produce CH4 regardless of the organic matter content. A strong inverse relationship between
CH4 emissions and salinity of mangrove soils exists (Purvaja and Ramesh, 2001). A review by Poffenbarger et al.
(2011) showed that CH4 emissions decrease as salinity in tidal marshes increases.
Guidance for estimating CH4 emissions associated with rewetting land previously characterised by mangrove
and tidal marsh vegetation differs from that for estimation of CO2 emissions in that, at Tier 1 level of estimation,
the EF remains the same for CH4, regardless of extant vegetation.

4.32

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

4.3.1.1

C HOICE OF METHODTIER 1In the case of rewetting of lands that had been previously in an agricultural (or any other drained) land-use
category, the Tier 1 method estimates CH4 emissions without considering the land-use prior to rewetting.

EQUATION 4.9
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED SOILS AND CREATED TIDAL MARSHES AND MANGROVES
CH4-SO-REWET = ∑v(AREWET • EFREWET)v
Where:
CH4-SO-REWET = CH4 emissions associated with rewetted and created coastal wetlands by vegetation type(v); kg CH4 yr-1
AREWET = Area of soil that has been rewetted (including tidal marsh or mangrove wetland creation), byvegetation type (v); ha
EFREWET = CH4 emissions from mineral and organic soils that have been rewetted by vegetation type (v);kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1

TIER 2
At Tier 2, country-specific data can be applied. Improved estimates can be produced if country-specific data
could include more disaggregation by salinity and vegetation type.

TIER 3
At Tier 3, country-specific values can be used and developed to model possible time-dependent changes in CH4emissions. Tier 3 methods may also consider vegetation composition and density, as plants can act as a conduit
for gas exchange between the soil and atmosphere (e.g. Burdick, 1989; Purvaja and Ramesh, 2001; Kristensen etal., 2008).

4.3.1.2

C HOICE OF EMISSION FA CTORSTIER 1
Tier 1 CH4 emission factors are found in Table 4.14 and should be used in conjunction with Equation 4.9 toestimate emissions taking into account vegetation type (and associated salinity level). The choice of emission
factor at Tier 1 is differentiated between rewetting by freshwater and brackish water (<18ppt) and saline water(>18ppt, Annex 4A.1). Rates of CH4 emissions approximate 0 in saline water marshes and mangroves but are
greater than zero in freshwater tidal and brackish marshes and mangroves (Table 4.14). For rewetting that resultsin salinities >18 ppt), the Tier 1 assumption is to apply an annual CH4 emission rate = 0. Within each vegetation
type, CH4 emissions are the same regardless of the management activity involving rewetting at Tier 1.

TIER 2
In a Tier 2 approach, country-specific CH4 emissions are encouraged to be used and will provide better estimates
based on the salinity of water used to rewet the mangrove or tidal marsh, particularly to determine CH4 emissions
from tidal brackish marshes.

TIER 3
In a Tier 3 approach, field measurements of soil salinity and CH4 emissions from the rewetted site could be used
to develop an empirical relationship (for example, a simple regression equation of salinity versus rate of methane
emission) and applied across other rewetted sites within a particular area or country. Country-specific values canthus be developed to model possible time-dependent changes in CH4 emissions such as changes in relation tofrequency of tidal inundation, frequency of the rewetting activity and elevation from the water’s edge. Suchconsiderations would result in more accurate estimation of CH4 emissions.

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

4.33

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

TABLE 4.14
EMISSION FACTORS FOR CH4 (EFREWET) FOR TIER 1 ESTIMATION OF REWETTED LAND PREVIOUSLY VEGETATEDBY TIDAL MARSHES AND MANGROVES

Vegetation Type

Salinity (ppt)

Tidal freshwater andbrackish marsh andmangrove1
Tidal saline water marsh andmangrove1<18

EFREWET(kg CH4 ha-1 y-1)
193.72>1803

95% CI4

Range

99.8, 358

10.95-5392

1

See Annex 4A.1 for salinity-based definitions

2

Sources: Keller et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2012; Poffenbarger et al., 2011; Sotomayor et al., 1994; Tong et al., 2010

0-40

3

Marshes and mangroves with salinities >1 ppt approximate an order of magnitude lower rates than from tidal freshwater andbrackish marsh (as defined here, salinity <18ppt), so a Tier 1 assumption is to apply 0.
4

95% CI of the geometric mean

4.3.1.3

C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

To estimate emissions using CH4 emission factors refer, in part, to the guidance for rewetting in Section 4.2.3
above. The EF should be applied to the specific type of vegetation that will be reestablished, which is associatedwith salinity. When salinity data are not available the type and location of rewetting may be used as a proxy forsalinity. For example, breaching of sea walls and rewetting in an estuarine setting will result in rewetting withsaline waters. If rewetting occurs with freshwater, a salinity of <18ppt is likely. When applying guidance fortidal freshwater marsh, it is good practice to determine the inland boundary for rewetting of tidal freshwater
wetlands as based on national circumstances, and to consistently apply these conditions to identifying theserewetted lands. If more information is available on salinity concentrations associated with the area being
rewetted, better estimates of CH4 emissions can be determined. Information used for these assessments should be
documented.

4.3.1.4

U NCERTAINTY ASSESSMEN T

There have been few empirical measurements of emissions disaggregated by factors such as temperature, tidal
frequency or duration of inundation, which introduce uncertainty in global default emission factors. However,higher tier approaches can take these factors into account to improve estimations. Few reports are available togive specifics of the types of rewetting activities that may vary geographically. Because activity data may belimited in terms of delineating salinity boundaries to apply more constrained CH4 emission factors, aggregationof data to produce Tier 1 emission factors was based upon expert knowledge. There is also uncertainty in thetime, depth of soil affected, and the contribution of vegetation to rate of CH4 loss.

4.3.2

N2O emissions during aquaculture use in mangroves,tidal marshes and seagrass meadows

The most significant activity contributing to N2O emissions from managed coastal wetlands is aquaculture. Onethird of global anthropogenic N2O emissions are from aquatic ecosystems, and nearly 6% of anthropogenic
N2O−N emission is anticipated to result from aquaculture by 2030 at its current annual rate of growth (Hu et al.,2012). Shrimp and fish cultivation increases nutrient loads in culture ponds. As opposed to indirect N2Oemissions originating from activities on terrestrial lands or as wastewater treatment, coastal wetland aquaculture
occurs as a direct source of N2O from coastal wetlands, including mangroves and tidal marshes from aquaculture
pond use. In seagrass meadows, this direct N2O source arises from N added to fish cages (e.g. off-shore
installations). While this differentiation should assure no double-counting, it is good practice to evaluate thisassessment considering national circumstances. As such, this new activity fills a gap in the current reporting on
direct and indirect sources of N2O emissions. A country can exclude N2O emissions from estimation that occur
during aquaculture activities where no mangroves, tidal marsh or seagrass meadows exist (i.e. outside of coastal
wetland areas).
N2O is emitted as a by-product of the conversion of ammonia (contained in fish urea) to nitrate throughnitrification and nitrate to N2 gas through denitrification (Hu et al., 2012; Annex 4A.5). N2O emissions canreadily be estimated from fish production data.

4.34

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

4.3.2.1

C HOICE OF METHODTIER 1N2O emissions from aquaculture ponds can be estimated based on fish/shrimp production of the aquaculture
activity. N2O emission estimation follows a modified form of Equation 11.1 from Chapter 11, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines and is presented in Equation 4.10.

EQUATION 4.10
DIRECT N2O EMISSIONS FROM AQUACULTURE USE
N2O-NAQ = FF • EFF (based on fish production)
Where:
N2O-NAQ = annual direct N2O-N emissions from aquaculture use; kg N2O-N yr-1
FF = annual fish production; kg fish yr-1
EFF = emission factor for N2O emissions from fish produced; kg N2O-N (kg fish produced)-1

TIER 2Tier 2 estimation methodology follows that of Tier 1 with the added information provided by country-specific
data.

TIER 3Tier 3 estimation methodology could include the consideration of fish/shrimp type, type of feed and stocking
density, category of aquaculture (fish/shrimp species or feed stuff), aquaculture use intensity, and impact ofenvironmental factors (e.g. climate zone, season, and salinity).

4.3.2.2

C HOICE OF EMISSION FA CTORSTIER 1
Hu et al. (2012) used the relationship between in-coming nitrogen loads and N2O emissions from wastewater
plants to estimate that 1.8% of the N is emitted as N2O (0.00169 kg N2O-N is emitted per kg fish produced). The
EFF is applied during the ‘in use’ phase of aquaculture (Table 4.15). In the construction and discontinued phases,
non-CO2 emissions are assumed negligible with EF=0. At Tier 1, countries could consider applying this EF toother species groups under aquaculture production. Because the EF is developed for fish, wider application may
introduce additional uncertainty.

TIERS 2 AND 3
Under the Tier 2 method, country specific emission factors for N2O are applied. At Tier 2, these country-specificemission factors could incorporate a different value for the proportion of N emitted as N2O. For Tier 3 emission
factors, comprehensive understanding and representation of the dynamics based on direct field measurements ormodels is involved, which estimates emission factors considering the category of aquaculture (fish/shrimp
species or feed stuff), aquaculture use intensity, and impact of environmental factors e.g. climate zone, season,and salinity.

TABLE 4.15
EMISSION FACTOR (EFF) FOR N2O EMISSION FROM AQUACULTURE USE IN MANGROVES, TIDAL MARSHES AND
SEAGRASS MEADOWS

1

Default EF(kg N2O-N per kg fish produced)

95% CI1

Reference

0.00169 kg N2O-N per kg fish produced

0, 0.0038

Hu et al., 2012

95% CI of the geometric mean.

Note: Approach used by Hu et al. (2012) using N in feed to fish biomass: Hargreaves, 1998; Protein content of fish biomass:
USDA nutrient database for Standard Reference Nutrient Data Laboratory; N content of protein: Nelson and Cox, 2013; N to
N2O conversion: Hu et al., 2013; Kong et al., 2013; Kampschrew et al., 2008; Ahn et al., 2010 (refer to Annex 4A.5)

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

4.35

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

4.3.2.3

C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DA TA

Data for fish and shrimp production are needed. These data can be obtained from FAO(http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-aquaculture-production/en). For additional guidance, see Section
4.2.1.

4.3.2.4

U NCERTAINTY ASSESSMEN T

Emission factors for N2O emissions from aquaculture systems are based on protein content of fish, relationships
between total nitrogen content and wet weight of fish and the percent of nitrogen load emitted as N 2O. There areno such data for shrimp production so using fish data as a proxy adds a high level of uncertainty. The fish-related
factors can vary greatly, and in part on environmental conditions, so high variation can occur among fish
aquaculture systems. Decreased uncertainty can be achieved at Tier 2 and 3 to reflect variability in N2Oemissions based on shrimp and fish species and type of food (pellets vs. trash fish). Uncertainties in N2Oemissions associated with stocking of aquaculture facilities can be reduced greatly by better estimation of shrimp
and fish production.

4.4

COMPLETENESS, TIME SERIESCONSISTENCY, AND QUALITY ASSURANCEAND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)

4.4.1

Completeness

General guidance on completeness is provided in Chapter 7 of this supplement.

4.4.2

Time series consistency

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

4.4.3

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

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

4.36

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Annex 4A.1 Salinity-based definitions
SALINITY-BASED DEFINTIONS
Commondescription

Salinity (ppt)1

Tidal fresh water<0.5

Brackish water

0.5 - 18

Saline water>18

1

ppt is parts per thousand (‰) and is roughly
equivalent to grams of salt per litre of water2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

4.37

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Annex 4A.2 Estimation of above-ground mangrove biomass:
higher tier methodology
Because of field conditions and heavy weight of wood, an accurate survey of a mangrove forest is difficult andtime-consuming. Allometric methods (Soares and Schaeffer-Novelli, 2005; Komiyama et al., 2008) estimate thewhole or partial weight of a tree from measurable tree dimensions, notably trunk diameter and height, using
allometric relations developed from empirical measurement of weight of individual tree components (leaves,branches, stem). Use of allometric equations is favored because it is non-destructive and is therefore useful for
estimating temporal changes in forest biomass by means of subsequent stem diameter measurements oversubsequent years.
Up until recently, the major drawback of this method has been the site- and species-specific differences inallometric relations, necessitating the use of different allometric equations for different sites (e.g. Smith andWhelan, 2005) and, at a minimum, different species. However, a number of workers, using global datasets, havedeveloped a common allometric equation applicable for all tropical tree species, with the most applicable
equations for above-ground biomass being those developed for all tropical trees by Chave et al. (2005) and forall mangrove species by Komiyama et al. (2005):
Wtop = 0.168pDBH2.47 (Chave et al. 2005)
Wtop = 0.251pD2.46 (Komiyama et al. 2005)
where Wtop = above-ground tree weight in kg dry weight, p = wood specific gravity, D = tree diameter, and DBH= diameter-at-breast height. The relative error of each equation varies among species, but is typically within therange of -10% to +10%. There are, of course, arguments to be made that empirical measurements should bemade in all mangrove forests, considering the significant allometric differences between species and for the same
species at different locations (Smith and Whelan, 2005; Soares and Schaeffler-Novelli, 2005). However, thisidea is impractical for inventory compliers; a relative error of ± 10% is acceptable being within the range of error
for allometric relations within a forest where biomass has been weighted.
Comparing the two equations, the Chave estimation gives lower above-ground weight estimates than that of the
Komiyama equation. Presuming that a complete census of all trees, with species identified, and their diameter
have been undertaken from replicate plots within a given forest, these numbers can then be used in either
equation to derive individual tree weight.

4.38

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Annex 4A.3 Wood density of mangrove species
WOOD DENSITY OF MANGROVE SPECIESSpeciesn

Average density(tonnes m-3)

Standarderror

Brugueria gymnorrhiza
Xylocarpus granatum

8
7

0.81
0.61

0.07
0.04

Sonneratia apetala
Sonneratia alba
Rhizophora mucronata
Rhizophora mangle

2
6
9
7

0.50
0.47
0.83
0.87

0.01
0.12
0.05
0.02

Rhizophora apiculata
Laguncularia racemosa
Heritiera littoralis

4
3
6

0.87
0.60
0.84

0.06
0.01
0.05

Heritiera fomes
Excoecaria agallocha
Ceriops tagal

3
7
7

0.86
0.41
0.85

0.14
0.02
0.04

Ceriops decandra

2

0.87

0.10

Avicennia officinalis

3

0.63

0.02

Avicennia marina
Avicennia germinans

6
5

0.62
0.72

0.06
0.04

0.71

0.02

Average

Source: Global Wood Density Database
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.234/1?show=full; Saenger, 2002; Komiyama et al., 2005;
Donato et al., 20122013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

4.39

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Annex 4A.4 Percent refractory carbon
Percent refractory carbon in organic/mineral soils were estimated for mangrove soils based on either the amountof phenolic compounds/lignins in soils or % TOC in mangrove soils deeper than 1 m if there was no further
decline in TOC concentration.
PERCENT REFRACTORY CARBON APPLIED TO
ESTIMATE % C OXIDATION FOR MANGROVESOILS (% BY SOIL DRY WEIGHT)
Mean

3.98

Median3.4

N

16

Source: Prasad and Ramanathan, 2009; Marchand et al.,
2003; Dittmar and Lara, 2001; Koch et al., 2011;
Ranjan et al., 2010; Marchand et al., 2005, which issimilar to that in tidal marshes (Filip et al., 1988;
Alberts et al., 1988; Reddy and DeLaune, 2008).

4.40

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Annex 4A.5 Derivation of N2O emission factor for aquaculture
The emission factor of 0.00169 kg N20-N per kg fish produced in Table 4.15 is based on the following. Firstly,
the protein content of fish is estimated from 80 values in various cultured fish species as 17.72 ± 2.97% (USDA
nutrient database for Standard Reference Nutrient Data Laboratory). Using the protein content of fish and theaverage N content of protein (16%; Nelson and Cox, 2013) implies an N content of 2.84 ± 1.33% of fish biomass;
i.e. one metric tonne of fish contains 2.84 x 104 g N. Secondly, the % N in aquaculture fish feed that isincorporated into fish biomass averages 23.22 ± 5.88% (Hargreaves, 1998). This value is based on results fromfour aquaculture production methods in which 18 individual estimates for the conversion of fish biomass to fish
N were obtained from 11 different cultured fish species.
Following Hu et al. (2012; and references therein), it is assumed that all the feed is ingested by fish and the N
input as ammonia to the aqueous phase to produce 1 metric tonne of fish is 12.23 x 104 g - 2.84 x 104 g = 9.39 ±4.69 x 104 g. Given that on average, during N transformation in the aqueous phase, 1.8 ± 0.7% of the N isconverted to N2O (Kong et al., 2013; Kampschreur et al., 2008; Ahn et al., 2010; Hu et al., 2013), the amount of
N emitted to the atmosphere as N2O-N is 1.69 x 103 g. Thus the average N2O emission factor of an aquaculture
system is 1.69 g N2O-N per kg fish or 0.00169 kg N2O-N per kg fish produced. The uncertainty range isestimated using standard error propagation through the calculations indicated.

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

4.41

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Appendix 4a.1 Future methodological development for estimating
carbon export
The amount of dissolved and particulate carbon potentially available for export is highly variable among coastal
wetlands, depending on a large number of factors such as: net primary productivity, tidal range, the ratio of
wetland to watershed area, lateral trapping of tidal water, the presence of high salinity plugs in the tropical dry
season, total wetland area, frequency of storms, amount of precipitation, and volume of water exchange. Eachecosystem is unique; some wetlands export DOC but import POC, others import DOC and POC but export DIC,
while other systems import or export all forms of dissolved and particulate C. The direction of net exchange also
usually varies within the same estuary with change in season. Emerging evidence indicates that DIC (derived
from CO2 by heterotrophic organisms and/or carbonate dissolution) is exported from coastal wetlands by thephysical processes of tidal drainage of soils and subsequent advection to adjacent waterways (Alongi, 2009;
Perillo et al., 2009). For instance, in mangroves, tidal export of respiratory-derived DIC may equate to as muchas one-third of carbon fixed by the forests. However, available data are still too few to allow for generalization,and the scant data are highly variable with tidal amplitude being a major driver of soil DIC drainage.
Estimation of tidal exchange in a particular wetland is not a straightforward process. Many workers haveprovided rough estimates by multiplying carbon concentrations suspended in wetland creeks and waterways by
the tidal range multiplied by the creek/waterway cross-sectional area. Estimates derived from such simple
calculations are invalid and misleading for a number of reasons, including the inherent assumption that there aredifferences in carbon concentrations between ebb and flood tide stages and that the tidal prism is symmetrical. In
fact, carbon concentrations in many wetland waters do not show significant differences between tides. Further,tides in most wetlands are characterized by a pronounced asymmetry between ebb and flood tides with the ebb
most often being of shorter duration but with stronger current velocity than the flood tide. Also, tidal velocities
vary across a waterway with faster surface current velocities mid-stream than those just above the creekbed or
proximal to the wetland.
For these reasons, it is not possible to make simple generalizations regarding dissolved and particulate organicand inorganic total carbon export from mangroves, seagrasses or tidal marshes and, in fact, comparatively few
such measurements have been made properly. The correct method would be to measure water volume andvelocity over entire tidal cycles over several seasons in relation to position in the water-column to derive an
overall annual estimate of average water flow by volume. This involves fairly complex instrument measurements
and sophisticated mathematical modelling as well as extensive and expensive repetitive measurements ofdissolved and particulate carbon concentrations. For mangroves, net exchange of carbon has been properly
measured in only twelve systems (DIC has only been measured in four systems), with no clear exchange patterns
among locations, although it does appear that most mangroves export POC as litter but with rates ranging widelyfrom 0.1-27.7 mol C m-2 yr-1 (Alongi, 2009). This export equates globally to only about 10% of total carbon fixedby trees; respiration to the atmosphere is by far the largest loss of carbon to the atmosphere. Such appears to be
the case for tidal marshes (Chmura et al., 2003) and subtidal seagrass beds (Fourqurean et al., 2012). Some
recent syntheses and literature do hold promise for future development of model relationships that can be used
for estimating carbon export (Adame and Lovelock 2011; Maher et al., 2013).

4.42

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

References
Abohassan, R. A. A., Okia, C. A., Agea, J. G., Kimondo, J. M. & McDonald, M. M. (2012) Perennial biomass
production in arid mangrove systems on the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia. Environmental Research Journal
6(1): 22-31.
Adame, M. C., and C.E. Lovelock (2011) Carbon and nutrient exchange of mangrove forests with the coastal
ocean. Hydrobiologia 663: 23-50.
Adame, M. F., Reef, R., Herrera-Silveira, J. A. & Lovelock, C. E. (2012) Sensitivity of dissolved organic carbon
exchange and sediment bacteria to water quality in mangrove forests. Hydrobiologia 691(1): 239-253.
Adams, C. A., Andrews, J. E. & Jickells, T. (2012) Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes vs. carbon, nitrogen andphosphorous burial in new intertidal and saltmarsh sediments. Science of the Total Environment 434: 240251.
Agostini, S., Pergent, G. & Marchand, B. (2003) Growth and primary production of Cymodocea nodosa in acoastal lagoon. Aquatic Botany 76(3): 185-193.
Ahn, J. H., Kwan, T. & Chandran, K. (2011) Comparison of partial and full nitrification processes applied fortreating high-strength nitrogen wastewaters: microbial ecology through nitrous oxide production.
Environmental Science & Technology 45: 2734-2740.
Aioi, K. (1980) Seasonal change in the standing crop of eelgrass Zostera marina in Odawa Bay, Central Japan.
Aquatic Botany 8(4): 343-354.
Aioi, K., Mukai, H., Koike, I., Ohtsu, M. & Hattori, A. (1981) Growth and organic production of eelgrass
Zostera-marina in temperate waters of the Pacific coast of Japan. 2.Growth Analysis in Winter. Aquatic
Botany 10(2): 175-182.
Aioi, K. & Pollard, P. C. (1993) Biomass, Leaf growth and loss rate of the seagrass Syringodium isotifolium on
Dravuni Island, Fiji. Aquatic Botany 46(3-4): 283-292.
Ajonina, G. M. (2008) Inventory and modelling mangrove forest stand dynamics following different levels ofwood exploitation pressures in the Douala-Edea Atlantic Coast of Cameroon, Central Africa, Freiburg im
Breisgau, Germany, p. 232.
Alberts, J. J., Filip, Z., Price, M. T., Williams, D. J. & Williams, M. C. (1988) Elemental composition, stablecarbon isotope ratios and spectrophotometric properties of humic substances occurring in a salt-marsh
estuary. Organic Geochemistry 12(5): 455-467.
Allen, J. A., Ewel, K. C., Keeland, B. D., Tara, T. & Smith, T. J. (2000) Downed wood in Micronesianmangrove forests. Wetlands 20(1): 169-176.
Alongi, D. M. (2010) The Energetics of Mangrove Forests. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+BusinessMedia B.V.
Alongi, D. M., Clough, B. F., Dixon, P. & Tirendi, F. (2003) Nutrient partitioning and storage in arid-zone
forests of the mangroves Rhizophora stylosa and Avicennia marina. Trees-Structure and Function 17(1): 5160.
Alongi, D. M., McKinnon, A. D., Brinkman, R., Trott, L. A., Undu, M. C., Muawanah & Rachmansyah. (2009)
The fate of organic matter derived from small-scale fish cage aquaculture in coastal waters of Sulawesi and
Sumatra, Indonesia. Aquaculture 295(1-2): 60-75.
Amarasinghe, M. D. & Balasubramaniam, S. (1992) Net primary productivity of two mangrove forest stands on
the Northwestern coast of Sri-Lanka. Hydrobiologia 247(1-3): 37-47.
Anisfeld, S. C., Tobin, M. & Benoit, G. (1999) Sedimentation rates in flow-restricted and restored salt marshes
in Long Island Sound. Estuaries 22(2A): 231-244.
Armentano, T. V. a. M., E.S. (1986) Patterns of change in the carbon balance of organic soil wetlands of thetemperate zone. Journal of Ecology 74: 755-774.
Asmus, R. M., Sprung, M. & Asmus, H. (2000) Nutrient fluxes in intertidal communities of a South European
lagoon (Ria Formosa) - similarities and differences with a northern Wadden Sea bay (Sylt-Romo Bay).
Hydrobiologia 436(1-3): 217-235.
Bandeira, S. O. (2002) Leaf production rates of Thalassodendron ciliatum from rocky and sandy habitats.
Aquatic Botany 72(1): 13-24.

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

4.43

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Bank, W. (2006) Aquaculture: Changing the Face of the Waters Meeting the Promise and Challenge of
Sustainable Aquaculture.
Birch, J. B. & Cooley, J. L. (1982) Production and standing crop patterns of giant cutgrass Zizaniopsis
miliacea in a freshwater tidal marsh. Oecologia 52(2): 230-235.
Blackburn, T. H., Lund, B. A. & Krom, M. D. (1988) C-mineralization and N-mineralization in the sediments ofearthen marine fishponds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 44(3): 221-227.
Boon, P. I. (1986) Nitrogen pools in seagrass beds of Cymodocea serrulata and Zostera capricorni of Moreton
Bay, Australia. Aquatic Botany 25(1): 1-19.
Borum, J., Duarte, C. M., Krause-Jensen, D. & Greve, T. M. (2004) European seagrasses: an introduction tomonitoring and management. In: The M&MS project.
Bouillon, S., Borges, A. V., Castaneda-Moya, E., Diele, K., Dittmar, T., Duke, N. C., Kristensen, E., Lee, S. Y.,
Marchand, C., Middelburg, J. J., Rivera-Monroy, V. H., Smith, T. J. & Twilley, R. R. (2008) Mangrove
production and carbon sinks: A revision of global budget estimates. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22(2).
Boyer, K. E., Callaway, J. C. & Zedler, J. B. (2000) Evaluating the progress of restored cordgrass Spartina
foliosa marshes: Below-ground biomass and tissue nitrogen. Estuaries 23(5): 711-721.
Breithaupt, J. L., Smoak, J. M., Smith, T. J., Sanders, C. J. & Hoare, A. (2012) Organic carbon burial rates inmangrove sediments: Strengthening the global budget. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 26.
Briggs, S. V. (1977) Estimates of biomass in a temperate mangrove community. Australian Journal of Ecology
2(3): 369-373.
Brouns, J. (1985) A comparison of the annual production and biomass in three monospecific stands of theseagrass Thalassia hemprichii (Ehrenb) Aschers. Aquatic Botany 23(2): 149-175.
Brouns, J. (1987) Aspects of production and biomass of four seagrass species Cymodoceoideae from Papua New
Guinea. Aquatic Botany 27(4): 333-362.
Brouns, J. & Heijs, F. M. L. (1986) Production and biomass of the seagrass Enhalus acoroides (L.f.) Royle andits epiphytes. Aquatic Botany 25(1): 21-45.
Brun, F. G., van Zetten, E., Cacabelos, E. & Bouma, T. J. (2009) Role of two contrasting ecosystem engineers
Zostera noltii and Cymodocea nodosa on the food intake rate of Cerastoderma edule. Helgoland Marine
Research 63(1): 19-25.
Cahoon, D. R., Lynch, J. C. & Knaus, R. M. (1996) Improved cryogenic coring device for sampling wetland
soils. Journal of Sedimentary Research 66(5): 1025-1027.
Callaway, J. C., R.D. DeLaune, and W.H. Patrick. (1997) Sediment accretion rates from four coastal wetlands
along the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Coastal Research 13: 181-191.
Callaway, J. C., Borgnis, E. L., Turner, R. E. & Milan, C. S. (2012) Carbon sequestration and sediment accretionin San Francisco Bay tidal wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts 35(5): 1163-1181.
Callaway, J. C., DeLaune, R. D. & Patrick, W. H. (1996) Chernobyl Cs-137 used to determine sedimentaccretion rates at selected northern European coastal wetlands. Limnology and Oceanography 41(3): 444-450.
Calleja, M. L., Barron, C., Hale, J. A., Frazer, T. K. & Duarte, C. M. (2006) Light regulation of benthic sulfate
reduction rates mediated by seagrass Thalassia testudinum metabolism. Estuaries and Coasts 29(6B): 12551264.
Camacho, L. D., Gevaña, D. T., Carandang, A. P., Camacho, S. C., Combalicer, E. A., Rebugio, L. L. & Youn,
Y.-C. (2011) Tree biomass and carbon stock of a community‐managed mangrove forest in Bohol, Philippines.
Forest Science and Technology 7(4): 161-167.
Camporese, M., Putti, M., Salandin, P. & Teatini, P. (2008) Spatial variability of CO2 efflux in a drained
cropped peatland south of Venice, Italy. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 113(G4).
Cebrian, J., Pedersen, M. F., Kroeger, K. D. & Valiela, I. (2000) Fate of production of the seagrass Cymodocea
nodosa in different stages of meadow formation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 204: 119-130.
Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M. A., Chambers, J. Q., Eamus, D., Folster, H., Fromard, F., Higuchi,N., Kira, T., Lescure, J. P., Nelson, B. W., Ogawa, H., Puig, H., Riera, B. & Yamakura, T. (2005) Tree
allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145(1): 87-99.
Chen, G. C., Ye, Y. & Lu, C. Y. (2008) Seasonal variability of leaf litter removal by crabs in a Kandelia candelmangrove forest in Jiulong Jiang Estuary, China. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 79(4): 701-706.

4.44

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Chmura, G. L., Anisfeld, S. C., Cahoon, D. R. & Lynch, J. C. (2003) Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline
wetland soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(4).
Chmura, G. L. & Hung, G. A. (2004) Controls on salt marsh accretion: A test in salt marshes of Eastern Canada.
Estuaries 27(1): 70-81.
Christensen, B. (1978) Biomass and primary production of Rhizophora apiculata Bl. in a mangrove in southern
Thailand. Aquatic Botany 4(1): 43-52.
Coles, R. G., Long, W. J. L., Watson, R. A. & Derbyshire, K. J. (1993) Distribution of Seagrasses, and Their
Fish and Penaeid Prawn Communities, in Cairns Harbour, a Tropical Estuary, Northern Queensland,
Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44(1): 193-210.
Collier, C. J., Lavery, P. S., Ralph, P. J. & Masini, R. J. (2009) Shade-induced response and recovery of theseagrass Posidonia sinuosa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 370(1-2): 89-103.
Connor, R. & Chmura, G. L. (2000) Dynamics of above- and below-ground organic matter in a high latitude
macrotidal saltmarsh. Marine Ecology Progress Series 204: 101-110.
Connor, R. F., Chmura, G. L. & Beecher, C. B. (2001) Carbon accumulation in Bay of Fundy salt marshes:
Implications for restoration of reclaimed marshes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15(4): 943-954.
Coronado-Molina, C., Day, J., Reyes, E. & Perez, B. (2004) Standing crop and aboveground biomass
partitioning of a dwarf mangrove forest in Taylor River Slough, Florida. Wetlands Ecology and Management12(3): 157-164.
Craft, C., J. Reader, J.N. Sacco, S.W. Broome. (1999) Twenty-five years of ecosystem development ofconstructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) marshes. Ecological Applications 13: 1417-1423.
Craft, C., S. Broome, and C. Campbell. (2002) Fifteen years of vegetation and soil developent after brackishwater marsh creation. Restoration Ecology (10): 248-258.
Craft, C. (2007) Freshwater input structures soil properties, vertical accretion, and nutrient accumulation ofGeorgia and U.S. tidal marshes. Limnology and Oceanography 52(3): 1220-1230.
Craft, C., Megonigal, P., Broome, S., Stevenson, J., Freese, R., Cornell, J., Zheng, L. & Sacco, J. (2003) The
pace of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora marshes. Ecological Applications 13(5):1417-1432.
Craft, C. B., Broome, S. W. & Seneca, E. D. (1988) Nitrogen, phosphorus and organic carbon pools in naturaland transplanted marsh soils. Estuaries 11(4): 272-280.
Cruz, P. S. (1997) Aquaculture feed and fertilizer resource atlas of the Philippines. FAO.
da Cunha Lana, P., Guiss, C. & Disaro, S. T. (1991) Seasonal variation of biomass and production dynamics forabove- and below-ground components of a Spartina alterniflora marsh in the euhaline sector of Paranagua
Bay (SE Brazil). Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 32: 231-241.
Daby, D. (2003) Effects of seagrass bed removal for tourism purposes in a Mauritian bay. Environmental
Pollution 125(3): 313-324.
de Boer, W. F. (2000) Biomass dynamics of seagrasses and the role of mangrove and seagrass vegetation as
different nutrient sources for an intertidal ecosystem. Aquatic Botany 66(3): 225-239.
Deverel, S. J. & Leighton, D. A. (2010) Historic, recent, and future subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
California, USA. . San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 8(2): 1-23.
Devereux, R., Yates, D. F., Aukamp, J., Quarles, R. L., Jordan, S. J., Stanley, R. S. & Eldridge, P. M. (2011)
Interactions of Thalassia testudinum and sediment biogeochemistry in Santa Rosa Sound, NW Florida.
Marine Biology Research 7(4): 317-331.
Dittmar, T. & Lara, R. J. (2001) Molecular evidence for lignin degradation in sulfate-reducing mangrove
sediments (Amazonia, Brazil). Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 65(9): 1417-1428.
Dixon, L. K. & Leverone, J. R. (1995) Light requirements of Thalassia testudinum in Tampa Bay, Florida: final
report.
Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., Mackenzie, R. A., Ainsworth, A. & Pfleeger, A. Z. (2012) Whole-island carbon
stocks in the tropical Pacific: Implications for mangrove conservation and upland restoration. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 97: 89-96.
Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M. & Kanninen, M. (2011) Mangroves
among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience 4(5): 293-297.

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

4.45

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Dos Santos, V. M., Matheson, F. E., Pilditch, C. A. & Elger, A. (2012) Is black swan grazing a threat to seagrass?
Indications from an observational study in New Zealand. Aquatic Botany 100: 41-50.
Duarte, C. M., Kennedy, H., Marbà, N. & Hendriks, I. (2013) Assessing the capacity of seagrass meadows forcarbon burial: current limitations and future strategies. Ocean and Coastal Management 83: 32-38.
Dunn, R. (1981) The effects of temperature on the photosynthesis, growth and productivity of Spartina
townsendu (sensu lato) in controlled and natural environments. In: University of Essex.
Dunton, K. H. (1996) Photosynthetic production and biomass of the subtropical seagrass Halodule wrightii along
an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 19(2B): 436-447.
Dürr, H. H., Laruelle, G. G., van Kempen, C. M., Slomp, C. P., Meybeck, M. & Middelkoop, H. (2011) Worldwide typology of near-shore coastal systems: defining the estuarine filter of river inputs to the oceans.
Estuaries and Coasts 34(3): 441-458.
Ellison, A. M., Bertness, M. D. & Miller, T. (1986) Seasonal patterns in the below-ground biomass of Spartina
alterniflora (Gramineae) across a tidal gradient. American Journal of Botany 73(11): 1548-1554.
Ellison, A. M. & Farnsworth, E. J. (1996) Anthropogenic disturbance of Caribbean mangrove ecosystems: Past
impacts, present trends, and future predictions. Biotropica 28(4): 549-565.
Elsey-Quirk, T., Seliskar, D. M., Sommerfield, C. K. & Gallagher, J. L. (2011) Salt Marsh Carbon Pool
Distribution in a Mid-Atlantic Lagoon, USA: Sea Level Rise Implications. Wetlands 31(1): 87-99.
FAO. (2003) Status and trends in mangrove area extent worldwide. In: Paris: Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations
FAO. (2007) The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. In: Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
FAO. (2007) The world's mangroves 1980-2005: a thematic study prepared in the framework of the Global
Forest Resources Assessment 2005. In: Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
Fatoyinbo, T. E. & Simard, M. (2013) Height and biomass of mangroves in Africa from ICESat/GLAS and
SRTM. International Journal of Remote Sensing 34(2): 668-681.
Fatoyinbo, T. E., Simard, M., Washington-Allen, R. A. & Shugart, H. H. (2008) Landscape-scale extent, height,
biomass, and carbon estimation of Mozambique's mangrove forests with Landsat ETM+ and Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission elevation data. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 113(G2).
Filip, Z., Alberts, J. J., Cheshire, M. V., Goodman, B. A. & Bacon, J. R. (1988) Comparison of salt marsh humic
acid with humic-like substances from the indigenous plant species Spartina alterniflora (Loisel). Science of
the Total Environment 71(2): 157-172.
Fourqurean, J. W., Duarte, C. M., Kennedy, H., Marba, N., Holmer, M., Mateo, M. A., Apostolaki, E. T.,
Kendrick, G. A., Krause-Jensen, D., McGlathery, K. J. & Serrano, O. (2012) Seagrass ecosystems as a
globally significant carbon stock. Nature Geoscience 5(7): 505-509.
Fourqurean, J. W., Moore, T. O., Fry, B. & Hollibaugh, J. T. (1997) Spatial and temporal variation in C:N:P
ratios, delta N-15 and delta C-13 of eelgrass Zostera marina as indicators of ecosystem processes, Tomales
Bay, California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 157: 147-157.
Fromard, F., Puig, H., Mougin, E., Marty, G., Betoulle, J. L. & Cadamuro, L. (1998) Structure, abovegroundbiomass and dynamics of mangrove ecosystems: new data from French Guiana. Oecologia 115(1-2): 39-53.
Fujimoto, K., Imaya, A., Tabuchi, R., Kuramoto, S., Utsugi, H. & Murofushi, T. (1999) Below-ground carbon
storage of Micronesian mangrove forests. Ecological Research 14(4): 409-413.
Gedan, K. B., Silliman, B. R. & Bertness, M. D. (2009) Centuries of human-driven change in salt marsh
ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 1: 117-141.
Golley, F. B., McGuiniss, K., Clements, R. G., Child, G. I. & Duever, M. J. (1975) Mineral cycling in a tropicalmoist ecosystem. Athens, GA, USA: University of Georgia Press.
Golley, F. B., Odum, H. T. & Wilson, R. F. (1962) The structure and metabolism of a Puerto Rican red
mangrove forest ecosystem. Athens, GA, USA: University of Georgia Press.
Gong, W. K. & Ong, J. E. (1990) Plant biomass and nutrient flux in a managed mangrove forest in Malaysia.
Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 31(5): 519-530.
Gross, M. F., Hardisky, M. A., Wolf, P. L. & Klemas, V. (1991) Relationship between aboveground and belowground biomass of Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Estuaries 14(2): 180-191.

4.46

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Hackney, J. W. (2003) Morphometric variability and allometric relationships in the seagrass Thalassia
testudinum in Florida Bay. In: University of North Carolina.
Halun, Z., Terrados, J., Borum, J., Kamp-Nielsen, L., Duarte, C. M. & Fortes, M. D. (2002) Experimental
evaluation of the effects of siltation-derived changes in sediment conditions on the Philippine seagrass
Cymodocea rotundata. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 279(1-2): 73-87.
Hargreaves, J. A. (1998) Nitrogen biogeochemistry of aquaculture ponds. Aquaculture 166: 181-212.
Harris, R. J., Milbrandt, E. C., Everham, E. M. & Bovard, B. D. (2010) The Effects of Reduced Tidal Flushingon Mangrove Structure and Function Across a Disturbance Gradient. Estuaries and Coasts 33(5): 1176-1185.
Hatala, J. A., Detto, M., Sonnentag, O., Deverel, S. J., Verfaillie, J. & Baldocchi, D. D. (2012) Greenhouse gas(CO2, CH4, H2O) fluxes from drained and flooded agricultural peatlands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 150: 1-18.
Hatton, R. S., Delaune, R. D. & Patrick, W. H. (1983) Sedimentation, accretion, and subsidence in marshes ofBarataria Basin, Louisiana. Limnology and Oceanography 28(3): 494-502.
Hebert, A. B., Morse, J. W. & Eldridge, P. M. (2007) Small-scale heterogeneity in the geochemistry of seagrass
vegetated and non-vegetated estuarine sediments: causes and consequences. Aquatic Geochemistry 13(1): 1939.
Herbert, D. A. (1986) The growth dynamics of Halophila hawaiiana. Aquatic Botany 23(4): 351-360.
Herbert, D. A. & Fourqurean, J. W. (2008) Ecosystem structure and function still altered two decades after shortterm fertilization of a seagrass meadow. Ecosystems 11(5): 688-700.
Herbert, D. A. & Fourqurean, J. W. (2009) Phosphorus Availability and Salinity Control Productivity and
Demography of the Seagrass Thalassia testudinum in Florida Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 32(1): 188-201.
Holmer, M., Andersen, F. O., Nielsen, S. L. & Boschker, H. T. S. (2001) The importance of mineralization basedon sulfate reduction for nutrient regeneration in tropical seagrass sediments. Aquatic Botany 71(1): 1-17.
Holmer, M. & Kendrick, G. A. (2013) High sulfide intrusion in five temperate seagrasses growing undercontrasting sediment conditions. Estuaries and Coasts 36(1): 116-126.
Hoque, A., Sharma, S., Suwa, R., Mori, S. & Hagihara, A. (2012) Seasonal variation in the size-dependent
respiration of mangroves Kandelia obovata. Marine Ecology Progress Series 404: 31-37.
Howe, A. J., Rodriguez, J. F. & Saco, P. M. (2009) Surface evolution and carbon sequestration in disturbed andundisturbed wetland soils of the Hunter estuary, southeast Australia. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science84(1): 75-83.
Hu, Z., Lee, J. W., Chandran, K., Kim, S. & Khanal, S. K. (2012) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emission from
Aquaculture: A Review. Environmental Science & Technology 46(12): 6470-6480.
Hu, Z., Lee, J. W., Chandran, K., Kim, S., Sharma, K., Brotto, A. C. & Khanal, S. K. (2013) Nitrogentransformations in intensive aquaculture system and its implication to climate change through nitrous oxide
emission. Bioresource Technology 130: 314-320.
Hussein, A. H., Rabenhorst, M. C. & Tucker, M. L. (2004) Modeling of carbon sequestration in coastal marsh
soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68(5): 1786-1795.
Hussey, A. & Long, S. P. (1982) Seasonal changes in weight of above- and below-ground vegetation and deadplant material in a salt marsh at Colne Point, Essex. Journal of Ecology 70: 757-771.
IPCC. (2010) Datasets for use in the IPCC Guidelines. In: Meeting Report of the IPCC-FAO-IFAD Expert
Meeting on FAO Data for LULUCF/AFOLU, Rome, Italy, 20-22 October, 2009, eds. H. S. Eggleston, N.
Srivastava, K. Tanabe & J. Baasansuren, Hayama, Japan.
Ismail, N. (1993) Preliminary study of the seagrass flora of Sabah, Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Tropical
Agricultural Science 16(2): 111-118.
JAXA. (2010) The ALOS Kyoto & Carbon Initiative, Science Team Reports, Phase I (2006-2008) (NDX100003). Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Earth Observation Research Center (JAXA-EORC), Japan.
In.
JAXA. (2010) Global Environmental Monitoring by ALOS PALSAR Science Results from the ALOS Kyoto &Carbon Initiative (NDX-100004). Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, ALOS Science Program, Japan. In.
Jensen, S. & Bell, S. (2001) Seagrass growth and patch dynamics: cross-scale morphological plasticity. Plant
Ecology 155(2): 201-217.

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

4.47

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Jones, D. A., Nithyanandan, M. & Williams, I. (2012) Sabah Al-Ahmad Sea City Kuwait: development of asustainable man-made coastal ecosystem in a saline desert. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 15:
84-92.
Juliana, W. A. & Nizam, M. S. (2004) Forest structure and aboveground biomass of two mangrove forest
communities in Matang. Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia.
Kairo, J. G., Lang'at, J. K. S., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Bosire, J. & Karachi, M. (2008) Structural development andproductivity of replanted mangrove plantations in Kenya. Forest Ecology and Management 255(7): 26702677.
Kampschreur, M. J., Van der Star, W. R. L., Wielders, H. A., Mulder, J. W., Jetten, M. S. M. & Van Loosdrecht,
M. C. M. (2008) Dynamics of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide emission during full-scale reject water treatment.
Water Research 42: 812-826.
Kauffman, J. B., Heider, C., Cole, T. G., Dwire, K. A. & Donato, D. C. (2011) Ecosystem carbon stocks ofMicronesian mangrove forests. Wetlands 31(2): 343-352.
Kearney, M. S. & Stevenson, J. C. (1991) Island land loss and marsh vertical accretion rate evidence forhistorical sea-level changes in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Coastal Research 7(2): 403-415.
Keller, J. K., Sutton-Grier, A. E., Bullock, A. L. & Megonigal, J. P. (2013) Anaerobic metabolism in tidal
freshwater wetlands: I. Plant removal effects on iron reduction and methanogenesis. Estuaries and Coasts 36:
457-470.
Khan, M. N. I., Suwa, R. & Hagihara, A. (2009) Biomass and aboveground net primary production in a
subtropical mangrove stand of Kandelia obovata (S., L.) Yong at Manko Wetland, Okinawa, Japan. Wetlands
Ecology and Management 17(6): 585-599.
Kim, S. H., Kim, Y. K., Park, S. R., Li, W. T. & Lee, K. S. (2012) Growth dynamics of the seagrass Halophila
nipponica, recently discovered in temperate coastal waters of the Korean peninsula. Marine Biology 159(2):255-267.
Kirkman, H. & Reid, D. D. (1979) A study of the role of the seagrass Posidonia australis in the carbon budget ofan estuary. Aquatic Botany 7(2): 173-183.
Kirue, B., Kairo, J. & Karachi, M. (2007) Allometric Equations for Estimating Above Ground Biomass of
Rhizophora mucronata Lamk.(Rhizophoraceae) Mangroves at Gazi Bay, Kenya. Western Indian Ocean
Journal of Marine Science 5(1): 27-34.
Kistritz, R. U., Hall, K. J. & Yesaki, I. (1983) Productivity, detritus flux, and nutrient cycling in a Carex
lyngbyei tidal marsh. Estuaries 6: 227-236.
Koch, B. P., Souza, P. W. M., Behling, H., Cohen, M. C. L., Kattner, G., Rullkotter, J., Scholz-Bottcher, B. &Lara, R. J. (2011) Triterpenols in mangrove sediments as a proxy for organic matter derived from the redmangrove (Rhizophora mangle). Organic Geochemistry 42(1): 62-73.
Komiyama, A., Havanond, S., Srisawatt, W., Mochida, Y., Fujimoto, K., Ohnishi, T., Ishihara, S. & Miyagi, T.
(2000) Top/root biomass ratio of a secondary mangrove (Ceriops tagal (Perr.) CB Rob.) forest. Forest
Ecology and Management 139(1-3): 127-134.
Komiyama, A., Moriya, H., Prawiroatmodjo, S., Toma, T. & Ogino, K. (1988) Primary productivity ofmangrove forest. Ehime University, Ehime, Japan.
Komiyama, A., Ogino, K., Aksornkoae, S. & Sabhasri, S. (1987) Root biomass of a mangrove forest in southern
Thailand. 1. Estimation by the trench method and the zonal structure of root biomass. Journal of Tropical
Ecology 3: 97-108.
Komiyama, A., Ong, J. E. & Poungparn, S. (2008) Allometry, biomass, and productivity of mangrove forests: A
review. Aquatic Botany 89(2): 128-137.
Komiyama, A., Poungparn, S. & Kato, S. (2005) Common allometric equations for estimating the tree weight ofmangroves. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21: 471-477.
Kowalski, J. L., DeYoe, H. R. & Allison, T. C. (2009) Seasonal Production and Biomass of the Seagrass,
Halodule wrightii Aschers. (Shoal Grass), in a Subtropical Texas Lagoon. Estuaries and Coasts 32(3): 467482.
Krauss, K. W., Doyle, T. W., Twilley, R. R., Smith, T. J., Whelan, K. R. T. & Sullivan, J. K. (2005) Woody
debris in the mangrove forests of South Florida. Biotropica 37(1): 9-15.

4.48

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Kristensen, E., Bouillon, S., Dittmar, T. & Marchand, C. (2008) Organic carbon dynamics in mangrove
ecosystems: A review. Aquatic Botany 89(2): 201-219.
Kungvankij, P., Pudadera Jr, B., Tiro Jr, L., Potestas, I. & Chua, T. (1986) An improved traditional shrimp
culture technique for increasing pond yield.
Kusmana, C., Sabiham, S., Abe, K. & Watanabe, H. (1992) An estimation of above ground tree biomass of amangrove forest in East Sumatra, Indonesia. Tropics 1(4): 243-257.
Larkum, A. W. D., Collett, L. C. & Williams, R. J. (1984) The standing stock, growth and shoot production of
Zostera capricorni aschers. in Botany Bay, New South Wales, Australia. Aquatic Botany 19(3-4): 307-327.
Larkum, A. W. D. & West, R. J. (1990) Long-term changes of seagrass meadows in Botany Bay, Australia.
Aquatic Botany 37(1): 55-70.
Larned, S. T. (2003) Effects of the invasive, nonindigenous seagrass Zostera japonica on nutrient fluxes between
the water column and benthos in a NE Pacific estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 254: 69-80.
Lebreton, B., Richard, P., Radenac, G., Bordes, M., Breret, M., Arnaud, C., Mornet, F. & Blanchard, G. F. (2009)
Are epiphytes a significant component of intertidal Zostera noltii beds? Aquatic Botany 91(2): 82-90.
Lee, K. S., Park, S. R. & Kim, J. B. (2005) Production dynamics of the eelgrass, Zostera marina in two bay
systems on the south coast of the Korean peninsula. Marine Biology 147(5): 1091-1108.
Lee, S. Y. (1997) Annual cycle of biomass of a threatened population of the intertidal seagrass Zostera japonica
in Hong Kong. Marine Biology 129(1): 183-193.
Lee, S. Y., Oh, J. H., Choi, C. I., Suh, Y. & Mukai, H. (2005) Leaf growth and population dynamics of intertidal
Zostera japonica on the western coast of Korea. Aquatic Botany 83(4): 263-280.
Liao, B., Zheng, D. & Zheng, S. (1990) Studies on the biomass of Sonneratia caseolaris stand. Forest Research
3(1): 47-54.
Lichacz, W., Hardiman, S. & Buckney, R. T. (1984) Below-ground biomass in some intertidal wetlands in New
South Wales. Wetlands 4: 56-62.
Lillebo, A. I., Flindt, M. R., Pardal, M. A. & Marques, J. C. (2006) The effect of Zostera noltii, Spartina
maritima and Scirpus maritimus on sediment pore-water profiles in a temperate intertidal estuary.
Hydrobiologia 555: 175-183.
Lin, P. (1989) Biomass and element cycle of Kandelia forest in China. Xiamen: Xiamen Univ. Press.
Lin, P., Lu, C., Wang, G. & Chen, H. (1990) Biomass and productivity of Bruguiera sexangula mangrove forest
in Hainan Island, China. Journal of Xiamen University (Natural Science) 29: 209-213.
Lindeboom, H. J. & Sandee, A. J. J. (1989) Production and consumption of tropical seagrass fields in Eastern
Indonesia measured with bell jars and microelectrodes. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 23(2): 181-190.
Lipkin, Y. (1979) Quantitative aspects of seagrass communities, particularly of those dominated by Halophila
stipulacea, in Sinai (Northern Red Sea). Aquatic Botany 7(2): 119-128.
Livesley, S., Andrusiak, S. & Idczak, D. (2010) Soil greenhouse gas exchange and carbon stocks in natural andmanaged ecosystems of the Mornington Peninsula. In: Final Report to the Mornington Peninsula ShireCouncil, Melbourne, Australia.
Longstaff, B. J. & Dennison, W. C. (1999) Seagrass survival during pulsed turbidity events: the effects of light
deprivation on the seagrasses Halodule pinifolia and Halophila ovalis. Aquatic Botany 65(1-4): 105-121.
Loomis, M. J. & Craft, C. B. (2010) Carbon sequestration and nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus) accumulation inriver-dominated tidal marshes, Georgia, USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74(3): 1028-1036.
Lovelock, C. E., Ruess, R. W. & Feller, I. C. (2011) CO2 efflux from cleared mangrove peat. Plos One 6(6).
Ma, A., Lu, J. & Wang, T. (2012) Effects of elevation and vegetation on methane emissions from a freshwater
estuarine wetland. Journal of Coastal Research 6: 1319-1329.
Mackey, A. P. (1993) Biomass of the mangrove Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh. Near Brisbane, South-eastern
Queensland. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44(5): 721-725.
Madkour, F. F. & Gaballah, M. M. (2012) Phytoplankton assemblage of a solar saltern in Port Fouad, Egypt.
Oceanologia 54(4): 687-700.
Mahall, B. E. & Park, R. B. (1976) The ecotone between Spartina foliosa Trin. and Salicornia virginica L. in salt
marshes of Northern San Francisco Bay: II. Soil water and salinity. Journal of Ecology 64(3): 793-809.

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

4.49

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Maher, D. T., Santos, I. R., Golsby-Smith, L., Gleeson, J. & Eyre, B. D. (2013) Groundwater-derived dissolved
inroganic and organic carbon exports from a mangrove tidal creek: The missing mangrove carbon sink?
Limnology and Oceanography 58: 475-488.
Mall, L. P., Singh, V. P. & Garge, A. (1999) Study of biomass, litter fall, litter decomposition and soil
respiration in monogeneric mangrove and mixed mangrove forests of Andaman Islands. Tropical Ecology 32:
144-152.
Marba, N. & Duarte, C. M. (2001) Growth and sediment space occupation by seagrass Cymodocea nodosa roots.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 224: 291-298.
Marchand, C., Disnar, J. R., Lallier-Verg, E. & Lottier, N. (2005) Early diagenesis of carbohydrates and lignin in
mangrove sediments subject to variable redox conditions (French Guiana). Geochimica Et Cosmochimica
Acta 69(1): 131-142.
Marchand, C., Lallier-Verges, E. & Baltzer, F. (2003) The composition of sedimentary organic matter in relation
to the dynamic features of a mangrove-fringed coast in French Guiana. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science56(1): 119-130.
Markewich, H. W., Wysocki, D. A., Pavich, M. J., Rutledge, E. M., Millard, H. T., Rich, F. J., Maat, P. B.,
Rubin, M. & McGeehin, J. P. (1998) Paleopedology plus TL, Be-10, and C-14 dating as tools in stratigraphic
and paleoclimatic investigations, Mississippi River Valley, USA. Quaternary International 51-2: 143-167.
Mateo, M. A. & Romero, J. (1997) Detritus dynamics in the seagrass Posidonia oceanica: Elements for an
ecosystem carbon and nutrient budget. Marine Ecology Progress Series 151(1-3): 43-53.
Matsui, N., Morimune, K., Meepol, W. & Chukwamdee, J. (2012) Ten year evaluation of carbon stock inmangrove plantation reforested from anabandoned shrimp pond. Forests 3(2): 431-444.
McCaffrey, R. J. & Thomson, J. (1980) A Record of the Accumulation of Sediment and Trace Metals in A
Connecticut Salt Marsh. In: Advances in Geophysics, ed. S. Barry, pp. 165-236. Elsevier.
McGlathery, K. J., Reynolds, L. K., Cole, L. W., Orth, R. J., Marion, S. R. & Schwarzschild, A. (2012)
Recovery trajectories during state change from bare sediment to eelgrass dominance. . Marine Ecology
Progress Series 448: 209-221.
McKenzie, L. (1994) Seasonal changes in biomass and shoot characteristics of a Zostera capricorni Aschers.
Dominant meadow in Cairns Harbour, northern Queensland. Marine and Freshwater Research 45(7): 13371352.
McMahan, C. A. (1968) Biomass and salinity tolerance of shoalgrass and manateegrass in Lower Laguna Madre,Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 32(3): 501-506.
McRoy, C. P. (1974) Seagrass productivity: Carbon uptake experiments in eelgrass, Zostera marina.
Aquaculture 4: 131-137.
Medeiros, T. & Sampaio, E. (2008) Allometry of aboveground biomasses in mangrove species in Itamaracá,
Pernambuco, Brazil. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16(4): 323-330.
Meling-Lopez, A. E. & Ibarro-Obando, S. E. (1999) Annual life cycles of two Zostera marina L-populations in
the Gulf of California: contrasts in seasonality and reproductive effort. Aquatic Botany 65: 59-69.
Mellors, J., Marsh, H., Carruthers, T. J. & Waycott, M. (2002) Testing the sediment-trapping paradigm ofseagrass: Do seagrasses influence nutrient status and sediment structure in tropical intertidal environments?
Bulletin of Marine Science 71(3): 1215-1226.
Moriarty, D. J., Roberts, D. G. & Pollard, P. C. (1990) Primary and bacterial productivity of tropical seagrass
communities in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 61: 145-157.
Morris, J. T., Edwards, J., Crooks, S. & Reyes, E. (2012) Assessment of carbon sequestration potential in coastal
wetlands. In: Recarbonization of the Biosphere: Ecosystems and the Global Carbon Cycle, eds. R. Lal, K.
Lorenz, R. F. Huttl, B. U. Schneider & J. von Braun, pp. 517-531. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mukai, H., Aioi, K., Koike, I., Iizumi, H., Ohtsu, M. & Hattori, A. (1979) Growth and organic production of
eelgrass Zostera marina L. in temperate waters of the pacific coast of Japan. I. Growth analysis in spring–summer. Aquatic Botany 7: 47-56.
Nascimento, W. R. J., Souza-Filho, P. W. M., Proisy, C., Lucas, R. M. & Rosenqvist, A. (2013) Mappingchanges in the largest continuous Amazonian mangrove belt using object-based classification of multisensor
satellite imagery. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 117: 83-93.

4.50

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Nelson, D. L. & Cox, M. M. (2013) Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry. New York, New York, USA: W.H.
Freeman & Co.
Neves, J. P., Ferreira, L. F., Simoes, M. P. & Gazarini, L. C. (2007) Primary production and nutrient content in
two salt marsh species, Atriplex portulacoides L. and Limoniastrum monopetalum L., in Southern Portugal.
Estuaries and Coasts 30(3): 459-468.
Nienhuis, P., Coosen, J. & Kiswara, W. (1989) Community structure and biomass distribution of seagrasses andmacrofauna in the Flores Sea, Indonesia. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 23(2): 197-214.
Norhayati, A. & Latiff, A. (2001) Biomass and species composition of a mangrove forest in Pulau Langkawi,
Malaysia. Malaysian Applied Biology 30(1/2): 75-80.
Odum, H. T. (1963) Productivity measurements in Texas turtle grass and the effects of dredging an intracoastal
channel. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science 9: 48-58.
Oenema, O. & DeLaune, R. D. (1988) Accretion rates in salt marshes in the Eastern Scheldt, south-west
Netherlands. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 26(4): 379-394.
Ogden, J. C. & Ogden, N. B. (1982) A preliminary study of two representative seagrass communities in Palau,
Western Caroline Islands (Micronesia). Aquatic Botany 12: 229-244.
Olesen, B. & Sand-Jensen, K. (1994) Biomass-density patterns in the temperate seagrass Zostera marina. Marine
Ecology-Progress Series 109: 283-283.
Ong, E. (1982) Mangroves and aquaculture in Malaysia. Ambio 11(5): 252-257.
Oren, A. (2009) Saltern evaporation ponds as model systems for the study of primary production processes under
hypersaline conditions. Aquat Microb Ecol 56: 193-204.
Orson, R., Warren, R. & Niering, W. (1998) Interpreting sea level rise and rates of vertical marsh accretion in asouthern New England tidal salt marsh. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 47(4): 419-429.
Orth, R. J., Moore, K. A., Marion, S. R., Wilcox, D. J. & Parrish, D. B. (2011) Seed addition facilitates eelgrass
recovery in a coastal bay system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 448: 177-195.
Ortiz-Milán, S. (2009) Project of recovery the biological conditions of the production system in saltworks ofIndustria Salinera de Yucatan SA de CV (ISYSA) damaged by the Hurricane Isidore in September of 2002.
Global NEST Journal 11(1): 91-95.
Osborne, T. Z., Bruland, G. L., Newman, S., Reddy, K. R. & Grunwald, S. (2011) Spatial distributions and ecopartitioning of soil biogeochemical properties in the Everglades National Park. Environmental monitoring
and assessment 183(1-4): 395-408.
Osland, M. J., Spivak, A. C., Nestlerode, J. A., Lessmann, J. M., Almario, A. E., Heitmuller, P. T., Russell, M. J.,
Krauss, K. W., Alvarez, F. & Dantin, D. D. (2012) Ecosystem development after mangrove wetland creation:
plant–soil change across a 20-year chronosequence. Ecosystems 15(5): 848-866.
Paling, E. I. & McComb, A. J. (2000) Autumn biomass, below-ground productivity, rhizome growth at bed edge
and nitrogen content in seagrasses from Western Australia. Aquatic Botany 67(3): 207-219.
Park, S. R., Kim, Y. K., Kim, J.-H., Kang, C.-K. & Lee, K.-S. (2011) Rapid recovery of the intertidal seagrass
Zostera japonica following intense Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) harvesting activity in Korea.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 407(2): 275-283.
Patrick Jr, W. H. & DeLaune, R. (1990) Subsidence, accretion, and sea level rise in south San Francisco Bay
marshes. Limnology and Oceanography 35(6): 1389-1395.
Paynter, C. K., Cortés, J. & Engels, M. (2001) Biomass, productivity and density of the seagrass Thalassia
testudinum at three sites in Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop 49(Suppl 2): 265-272.
Pendleton, L., Donato, D. C., Murray, B. C., Crooks, S., Jenkins, W. A., Sifleet, S., Craft, C., Fourqurean, J. W.,
Kauffman, J. B., Marba, N., Megonigal, P., Pidgeon, E., Herr, D., Gordon, D. & Baldera, A. (2012)
Estimating Global "Blue Carbon" Emissions from Conversion and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal
Ecosystems. Plos One 7(9).
Perillo, G. M., Wolanski, E., Cahoon, D. R. & Brinson, M. M. (2009) Coastal wetlands: an integrated ecosystemapproach. Elsevier, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Perry, C. L. & Mendelssohn, I. A. (2009) Ecosystem effects of expanding populations of Avicennia germinans in
a Louisiana salt marsh. Wetlands 29(1): 396-406.

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

4.51

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Pidgeon, E. (2009) Carbon sequestration by coastal marine habitats: missing sinks in the management of
natural coastal carbon sinks. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Poffenbarger, H. J., Needelman, B. A. & Megonigal, J. P. (2011) Salinity influence on methane emissions fromtidal marshes. Wetlands 31(5): 831-842.
Poovachiranon, S. & Chansang, H. (1994) Community structure and biomass of seagrass beds in the Andaman
Sea. I. Mangrove-associated seagrass beds. Phuket Marine Biological Center Research Bulletin 59: 53-64.
Povidisa, K., Delefosse, M. & Holmer, M. (2009) The formation of iron plaques on roots and rhizomes of theseagrass Cymodocea serrulata(R. Brown) Ascherson with implications for sulphide intrusion. Aquatic
Botany 90(4): 303-308.
Powell, G. V., Kenworthy, J. W. & Fourqurean, J. W. (1989) Experimental evidence for nutrient limitation ofseagrass growth in a tropical estuary with restricted circulation. Bulletin of Marine Science 44(1): 324-340.
Pozo, J. & Colino, R. (1992) Decomposition processes of Spartina maritima in a salt marsh of the BasqueCountry. Hydrobiologia 231(3): 165-175.
Prasad, M. B. & Ramanathan, A. L. (2009) Organic matter characterization in a tropical estuarine-mangrove
ecosystem of India: Preliminary assessment by using stable isotopes and lignin phenols. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 84(4): 617-624.
Preen, A. (1995) Impacts of dugong foraging on seagrass habitats: observational and experimental evidence forcultivation grazing. Marine ecology progress series. Oldendorf 124(1): 201-213.
Purvaja, R. & Ramesh, R. (2001) Natural and anthropogenic methane emission from coastal wetlands of South
India. Environmental Management 27(4): 547-557.
Putz, F. E. & Chan, H. (1986) Tree growth, dynamics, and productivity in a mature mangrove forest in Malaysia.
Forest Ecology and Management 17(2): 211-230.
Q., K., J., Z., M., M., L., T., N., G. & S., L. (2013) Partial nitrification and nitrous oxide emission in anintermittently aerated sequencing batch biofilm reactor. Chemical Engineering Journal 17: 435-444.
Ramos e Silva, C. A., Oliveira, S. R., Rêgo, R. D. & Mozeto, A. A. (2007) Dynamics of phosphorus andnitrogen through litter fall and decomposition in a tropical mangrove forest. Marine environmental research
64(4): 524-534.
Ranjan, R. K., Routh, J., Ramanathan, A. & Klump, J. V. (2011) Elemental and stable isotope records of organic
matter input and its fate in the Pichavaram mangrove–estuarine sediments (Tamil Nadu, India). Marine
Chemistry 126(1): 163-172.
Rasheed, M. A. (1999) Recovery of experimentally created gaps within a tropical Zostera capricorni(Aschers.)
seagrass meadow, Queensland Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 235(2): 183200.
Ray, R., Ganguly, D., Chowdhury, C., Dey, M., Das, S., Dutta, M., Mandal, S., Majumder, N., De, T. &Mukhopadhyay, S. (2011) Carbon sequestration and annual increase of carbon stock in a mangrove forest.
Atmospheric Environment 45(28): 5016-5024.
Reddy, K. R. & DeLaune, R. D. (2008) Biogeochemistry of wetlands: science and applications. CRC Press I Llc.
Ren, H., Chen, H., Li, Z. a. & Han, W. (2010) Biomass accumulation and carbon storage of four different aged
Sonneratia apetala plantations in Southern China. Plant and soil 327(1-2): 279-291.
Richards, T. M., Krebs, J. M. & McIvor, C. C. (2011) Microhabitat associations of a semi-terrestrial fish,
Kryptolebias marmoratus(Poey 1880) in a mosquito-ditched mangrove forest, west-central Florida. Journalof Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 401(1): 48-56.
Rismondo, A., Curiel, D., Marzocchi, M. & Scattolin, M. (1997) Seasonal pattern of Cymodocea nodosabiomass and production in the lagoon of Venice. Aquatic Botany 58(1): 55-64.
Robertson, A. & Phillips, M. (1995) Mangroves as filters of shrimp pond effluent: predictions andbiogeochemical research needs. Hydrobiologia 295(1-3): 311-321.
Robertson, A. I. & Daniel, P. A. (1989) Decomposition and the annual flux of detritus from fallen timber intropical mangrove forests. Limnology and Oceanography 34(3): 640-646.
Rojstaczer, S. & Deverel, S. J. (1993) Time dependence in atmospheric carbon inputs from drainage of organicsoils. Geophysical Research Letters 20(13): 1383-1386.

4.52

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Roman, C., Peck, J., Allen, J., King, J. & Appleby, P. (1997) Accretion of a New England (USA) salt marsh in
response to inlet migration, storms, and sea-level rise. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 45(6): 717-727.
Ross, M. S., Ruiz, P. L., Telesnicki, G. J. & Meeder, J. F. (2001) Estimating aboveground biomass andproduction in mangrove communities of Biscayne National Park, Florida (USA). Wetlands Ecology andManagement 9(1): 27-37.
Saenger, P. (2002) Mangrove ecology, silviculture and conservation. Dordecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Saintilan, N. (1997) Above-and below-ground biomasses of two species of mangrove on the Hawkesbury Riverestuary, New South Wales. Marine and Freshwater Research 48(2): 147-152.
Sand-Jensen, K. & Borum, J. (1983) Regulation of growth of eelgrass(Zostera marina L.) in Danish coastal
waters. Marine Technology Society Journal 17(2): 15-21.
Scarton, F., Day, J. W. & Rismondo, A. (2002) Primary production and decomposition of Sarcocornia fruticosa(L.) Scott and Phragmites australis Trin. ex Steudel in the Po Delta, Italy. Estuaries 25(3): 325-336.
Schwarz, A.-M., Morrison, M., Hawes, I. & Halliday, J. (2006) Physical and biological characteristics of a raremarine habitat: sub-tidal seagrass beds of offshore islands. Department of Conservation.
Setia, R., Marschner, P., Baldock, J., Chittleborough, D. & Verma, V. (2011) Relationships between carbon
dioxide emission and soil properties in salt-affected landscapes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43(3): 667674.
Sherman, R. E., Fahey, T. J. & Martinez, P. (2003) Spatial patterns of biomass and aboveground net primary
productivity in a mangrove ecosystem in the Dominican Republic. Ecosystems 6(4): 384-398.
Sifleet, S., Pendleton, L. & Murray, B. (2011) State of the Science on Coastal Blue Carbon A Summary for
Policy Makers. In: Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Report NI R 11-06, p. 06.
Simard, M., Zhang, K., Rivera-Monroy, V. H., Ross, M. S., Ruiz, P. L., Castañeda-Moya, E., Twilley, R. R. &Rodriguez, E. (2006) Mapping height and biomass of mangrove forests in Everglades National Park with
SRTM elevation data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 72(3): 299-311.
Slim, F., Gwada, P., Kodjo, M. & Hemminga, M. (1996) Biomass and litterfall of Ceriops tagal and Rhizophoramucronata in the mangrove forest of Gazi Bay, Kenya. Marine and Freshwater Research 47(8): 999-1007.
Smith III, T. J. & Whelan, K. R. (2006) Development of allometric relations for three mangrove species in South
Florida for use in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem restoration. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14(5):409-419.
Smith, K. K., Good, R. E. & Good, N. F. (1979) Production dynamics for above and below-ground components
of a New Jersey Spartina alterniflora tidal marsh. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 9(2): 189-201.
Soares, M. L. G. & Schaeffer-Novelli, Y. (2005) Aboveground biomass of mangrove species. I. Analysis ofmodels. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 65(1): 1-18.
Sotomayor, D., Corredor, J. E. & Morrell, J. M. (1994) Methane flux from mangrove sediments along thesouthwestern coast of Puerto Rico. Estuaries 17: 140-147.
Spain, A. V. & Holt, J. A. (1980) The elemental status of the foliage and branch-wood of seven mangrove
species from northern Queensland. In: Division of Soils divisional report ; no. 49, eds. J. A. Holt & C. D. o.
Soils, [Melbourne]: CSIRO.
Steinke, T., Ward, C. & Rajh, A. (1995) Forest structure and biomass of mangroves in the Mgeni estuary, South
Africa. Hydrobiologia 295(1-3): 159-166.
Suzuki, E. & Tagawa, H. (1983) Biomass of a mangrove forest and a sedge marsh on Ishigaki Island, south
Japan. Japanese Journal of Ecology 33: 231-234.
Tam, N., Wong, Y., Lan, C. & Chen, G. (1995) Community structure and standing crop biomass of a mangrove
forest in Futian Nature Reserve, Shenzhen, China. Hydrobiologia 295(1-3): 193-201.
Tamai, S., Tabuchi, R., Ogino, K. & Nakasuga, T. (1986) Standing biomass of mangrove forests in southern
Thailand. Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society 68(9): 384-388.
Terrados, J. & Ros, J. (1992) Growth and primary production of Cymodocea nodosa(Ucria) Ascherson in a
Mediterranean coastal lagoon: the Mar Menor (SE Spain). Aquatic Botany 43(1): 63-74.
Thant, Y. M. & Kanzaki, M. (2011) Biomass and carbon sequestration in community mangrove plantations and anatural regeneration stand in the Ayeyarwady Delta, Myanmar. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts: American
Geophysical Union.

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

4.53

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Thiéry, A. & Puente, L. (2002) Crustacean assemblage and environmental characteristics of a man-made solar
saltwork in southern France, with emphasis on anostracan (Branchiopoda) population dynamics.
Hydrobiologia 486(1): 191-200.
Tong, C., Wang, W.-Q., Zeng, C.-S. & Marrs, R. (2010) Methane (CH4) emission from a tidal marsh in the Min
River estuary, southeast China. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous
Substances and Environmental Engineering 45: 506-516.
Townsend, E. C. & Fonseca, M. S. (1998) Bioturbation as a potential mechanism influencing spatial
heterogeneity of North Carolina seagrass beds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 169: 123-132.
Twilley, R., Chen, R. & Hargis, T. (1992) Carbon sinks in mangroves and their implications to carbon budget of
tropical coastal ecosystems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 64(1-2): 265-288.
Twilley, R. W., Lugo, A. E. & Patterson-Zucca, C. (1986) Litter production and turnover in basin mangrove
forests in southwest Florida. Ecology 67: 670-683.
Udy, J. W. & Dennison, W. C. (1997) Growth and physiological responses of three seagrass species to evaluatedsediment nutrients in Moreton Bay, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 217:253-277.
Utrera-López, M. E. & Moreno-Casasola, P. (2008) Mangrove litter dynamics in la mancha lagoon, Veracruz,
México. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16(1): 11-22.
Valiela, I., Kinney, E., Culbertson, J., Peacock, E. & Smith, S. (2009.) Global losses of mangroves and salt
marshes. . In: Global Loss of Coastal Habitats: rates, causes and consequences., ed. C. M. Duarte:
Fundacion BBVA.
Van den Heuvel, R., Hefting, M., Tan, N., Jetten, M. & Verhoeven, J. (2009) N2O emission hotspots at different
spatial scales and governing factors for small scale hotspots. Science of the Total Environment 407(7): 23252332.
Van Houte-Howes, K., Turner, S. & Pilditch, C. (2004) Spatial differences in macroinvertebrate communities inintertidal seagrass habitats and unvegetated sediment in three New Zealand estuaries. Estuaries 27(6): 945957.
Van Lent, F., Nienhuis, P. & Verschuure, J. (1991) Production and biomass of the seagrasses Zostera noltii
Hornem. and Cymodecea nodosa(Ucria) Aschers. at the Banc d'Arguin (Mauritania, NW Africa): a
preliminary approach. Aquatic Botany 41(4): 353-367.
Van Tussenbroek, B. I. (1998) Above-and below-ground biomass and production by Thalassia testudinum in a
tropical reef lagoon. Aquatic Botany 61(1): 69-82.
Vegas-Vilarrúbia, T., Baritto, F., López, P., Meleán, G., Ponce, M. E., Mora, L. & Gómez, O. (2010) TropicalHistosols of the lower Orinoco Delta, features and preliminary quantification of their carbon storage.
Geoderma 155(3): 280-288.
Vermaat, J., Agawin, N., Duarte, C., Fortes, M., Marba, N. & Uri, J. (1995) Meadow maintenance, growth andproductivity of a mixed Philippine seagrass bed. Marine ecology progress series. Oldendorf 124(1): 215-225.
Vermaat, J., Beijer, J., Gijlstra, R., Hootsmans, M., Philippart, C., Van den Brink, N. & Van Vierssen, W. (1993)
Leaf dynamics and standing stocks of intertidal Zostera noltii Hornem. and Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria)
Ascherson on the Banc d’Arguin (Mauritania). Hydrobiologia 258(1): 59-72.
Walker, D. (1985) Correlations between salinity and growth of the seagrass Amphibolis antarctica(labill.)
Sonder & Aschers., In Shark Bay, Western Australia, using a new method for measuring production rate.
Aquatic Botany 23(1): 13-26.
Walters, B. B., Rönnbäck, P., Kovacs, J. M., Crona, B., Hussain, S. A., Badola, R., Primavera, J. H., Barbier, E.
& Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2008) Ethnobiology, socio-economics and management of mangrove forests: areview. Aquatic Botany 89(2): 220-236.
Wang, J.-K. (1990) Managing shrimp pond water to reduce discharge problems. Aquacultural engineering 9(1):61-73.
West, R. & Larkum, A. (1979) Leaf productivity of the seagrass, Posidonia australis, in eastern Australianwaters. Aquatic Botany 7: 57-65.
Whigham, D. F., McCormick, J., Good, R. E. & Simpson, R. L. (1978) Biomass and primary production in
freshwater tidal wetlands of the middle Atlantic coast. New York: Academic Press.

4.54

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

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands

Williams, S. L. (1987) Competition between the seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme in a
Caribbean lagoon. Marine Ecology Progress Series 35: 91-98.
Woodroffe, C. D. & Moss, T. J. (1984) Litter fall beneath Rhizophora stylosa Griff., Vaitupu, Tuvalu, South
Pacific. Aquatic Botany 18(3): 249-255.
World Bank (2006) Aquaculture: Changing the Face of the Waters Meeting the Promise and Challenge of
Sustainable Aquaculture.
Yarbro, L. A. & Carlson Jr, P. R. (2008) Community oxygen and nutrient fluxes in seagrass beds of Florida Bay,USA. Estuaries and Coasts 31(5): 877-897.
Yu, O. & Chmura, G. (2009) Soil carbon may be maintained under grazing in a St Lawrence Estuary tidal marsh.
Environmental Conservation 36(04): 312-320.
Zhang, J.-P., Shen, C.-D., Ren, H., Wang, J. & Han, W.-D. (2012) Estimating Change in Sedimentary Organic
Carbon Content During Mangrove Restoration in Southern China Using Carbon Isotopic Measurements.
Pedosphere 22(1): 58-66.

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

4.55

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

CHAPTER 5

INLAND WETLAND MINERAL SOILS

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

5.1

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

Coordinating Lead Authors
Kimberly P. Wickland (USA) and Alex V. Krusche (Brazil)

Lead Authors
Randall K. Kolka (USA), Ayaka W. Kishimoto-Mo (Japan), Rodney A. Chimner (USA) andYusuf Serengil (Turkey)

Contributing Authors
Stephen Ogle (USA) and Nalin Srivastava (IPCC TFI TSU)

Review Editors
Irineu Junior Bianchini (Brazil) and Michelle Garneau (Canada)

5.2

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

Contents

5 Inland Wetland Mineral Soils ............................................................................................................................... 5
5.1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 5

5.2

Land remaining in a land-use category ........................................................................................ 8

5.2.1

CO2 emissions and removals....................................................................................................... 9

5.2.1.1

Biomass and dead organic matter ............................................................................................... 9

5.2.1.2

Soil carbon ................................................................................................................................ 10

5.2.2

CH4 emissions from managed lands with IWMS...................................................................... 17

5.2.2.1

Choice of method ...................................................................................................................... 17

5.2.2.2

Choice of emission factors ........................................................................................................ 18

5.2.2.3

Choice of activity data .............................................................................................................. 18

5.2.2.4

Uncertainty assessment ............................................................................................................. 19

5.3

Land converted to a new land-use category ............................................................................... 19

5.3.1

CO2 emissions and removals..................................................................................................... 19

5.3.1.1

Biomass and dead organic matter ............................................................................................. 19

5.3.1.2

Soil carbon ................................................................................................................................ 20

5.3.2

CH4 emissions ........................................................................................................................... 21

5.3.2.1

Choice of method and emission factors .................................................................................... 21

5.3.2.2

Choice of activity data .............................................................................................................. 21

5.3.2.3

Uncertainty assessment ............................................................................................................. 21

5.4

Completeness, reporting and documentation ............................................................................. 21

5.4.1

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

5.4.2

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

Annex 5A.1

Estimation of default stock change factors for long-term cultivated Cropland and rewettingwith Inland Wetland Mineral Soil carbon emissions/removals.................................................. 23

Annex 5A.2

Estimation of CH4 emission factors for managed lands with Inland Wetland Mineral Soils, or
dry mineral soils, where the water table has been raised ........................................................... 24

Appendix 5a.1

Future methodological development .......................................................................................... 29

References ............................................................................................................................................................. 30

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

5.3

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

Equations
Equation 5.1

Annual CH4 emissions from rewetted and created wetlands on managed lands
with IWMS......................................................................................................................... 17

TablesTable 5.1

Updated and new guidance provided in Chapter 5............................................................... 6

Table 5.2

Default reference soil organic carbon stocks (SOCREF) for Wetland Mineral Soilsa undernative vegetation (0-30 cm depth)...................................................................................... 12

Table 5.3

Relative stock change factors for land-use (FLU) for long term cultivation on Croplandwith IWMS over 20 years) and rewetting of cropland with IWMS (over 20 years and 40
years) .................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 5.4

Default emission factors for CH4 from managed lands with IWMS where water table levelhas been raised ................................................................................................................... 18

Table 5A.1.1 Studies used for the derivation of default SOC stock change factors................................ 23
Table 5A.2.1 CH4 emissions from restored and created wetlands with IWMS where water table levelhas been raised, and natural wetlands, used to derive default value for EFCH4 ................. 24
Table 5A.2.2 CH4 emissions from temperate, created/rewetted wetlands and natural wetlands with
IWMS................................................................................................................................. 27
Table 5A.2.3 CH4 emissions from temperate, rewetted, created and natural wetlands with IWMS,
stratified by period of inundation ....................................................................................... 28

Boxes

5.4

Box 5.1

Distribution of Wetland Mineral Soils ................................................................................ 7

Box 5.2

Management activities on Inland Wetland Mineral Soils .................................................... 8

Box 5.3

Example Calculations for SOC Stocks in Long-term Cultivated Croplands with Inland
Wetland Mineral Soils, and Rewetting of Long-Term Cultivated Croplands with Inland
Wetland Mineral Soils………………… ............................................................................ 162013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

5 INLAND WETLAND MINERAL SOILS
5.1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides supplementary guidance for estimating and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and removals from managed lands with Inland Wetland Mineral Soils (IWMS) for all land-use categories (seeChapter 1 and decision tree in Chapter 1 in this supplement for what is specifically covered in this chapter in
relationship to other chapters in this supplement). Information on Tier 1 default methods for Wetland Mineral
Soil (WMS) is found in Table 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines). This chapter covers “inland” managed lands with WMS; coastal lands
with WMS are addressed in Chapter 4 (Coastal Wetlands) of this supplement. The distinction between “inland”
and “coastal” zones is defined in Chapter 4. Constructed wetlands with IWMS are addressed in Chapter 6(Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment) of this supplement.
Mineral soils are described as all soils that are not classified as organic soils in Annex 3A.5, Chapter 3, Volume
4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide a default mineral soil classification for
categorizing mineral soil types, based on the USDA taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) in Figure 3A.5.3, andbased on the World Reference Base for Soil Resources Classification (FAO, 1998) in Figure 3A.5.4, where bothclassifications produce the same default IPCC soil types for Tier 1 methods. Under these soil classification
schemes, Wetland Soils (e.g. Wetland Mineral Soils) are classified as Aquic soil (USDA) or Gleysols (World
Reference Base), and are described as having restricted drainage, leading to periodic flooding and anaerobic
conditions (Table 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines). They can occur in any of the six land-use
categories (Forest Land, Grassland, Cropland, Wetlands, Settlements and Other Land) depending upon thenational land-use classification system. Emissions and removals from areas of managed land with IWMS should
be reported in the land-use category under which they are classified, according to Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Note that a change in management practice may, or may not be accompanied by land-use conversion.
For higher tier methods, countries may use country-specific national classification systems as long as they aretransparently documented.
For the purposes of this supplement, IWMS comprise those that have formed under restricted drainage, and may
or may not be artificially drained due to management activities. Guidance provided in this chapter applies to: (i)artificial drainage, defined here as the removal of free water from soils having aquic conditions to the extent thatwater table levels are changed significantly in connection with specific types of land use (adapted from Soil
Survey Staff, 1999); (ii) IWMS that have been artificially drained and subsequently allowed to re-wet (hereafter
called “rewetting”); and (iii) the artificial inundation of mineral soils for the purposes of “wetland creation.”
There is no guidance provided for other IWMS such as saline IWMS (See Box 5.1 of this Chapter), or reservoirs.
Guidance on methane (CH4) emissions from rice cultivation on IWMS is given in Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. Guidance on carbon stock changes in Land Converted to Flooded Land1 with IWMS isgiven in Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines2. This supplement does not update this guidance.
This chapter supplements guidance and methodologies provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for emissions andremovals of carbon dioxide (CO2), and emissions of CH4, and provides additional information to be used in theapplication of the methodologies. Review of the current literature suggests there is insufficient data to provide
robust emission factors and methodology to update the guidance on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from IWMS
provided in Chapter 11, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines at this time (see Appendix 5A of this chapter for
additional discussion). This chapter should be read in conjunction with Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
This chapter updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for:

default reference Soil Organic Carbon stocks (SOCREF) for IWMS under all climate regions (referring toTable 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), to be used for Tier 1 methods in all six landuse categories; and

default Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) stock change factor (FLU) for long-term cultivation of Cropland with
IWMS.

This chapter gives new guidance not contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by:1

In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Flooded Lands are defined as water bodies where human activities have caused changes in
the amount of surface area covered by water, typically through water level regulation.

2

Appendices 2 and 3 of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines contain information on CO2 emissions from Land Converted
to Permanently Flooded Land and CH4 emissions from Flooded Land as a basis for future methodological development.

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

5.5

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils



providing new default SOC stock change factors for land-use (FLU) for rewetting of drained IWMS classified
as Cropland; andproviding methodologies and emission factors (EFs) for CH4 emissions from managed lands with drained
IWMS under any land-use category that has undergone rewetting, and from inland mineral soils that havebeen inundated for the purpose of wetland creation (Note that CH4 emissions from wetlands created for the
purpose of wastewater treatment are addressed in Chapter 6 of this supplement).

Table 5.1 clarifies the scope and corresponding sections of this chapter, as well as the guidance for IWMS
provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and in other chapters of this supplement.
TABLE 5.1
UPDATED AND NEW GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 5
IPCC land-use
category

Soil Organic CarbonA,B (SOC)

CH4 emissionsC,DLand Remaining in a Land-use Category
Forest Land

Updated SOCREF for IWMS

CroplandUpdated SOCREF for IWMS; SOC stock change
factors for land-use (FLU) for long-term
cultivation, and rewetting of drained IWMS

Grassland

Updated SOCREF for IWMS

Wetlands

Updated SOCREF for IWMS

Settlements

Updated SOCREF for IWMS

All land-use
conversions

Updated SOCREF for IWMS;
SOC stock change factors for land-use (FLU) for
long-term cultivation, and rewetting of drained
IWMS.

EFCH4-IWMS for rewetting ofdrained IWMS, and createdwetlands on managed lands withmineral soils

Land Conversion to a New Land-use Category
EFCH4-IWMS for rewetting ofdrained IWMS, and createdwetlands on managed lands withmineral soils

A The overall guidance as provided in Chapters 2 and 4-9 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines will continue to apply along with elements mentioned in this table.
B Guidance on SOC will apply to all wetlands with IWMS except Flooded Land.
C Existing guidance on CH emissions from rice cultivation given in Chapter 5, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines will continue to apply.
4
D Guidance on CH emissions from managed lands with IWMS does not apply to Flooded Land.
4

5.6

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

BOX 5.1
DISTRIBUTION OF WETLAND MINERAL SOILS

WMS, including both coastal and inland WMS, are estimated to cover ~5.3% of the world’s land
surface, or 7.26 x 106 km2 (Batjes, 2010a). The distribution of the world’s WMS across climate
regions are as follows: boreal (moist plus dry): 2.07%; tropical moist: 0.67%; cool temperatemoist: 0.63%; tropical wet: 0.61%; polar (moist plus dry): 0.60%; and warm temperate moist:
0.23% (Batjes, 2010a). Climate regions having less than 0.20% WMS include cool and warm
temperate dry, tropical dry, and tropical montane (See Figures 3A.5.1 and 3A.5.2, Chapter 3,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for climate zone definitions). Figure 5.1 shows the global
distribution of gleysols (WMS), based on the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB)
and the FAO/UNESCO soil map of the world. IWMS are found in a variety of landscape settings,
including basins, channels, flats, slopes, and highlands (Semeniuk and Semeniuk, 1995). It is
common to find IWMS adjacent to flowing waters and lake and pond margins (riparian wetlands).
Lands containing IWMS are often classified by predominant vegetation community, and can
include trees, woody shrubs, emergent and non-emergent vascular plants, and/or bare ground.
Distribution of Gleysols (Wetland Mineral Soils; source: http://www.isric.org).

Dominant

AssociatedInclusions

Miscellaneous lands
FAO-GIS, February 1998

One specific type of land containing IWMS, saline IWMS, is not covered in this chapter. Saline
IWMS are generally defined as having salinity >5000 mg L-1 when wet (Shaw and Bryant, 2011).
Also known as playas, pans, salt lakes, brackish wetlands, salinas, and sabkhas, these lands areimportant parts of arid landscapes across the globe (Shaw and Bryant, 2011). In a recent review ofthe literature characterizing known information on pans, playas and salt lakes, the carbon stocks
and CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes were not discussed (Shaw and Bryant, 2011). A broader review ofthe literature on lands containing saline IWMS indicates that only two studies have assessed soil
carbon in saline IWMS (Bai et al., 2007; Rodriguez-Murillo et al., 2011), and no studies have yetmeasured GHG emissions and removals from saline IWMS. At present, the lack of data on saline
IWMS prevents the determination of their default carbon stock changes or GHG emission factors.
Countries are therefore encouraged to seek country-specific data in order to estimate changes incarbon pools in, and emissions and removals from, managed saline IWMS.

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

5.7

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

BOX 5.2
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON INLAND WETLAND MINERAL SOILS

Drainage of IWMS is a common practice in the preparation of land for agriculture, grazing, andforestry. Drainage leads to lower water levels, which increases both decomposition and vegetation
productivity, but the balance generally favors decomposition, leading to reduced IWMS carbon
stocks over time (Bedard-Haughn et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2010; Page and Dalal, 2011). The
hydrology of IWMS may be altered in many ways: by dredging of canals for navigation andditches through wetlands for flood control and to increase vegetation productivity (Mitsch andGosselink, 2007); by management of river-floodplain systems through levee construction,
channelization, and flow manipulation by dams (Dynesius and Nilsson, 1994); by irrigation
systems that lower water tables; and by water level control for wildlife management by dikes,
weirs, control gates, and pumps (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). Dams for hydroelectric generationand flood control can create riparian wetlands upstream and influence existing riparian wetlands byaltering the frequency and duration of flood pulses, which impacts sediment deposition andnutrient loading to wetlands (Brinson and Malvárez, 2002; Noe and Hupp, 2005, Nilsson and
Berggren, 2000).
Grazing on lands with IWMS within grassland or forest landscapes is widespread (Liu et al., 2009;
Oates et al., 2008; Yao et al., 2010). Forest management activities on wetlands with forest canvary in management intensity depending on the silvicultural system. The intensity may range fromselective cutting treatments to large area clearcuts. There is currently not enough information
available about the impacts of grazing or forest management activities on carbon stock changes or
GHG emissions on lands with IWMS to allow us to provide new guidance.
One specific management activity that occurs on managed lands with IWMS is “rewetting”, wherelands with IWMS that were previously drained are subsequently rewetted by raising the watertable level to pre-drainage conditions. Active approaches to rewetting include the removal of draintiles, filling or blocking of drainage ditches, breaching levees, removal of river dams andspillways, and contouring the land surface to mimic natural topography. Passive approaches
include the elimination of water control structures and allowing natural flood events (Aber et al.,2012). The rewetting of managed lands with IWMS is common in the conversion of agriculturallands back to wetlands, and may occur when active regulation of river hydrology is discontinued.
A related management activity that occurs on mineral soils (wet or dry) is wetland creation, wherelands are artificially inundated for the purposes of supporting a wetland ecosystem (Aber et al.,2012). Wetlands are created for various purposes such as water-quality enhancement (treatment ofwastewater, stormwater, acid mine drainage, agricultural runoff; Hammer, 1989), flood
minimization, and habitat replacement (Mitsch et al., 1998). Wetlands may be createdunintentionally when regulation of river flows (i.e. installation of large dams) results in periodic
inundation of lands that did not experience inundation prior to regulation (Chen et al., 2009; Yanget al., 2012). Wetland creation and rewetting of drained soils are common activities in response tosignificant wetland loss and degradation on a global scale (Mitsch et al., 1998). There is a great
potential for increasing carbon storage by the rewetting of wetlands (Euliss et al., 2006; Bridgham
et al., 2006). Rewetted wetlands may also have higher emissions of CH4, however, potentially
offsetting the increased carbon storage (Bridgham et al., 2006), although recent studies haveshown that created and rewetted wetlands can be net carbon sinks, even after accounting for CH4
emissions (Badiou et al., 2011; Mitsch et al., 2012).

5.2

LAND REMAINING IN A LAND-USE
CATEGORY

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines define “land remaining in a land-use category” as those lands that have notundergone any land-use conversion for a default period of at least 20 years. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide
generic and land-use category-specific guidance (Chapters 2 and Chapter 4-9, Volume 4) on stock changes in the
carbon pools (above-ground and below-ground biomass; dead wood and litter; and soil organic matter), and nonCO2 emissions for land remaining in a land-use category for all land-use categories including those containing
mineral soils. This Chapter updates the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for guidance on SOC reference stocks, SOC stockchange factors, and non-CO2 emissions from managed lands with IWMS.

5.8

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

5.2.1

CO 2 emissions and removals

As explained in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, CO2 emissions and removals from managed
lands are estimated on the basis of changes in the carbon stocks in the carbon pools: biomass (above and belowground biomass), dead organic matter (dead wood and litter) and soil organic carbon. The set of generalequations to estimate the annual carbon stock changes of carbon pools for land remaining in a land-use category
are given in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and also apply to managed lands with IWMS.
Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines shows a decision tree for the identification of
appropriate methodological tiers for land remaining in a land-use category.

5.2.1.1

B IOMASS AND DEAD ORGA NIC MATTER

Guidance for changes in the carbon pools in biomass (above-ground, below-ground) and dead organic matter(dead wood, litter) is provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and remains unchanged for land remaining in aland-use category for managed lands with IWMS in this supplement. For managed lands with IWMS classified
as land remaining in a land-use category in Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland, Settlements, or Other Land, thechanges in biomass and dead organic matter are to be determined using the guidance provided in thecorresponding chapters (Chapters 4-9) in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

CHOICE OF METHOD AND EMISSION/REMOVAL FAC TORSAs explained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, inventories can be developed using Tier 1, 2 and 3 methods. The
decision trees have been provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to guide the selection of the appropriate
methodological tier for the estimation of changes in carbon stocks of biomass and dead organic matter (Fig. 2.2
and Fig. 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4). The Tier 1 methods use the default emission factors along with parameters
relating to biomass and dead organic matter provided for specific land-use categories. These will also apply to
managed lands with IWMS in any of the land-use categories. For lower Tier methods it may be assumed thatwetland vegetation does not have substantially different biomass carbon densities than upland vegetation (e.g.
Bridgham et al., 2006). However, if country-specific data is available, it is good practice to use that data toestimate biomass carbon densities. There is currently no robust scientific information to support development ofemission factors for biomass and dead organic matter for specific management activities, such as drainage oflands with IWMS, rewetting of drained IWMS, or wetland creation. If there are reliable data for rates of biomass
and/or dead organic matter change upon drainage or rewetting/wetland creation, then country-specific estimates
may be derived using a Tier 2 method.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATAFor Tier 1 methods, activity data consist of areas of managed lands with IWMS in land remaining in a land-use
category stratified by land-use category, climate region, soil type, and management practices. The total areas
should be determined according to the Approaches outlined in Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, andshould be consistent with those reported under other sections of the inventory. Stratification of land-use
categories according to climate region, based on default or country-specific classifications can be accomplishedby overlays of land-use onto climate and soil maps. A global GIS database that shows the spatial distribution ofgeneralized soil classes used for IPCC Tier 1 is available for download and use at http://isirc.org/data/ipccdefault-soil-classes-derived-harmonized-world-soil-data-base-ver-11. The database is derived from theHarmonized World Soil Data Base and FAO soil classifications, and includes the seven default IPCC soils
classes, including Wetland Soils (termed “Wetland Soils” in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and “Wetland Mineral
Soils” in this Supplement) (Batjes, 2010b). This dataset may be used at national and wider scales where moredetailed soil information is lacking. Although no organisation catalogues changes in area as a result of rewetting
or wetland creation either nationally or globally, local activity data for wetlands with rewetted IWMS may beobtained from agricultural, forestry, or natural resources agencies, non-governmental conservation organisations,or other government sources. In addition, organisations such as the Society for Ecological Restoration(http://www.ser.org), the Global Restoration Network (http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org), Wetlands
International (http://www.wetlands.org), and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (http://www.ramsar.org) may
be sources of information for rewetting and/or wetland creation projects.
Higher Tier methods may use activity data suitably stratified by criteria such as vegetation type and/or watertable level and hydroperiod (e.g. continuously inundated vs. intermittently inundated).

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

5.9

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Sources of uncertainty for the changes in biomass and dead organic matter in managed lands with IWMS varydepending on the specific land-use category. In general, uncertainty can arise from: 1) uncertainties in the
mapping of lands, land-use classification and/or management activity data; and 2) uncertainties in carbon gain
and loss, carbon stocks, and other parameters used for the estimation of carbon stock changes in biomass anddead organic matter, such as biomass expansion factors. Specific recommendations on how to reduce
uncertainties are included in the appropriate land-use category chapter in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines under which
managed lands with IWMS are classified.

5.2.1.2

S OIL CARBON

Soil carbon stocks in managed IWMS are primarily influenced by drainage and other management practices in
Cropland, Forest Land, and Grassland (including long-term cultivation, drainage to improve production, andgrazing), and rewetting after removal from active cropping and restoration of natural hydrologic conditions (e.g.
removal of drainage tiles, plugging of drainage ditches, or similar activities). Other management practices thatcan significantly change IWMS soil carbon stocks include harvesting in forests that are prone to paludification(Lavoie et al., 2005), and the management of river-floodplain systems through the construction of dams, levees,
and river channelization which can disconnect floodplains from hydrologic interaction with rivers (Poff et al.,1997), thus reducing sediment deposition rates in floodplains (Hupp, 1992; Kleiss, 1996). Only a small numberof studies, however, have quantified the impacts of hydrologic alteration on soil carbon accumulation rates in
IWMS in floodplains (Noe and Hupp, 2005; Cabezas et al., 2009). Therefore, it is not possible to develop robust
emission factors relating to the impacts of hydrologic alteration on soil carbon stocks of IWMS in floodplains at
this time. Similarly, very little information is available on the impacts of other common management practices,such as grazing, on IWMS soil carbon stocks. Therefore, guidance provided in this chapter is largely based upon
and updates the guidance provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
General information about mineral soil classification is provided in Chapters 2 and 3, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines. The generic methodological guidance for estimation of changes in the carbon stocks in the
SOC pool in mineral soils is provided in Section 2.3.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines andshould be used along with the land-use category specific methodological guidance provided in Chapters 4 to 9,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This supplement updates the guidance on IWMS provided in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines with regard to the following:

Table 5.2 provides updated default SOCREF values for IWMS (e.g. wetland soils), for use in any land-use
category; and

Table 5.3 provides an updated stock change factor for land-use (FLU) associated with long-term cultivationof Cropland with IWMS, and a new stock change factor for land-use (FLU) for rewetting of drained IWMS in
Cropland.

To account for changes in IWMS SOC stocks associated with changes in relevant management practices on landremaining in a land-use category, countries need, at a minimum, estimates of the area of managed land with
IWMS in a land remaining in land-use category that is affected by changes in relevant management practices atthe beginning and end of the inventory time period. Two assumptions are made for mineral soils (see details in
Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines): (i) Over time, SOC reaches a spatiallyaveraged, stable value that is specific to the soil, climate, land-use and management practices; and (ii) SOC stockchanges during the transition to a new equilibrium SOC occurs in a linear fashion. If land-use and management
data are limited, aggregate data, such as FAO statistics on land-use (http://www.fao.org/home/en/), can be used
as a starting point, along with expert knowledge about the approximate distribution of land management systems.
Managed land with IWMS must be stratified according to climate regions, which can either be based on default
or country-specific classifications. This can be accomplished with overlays of land-use onto suitable climate andsoil maps.

CHOICE OF METHOD
Inventories can be developed using a Tier 1, 2, or 3 approach, with each successive tier requiring more detail andresources than the previous one. A decision tree is provided for mineral soils in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines(Figure 2.4, Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2, Volume 4) to assist inventory compilers with selection of the appropriatetier for their soil carbon inventory.

5.10

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

Tier 1The Tier 1 estimation method for mineral soils in land remaining in a land-use category, including IWMS, isbased on changes in SOC stocks over a finite transition period following such changes in management that
impact the SOC. Equation 2.25, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (∆Cmineral=(SOC0-SOC(0-T))/D;
see the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for full equation) is used to estimate change in SOC stocks in mineral soils by
subtracting the SOC stock in the last year of an inventory time period (SOC0) from the C stock at the beginningof the inventory time period (SOC(0 –T)) and dividing by the time dependence of the stock change factors (D).
SOC stocks are estimated for the beginning and the end of the inventory time period using default reference
carbon stocks (SOCREF) (Table 5.2) and default stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI), based on the land use (LU),
the management regime (MG) and the input of organic matter (I) at the time of the inventory. In practice,country-specific data on land use and management must be obtained and classified into appropriate land
management systems, and then stratified by IPCC climate region and soil type. The Tier 1 assumptions forcarbon stock changes in mineral soils in land remaining in a land-use category for specific land-use categories
will also apply to managed lands with IWMS in those land-use categories.

Tier 2
For Tier 2, the same basic equations are used as in Tier 1 (Equation 2.25 in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines), but country-specific information is incorporated to improve the accuracy of the stock change
factors, reference SOC stocks, climate regions, soil types, and/or land management classification systems.

Tier 3Tier 3 approaches may use empirical, process-based or other types of models as the basis for estimating annual
carbon stock changes. Examples include the Century ecosystem model (Parton et al., 1987, 1994, 1998; Ogle etal., 2010), and the Wetland-DNDC model (Zhang et al., 2002). Estimates from models are computed using
equations that estimate the net change in soil carbon. Key criteria in selecting an appropriate model include its
capability to represent all of the relevant management practices/systems for the land-use category; model inputs(i.e. driving variables) that are compatible with the availability of country-wide input data; and verification
against experimental, monitoring or other measurement data (e.g. Ogle et al.,2010).
A Tier 3 approach may also be developed using a measurement-based approach in which a monitoring network
is sampled periodically to estimate SOC stock changes. A much higher density of benchmark sites will likely beneeded than with models to adequately represent the combination of land use and management systems, climate,and soil types. Additional guidance is provided in Section 2.3.3.1 of Chapter 2 of this supplement.

CHOICE OF EMISSION F ACTORS
Tier 1
Table 5.2 gives updated default reference SOC stocks (SOCREF) for IWMS3. Inventory compilers should use thestock change factors provided in the appropriate chapters for the six land-use categories (Chapters 4-9) inVolume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines in conjunction with the data in Table 5.2 for Tier 1 methods.

3

These values are given under “wetland soils” in Table 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

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

5.11

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

TABLE 5.2
DEFAULT REFERENCE SOIL ORGANIC CARBON STOCKS (SOCREF) FOR WETLAND MINERAL SOILSA UNDER NATIVEVEGETATION (0-30 CM DEPTH).
tonnes C ha-1

Standard
deviation

Error (95%
confidence
intervalB)

Number of sites

116

94

±99

6

Cold temperate, dry

87

C

n/a

D

n/a

D

n/aD

Cold temperate, moist

128

55

±17

42

Warm temperate, dry

74

45

±13

49

Warm temperate, moist

135

101

±39

28

Tropical, dry

22

11

±4

32

Tropical, moist

68

45

±12

55

Tropical, wet

49

27

±9

33

Tropical, montane

82

73

±46

12

Climate region
BorealA Batjes (2011) presents revised estimates (means, standard deviations) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines SOC stocks for wetland mineral soils (gleysols) under naturalvegetation based on an expanded version of the ISRIC-WISE database (Batjes, 2009) which contains 1.6 times the number of soil profiles compared to the databases
used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines SOC stocks estimate.
B The 95% confidence interval is calculated from the mean, standard deviation, and the critical values of t distribution according to the degrees of freedom.
C No revised estimate was presented in Batjes (2011); values are from Table 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines .
D ”n/a” indicates that information is not available.

The updated SOCREF values for WMS presented in Table 5.2 for WMS should be used for calculating SOC stockchanges in IWMS when soils are classified as Wetland Soils, for land remaining in a land-use category in thefollowing sections of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines:Forest Land (Chapter 4): Section 4.2.3, Tier 1;Cropland (Chapter 5): Section 5.2.3, Tier 1; and

Grassland (Chapter 6): Section 6.2.3, Tier 1.

Default stock change factors for land-use (FLU), input (FI), and management (FMG) that apply to managed land on
IWMS in the Cropland Remaining Cropland land-use category are presented in Table 5.5, Chapter 5, Volume 4of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Similarly, default stock change factors for land-use (FLU), input (FI), andmanagement (FMG) that apply to managed land with IWMS in the Grassland Remaining Grassland land-use
category are presented in Table 6.2, Chapter 6, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Table 5.3 in this supplement provides an updated Tier 1 default stock change factor for land-use (FLU) thatshould be applied to Cropland with IWMS under “long-term cultivation.” Note that the updated factor applies
only to long-term cultivated land use in the temperate or boreal dry and moist climate regions. All other default
stock change factors in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are unchanged. The updated value is similar to those values inTable 5.5 of Chapter 5 of Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for temperate/boreal moist climate but lower
than the temperate/boreal dry climate values. Consequently, this update should reduce uncertainties associatedwith estimating soil carbon stock changes for IWMS in dry climates. The method and studies used to derive theupdated default stock change factor are provided in Annex 5A.1. The default time period for stock changes (D)is 20 years, and management practices are assumed to influence stocks up to 30 cm depth, although greater
depths can also be affected. As a result, for Tier 1 and 2 methods, SOC stocks for mineral soils are computed to adefault depth of 30 cm. Greater soil depth may be selected and used at Tier 2, if data are available.
A new default stock change factor for land-use (FLU) following rewetting of Cropland with IWMS is also
provided in Table 5.3, for a Tier 1 approach. This factor applies to Cropland with IWMS where naturalhydrology has been restored, and where crop production may or may not continue. Note that the factor applies toall climate regions, with the caveat that this value is likely to be more representative of rewetting activities intemperate and boreal climates, as it is derived from studies limited to these regions (see Annex 5A.1 for method
and studies). The default time period for stock changes (D) is 20 years, however additional C gain from restoring
natural hydrology continues for a further 20 years and will reach the reference SOC stock level (SOCREF values
in Table 5.2) after 40 years. It is also important to note that the long-term cultivation factor is used for areas that

5.12

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

have been drained and are cultivated for crop production. If the high water table is restored, i.e. in the case ofrewetted Cropland, then FLU for rewetting should be used for two sets of 20 year periods (i.e. 0–20 and 21–40
years).

TABLE 5.3
RELATIVE STOCK CHANGE FACTORS FOR LAND-USE (FLU) FOR LONG TERM CULTIVATION ON CROPLAND WITH IWMS (OVER
20 YEARS) AND REWETTING OF CROPLAND WITH IWMS (OVER 20 YEARS AND 40 YEARS)
Factor value typeLand-use (FLU)

Land-use (FLU)

Management

Long-term
cultivatedB

Rewetting(Years 1–20)

Temperature
regimeTemperate/
BorealBoreal,temperate,
and tropical

Rewetting(Years 21–40)

Moisture
regimeDry andmoist

Default

0.71

0.80

ErrorA41%

10%

Dry and
moist
1.0

N/A

Description
Represents
Cropland with
IWMS that has
been continuously
managed for > 20
years, forpredominantly
annual crops.
Represents
cropland with
IWMS that has
undergone
rewetting(restoration ofnatural hydrology)
and may or may
not be under active
crop production.

A ± two standard deviations, expressed as a percentage of the mean.
B The long-term cultivation factor is used for areas that have been drained and are cultivated for crop production. In the case of rewetted Cropland, stock change factors forland-use (FLU) for rewetting are used for two sets of 20-year periods (i.e. 0–20 and 21–40 years since rewetting).

The following are the key considerations in the application of the new stock change factors to Cropland with
IWMS subject to long-term cultivation and rewetting (Table 5.3) for land remaining in a land-use category:

The stock change factors for SOC in mineral soils provided for Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland, andSettlements in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are applicable to all managed lands with IWMS, classified as landremaining in a land-use category under any of the land-use categories.



The new stock change factors for long-term cultivation and rewetting of Cropland with IWMS provided inthis supplement (Table 5.3) should be applied to Cropland Remaining Cropland with IWMS, taking accountof the following:(i)

The new stock change factor for land-use (FLU) for Cropland with IWMS under long-term cultivationin this supplement should be used in place of the existing stock change factor for Cropland under longterm cultivation for all mineral soil types provided in Table 5.5, Chapter 5, Volume 4 in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

(ii)

The stock change factors for land-use (FLU) for Cropland with IWMS subject to rewetting should be
used for Cropland Remaining Cropland according to the following:o

For Cropland with IWMS subject to rewetting, for the first 20 years following the initial year ofrewetting, the final SOC stock i.e. SOC stocks in the last year of an inventory time period (SOC0)
is determined using FLU = 0.80, along with the other stock change factors for management andinput. The stock change factors used for estimating the initial SOC stocks (SOC(0-T)) willcorrespond to the Cropland land use (long-term cultivated, perennial, etc.) and management andinput regimes prior to rewetting.

o

For the next set of 20 years (i.e. 21–40 years since the initial year of rewetting), FLU = 1 should be
used to estimate the final SOC stock (SOC0) along with appropriate stock change factors for
management and input. The stock change factors for estimating the initial stocks (SOC (0-T)) willcorrespond to the rewetted Cropland land-use (FLU = 0.8) and management and input regimes at 20
years following rewetting.

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

5.13

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soilso

For the period longer than 40 years following the initial year of rewetting, FLU will remain 1. Thechanges in SOC stocks as a result of changes in management/input regimes in Cropland with
IWMS may be estimated using appropriate stock change factors from Table 5.2, Chapter 5,
Volume 4 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Box 5.3 shows an example calculation using the stock change factors for land use (FLU) for Cropland with
IWMS under long-term cultivation, and for Cropland with IWMS subject to rewetting.

Tier 2
A Tier 2 approach involves the estimation of country-specific stock change factors. It is good practice to derivevalues for a higher resolution classification of management and climate if there are significant differences in thestock change factors among more disaggregated categories based on an empirical analysis. Reference SOC
stocks can also be derived from country-specific data in a Tier 2 approach. Additional guidance is provided in
Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Tier 3
In a Tier 3 approach, constant stock change rate factors per se are less likely to be estimated in favour of variable
rates that more accurately capture land use and management effects. See Section 2.3.3.1, Chapter 2, Volume 4 ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines for further discussion.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA
At a minimum, activity data consist of areas of managed lands with IWMS remaining in a land-use category
stratified by land-use category, climate region, soil type, and management practices. In addition, the areas of
Cropland with IWMS subject to rewetting need to be stratified by time since rewetting (0–20 or 21–40 years
since rewetting) for the correct application of stock change factors. If the compiler does not have sufficient
information to disaggregate areas of rewetted Cropland with IWMS by the time since conversion, all rewetted
Cropland with IWMS areas can be assumed to be within 0–20 years of rewetting, and thus FLU = 0.8 could beapplied to the entire rewetted Cropland with IWMS. Total areas should be determined according to theapproaches outlined in Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, and should be consistent with thosereported under other sections of the inventory. Stratification of land-use categories according to climate region,
based on default or country-specific classifications, can be accomplished with overlays of land use on climate
and soil maps. In the case of using methods such as models, and/or data as proxies for estimation, clear andcomplete documentation is encouraged for transparency.

Tier 1The Tier 1 approach requires area of managed land on IWMS for each land-use category stratified by climate
region and soil type. As an initial approach, available land cover/land-use maps, either country-specific or basedon global datasets such as IGBP_DIS (http://daac.ornl.gov), can be joined with soil and climate maps (countryspecific, or global maps such as ISRIC, http://www.isric.org, or FAO, http://www.fao.org/home/en). A global
GIS database that shows the spatial distribution of generalized soil classes used for IPCC Tier 1 is available fordownload and use at http://isirc.org/data/ipcc-default-soil-classes-derived-harmonized-world-soil-data-base-ver11. The database is derived from the Harmonized World Soil Database and FAO soil classifications, andincludes the seven default IPCC soils classes, including Wetland Soils (termed “Wetland Soils” in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, and “Wetland Mineral Soils” in this supplement) (Batjes, 2010b). This dataset may be used atnational and broader scales where more detailed soil information is lacking.
Classification systems for activity data for a Tier 1 inventory are provided in the respective land-use chapters ofthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Land-use activity data and management activity data specific to the respective landuse category are typically required for a Tier 1 approach. Although no organisation catalogues changes in area asa result of rewetted or created wetlands either nationally or globally, local activity data for rewetting of managed
lands with IWMS or the creation of wetlands may be obtained from agricultural, forestry, or natural resources
agencies, non-governmental conservation organisations, or other government sources. In addition, organisations
such as the Society for Ecological Restoration (http://www.ser.org), the Global Restoration Network(http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org), Wetlands International (http://www.wetlands.org), and the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands (http://www.ramsar.org) may be sources of information for rewetting and wetland
creation projects.

Tier 2Tier 2 approaches are likely to involve a more detailed stratification of management systems, under therespective land-use category, than Tier 1 approaches if sufficient data are available. This may include further
divisions of management practices and finer stratification of climate regions. At Tier 2, a higher spatial
resolution of activity data is required and may be obtained by disaggregating global data into country-specificcategories or by collecting country-specific activity data.

5.14

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

Tier 3Tier 3 approaches may include the use of empirical, process-based or other types of models and/or direct
measurement-based inventories. In this case more detailed data on climate, soils, and management practices areneeded, as compared to Tier 1 and 2 methods. The exact requirements will be dependent on the model ormeasurement design. Examples of model input data include activity data on cropland management practices(crop type, tillage practices, fertilizer and organic amendments), as well as climate, soil, biomass, and water table
position (Ogle et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2002).

CALCULATION STEPS FO R TIER 1
The steps for estimating SOC0, SOC (0-T) and net soil organic carbon stock change per hectare for managed landwith IWMS for land remaining in a land-use category are as follows:
Step 1: Organize data into time series according to the years in which activity data were collected.
Step 2: Classify land into the appropriate management system in accordance with its respective land-use
category.
Step 3: Determine areas of managed land with IWMS under each land-use category for lands remaining in that
land-use category, disaggregated according to climate region at the beginning of the first inventory time period.
The first year of the inventory time period will depend on the time step of the activity data (0-T; e.g. 5, 10, or 20
years ago).
Step 4: Assign a native reference SOC stock value (SOCREF) for IWMS from Table 5.2, based on climate region.
Step 5: Assign a land-use factor (FLU), management factor (FMG), and organic matter input factor (FI) based on
the management classification for the respective land-use category (Step 2). Values for FLU, FMG, and FI areprovided in the respective chapters relating to land-use categories; an updated value for long-term cultivation FLU
is given in Table 5.3 for IWMS in Cropland.
Step 6: Multiply the appropriate stock change factors (FLU, FMG, FI) by SOCREF to estimate an ‘initial’ SOC stock(SOC(0-T)) for the inventory time period.
Step 7: Estimate the final SOC stock (SOC0) by repeating Steps 1 to 5 using the same SOCREF, but with landuse, management, and input factors that represent conditions for the managed land in the last (year 0) inventory
year.
Step 8: Estimate the average annual change in SOC stocks for managed land on IWMS remaining in a land-use
category (ΔCMineral) by subtracting the SOC(0-T) from SOC0 and then dividing by the time dependence of the stockchange factors (D) which is 20 years for default factors. If an inventory time period is greater than 20 years, thendivide by the difference in the initial and final year of the time period.
Step 9: Repeat steps 2 to 8 if there are additional inventory time periods.

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

5.15

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

BOX 5.3
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SOC STOCKS IN LONG-TERM CULTIVATED CROPLAND WITH IWMS, AND
REWETTING OF LONG-TERM CULTIVATED CROPLAND WITH IWMS

Assume an area with a cold temperate, dry climate. A crop is newly cultivated on an IWMS. For
the first 20 years after the initiation of cultivation, the SOC will decrease linearly by 71% (see 0.71
as default value in Table 5.3) down to a depth of 30 cm. From Table 5.2, it can be seen that thereference SOC for this climate region is 87 tonnes C ha-1. After 20 years of cultivation, the amountof SOC will be 61.8 tonnes C ha-1 (87 tonnes C ha-1 x 0.71 = 61.8 tonnes C ha-1), which representsa loss of 25.2 tonnes C ha-1 over the 20 years, or 1.26 tonnes C ha-1 yr-1. After 20 years, it isassumed that the SOC is stable at 61.8 tonnes C ha-1.
If we take this same soil and rewet it following drainage for crop production, the SOC will be 80%of the reference condition after 20 years, or 69.6 tonnes C ha-1 (87 tonnes C ha-1 x 0.80 = 69.6
tonnes C ha-1). The increase from 61.8 tonnes C ha-1 (from calculation above) is 7.8 tonnes C ha-1
or 0.39 tonnes C ha-1 yr-1 for the first 20 years. From year 21–40, the SOC will increase anadditional 20% (1.0–0.8 from Table 5.3) so that at year 40 the SOC is at the reference level of 87
tonnes C ha-1 (Table 5.2). In the Tier 1 method, the SOC is assumed to accrue linearly from years
21–40. The difference between the SOC at year 20 (69.6 tonnes C ha-1) and year 40 (87.0 tonnes
C ha-1) is 17.4 tonnes C ha-1, thus the annual accrual rate is 0.87 tonnes C ha-1 yr-1 between years
21 and 40.

UNCERTAINTY ASSESSME NT
Three broad sources of uncertainty exist in soil C inventories: 1) uncertainties in land use and management
activity, and environmental data; 2) uncertainties in reference soil carbon stocks if using a Tier 1 or 2 approach,or initial conditions if using a Tier 3 approach; and 3) uncertainties in the stock change/emission factors for Tier
1 or 2 approaches, model structure/parameter error for Tier 3 model-based approaches, or measurement
error/sampling variability associated with Tier 3 measurement-based inventories. In general, precision of an
inventory is increased and confidence ranges are smaller with more sampling to estimate values for the threebroad sources of uncertainty, while reducing bias (i.e. improve accuracy) is more likely to occur as a result ofdevelopment of a higher tier inventory that incorporates country-specific information. An additional source of
uncertainty arises from the difficulty in accurately mapping wetlands for the purposes of classification under soil
or vegetation types and different management activities, for example; this has been an issue since inventory
methods were first developed (Cowardin, 1982), and still continues even with advances in technology andremote sensing techniques (Arnesen et al., 2013). As mapping techniques tend to rely on vegetation and soils
information, defining the area of IWMS is especially difficult because their vegetation range from marsh toforested systems, and soils range from near organic to near non-wetland mineral. Moreover, the extent of areas
subject to water table variation and flooding may increase or decrease frequently, depending on interannual
climate variability and management activities. However, given no dramatic changes in hydrology, wetland soil
and vegetation properties will remain consistent over time, even with interannual climate variability, and mappedareas should remain relatively unchanged.
For Tier 1, uncertainties are provided alongside the reference SOC stocks in Table 5.2, and stock change factors
in the respective land-use category chapters in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Table 5.3 for the updated FLU.
Uncertainties in land-use and management data will need to be addressed by the inventory compiler, andcombined with uncertainties for the default factors and reference SOC stocks using an appropriate method, suchas simple error propagation equations. If using aggregate land-use area statistics for activity data (e.g. FAO data),
the inventory compiler may need to apply a default level of uncertainty for the land area estimates (±50%). It isgood practice to apply country-specific uncertainty estimates to country-specific area estimates rather than use adefault level. Default reference SOC stocks and stock change factors for mineral soils can have inherently highuncertainties when applied to specific countries. The defaults represent globally averaged values of land-use andmanagement impacts or reference SOC stocks that may deviate from region-specific values (Powers et al., 2004;
Ogle et al., 2006). Bias can be reduced by deriving country-specific factors using a Tier 2 method or bydeveloping a Tier 3 country-specific estimation system. The underlying basis for higher Tier approaches will be
experiments or soil carbon monitoring data in the country or neighbouring regions that address the effect of land
use and management on soil carbon and/or can be used to evaluate model predictions of soil carbon change (e.g.
Ogle et al., 2010). Further reduction in bias can be obtained by accounting for significant within-country
differences in land-use and management impacts, such as variation among climate regions and/or soil types, even

5.16

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

at the expense of reduced precision in the factor estimates (Ogle et al., 2006). Bias is considered more
problematic for reporting stock changes because it is not necessarily captured in the uncertainty range (i.e. thetrue stock change may be outside of the reported uncertainty range if there is significant bias in the factors).
Uncertainties in land-use activity statistics may be reduced through a better national system, such as developing
or extending a ground-based survey with additional sample locations and/or incorporating remote sensing toprovide additional coverage. It is good practice to design a classification that captures the majority of land-use
and management activities with a sufficient sample size to minimize uncertainty at the national scale.

5.2.2

CH 4 emissions from managed lands with IWMSManagement activities that alter the water table level on lands containing IWMS can impact CH4 emissions fromthose areas. Two common management activities that involve raising water table levels include the rewetting ofpreviously drained IWMS, and the creation of wetlands on wet or dry mineral soils. Both rewetting and wetland
creation are often undertaken as conservation efforts for habitat and wildlife. Studies have shown that raisingwater table levels on managed lands with IWMS, through rewetting and/or wetland creation, can increase CH4
emissions (Pennock et al., 2010; Badiou et al., 2011; Nahlik and Mitsch, 2010; Herbst et al., 2011; Yang et al.,2012). Here we provide guidance for estimating CH4 emissions as a result of raising the water table level on
managed lands with IWMS; drainage and lowering water tables typically results in lower or negligible CH4
emissions (Morse et al., 2012). In a modeling study of global CH4 emissions, Spahni et al. (2011) suggest that
IWMS that are not inundated, but have soil moisture content above a critical threshold, can still be a net CH4
source. Due to the lack of studies, however, we are unable to develop guidance for CH4 emissions from drained
IWMS at this time.
Although our current understanding of the processes involved in CH4 production and emission is improving, itremains difficult to estimate CH4 emissions with a high degree of confidence due mainly to the large spatial
variability, as well as to seasonal and interannual variability in the controlling factors such as water level andtemperature. Studies show high spatial variability in CH4 emissions across large areas that have similar climate,vegetation, and topography, and within small areas that have microscale variations in topography (Ding et al.,
2003; Saarnio et al., 2009). In addition, there are very few studies into CH4 emissions from rewetted or createdwetlands on managed lands with IWMS in Europe (Saarnio et al., 2009), tropical regions (Mitsch et al., 2010),
and certain regions of North America. Therefore, the default emission factors we present will necessarily havelarge uncertainties. Due to the relative lack of data on rewetted and created wetlands with IWMS, we haveincluded studies of CH4 emissions from natural wetlands on IWMS in the development of default emission
factors (see Annex 5A.2 for further details).

5.2.2.1

C HOICE OF METHOD

Tier 1CH4 emissions from managed lands on IWMS, or dry mineral soils, where management activities have resulted
in the water table being raised to, or above, the land surface are estimated using a simple emission factor
approach (Equation 5.1), stratified by climate region. The default methodology considers boreal, temperate, andtropical climate regions.

EQUATION 5.1
ANNUAL CH4 EMISSIONS FROM REWETTED AND CREATED WETLANDS ON MANAGED LANDS WITH
IWMS

CH 4 IWMS   ( AIWMS  EFCH4  IWMS ) cc

Where:
CH4-IWMS = Annual CH4 emissions from managed lands on IWMS where management activities haveraised the water table level to or above the land surface, kg CH4 yr-1
AIWMS, c = Total area of managed lands with mineral soil where the water table level has
been raised in climate region c, ha
EFCH4-IWMS, c = Emission factor from managed lands with mineral soil where water table level has
been raised in climate region c, kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1

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

5.17

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

The area of managed lands with IWMS, or dry mineral soil, where water table level has been raised, should be
stratified by climate region (boreal, temperate, or tropical), and the appropriate emission factor applied.

Tier 2The Tier 2 approach uses country-specific emission factors based on information on important parameters suchas water table level and hydroperiod. It is good practice when developing and using country-specific emission
factors to consider the water table position and its relationship to CH4 emissions. Annual CH4 emissions from
IWMS are generally larger when the water table is continuously at or above the land surface, rather thanintermittently at or below the land surface (Annex 5A.2). Seasonal and interannual changes in water table
position, and duration above the land surface, are determined by multiple variables including fluctuations inwater source such as river discharge in the case of riparian wetlands, as well as evapotranspiration andprecipitation.

Tier 3
A Tier 3 approach involves a detailed consideration of the dominant drivers of CH4 emission from IWMS,
including but not limited to: water table position; seasonal changes in inundation; temperature of soils;
importance of CH4 ebullition; and vegetation community dynamics. CH4 ebullition is a poorly quantified
component of CH4 emission from inundated soils, but has been shown to be a significant contributor to annual
CH4 emission in some systems (Wilson et al., 1989). Vegetation can have important implications for CH4
emissions, by facilitating transport from inundated soils to the atmosphere, and by providing a substrate for CH4
production. Possible methods to determine the importance of these drivers to CH4 emissions, and thus to reduce
uncertainty in emission factors, include detailed field studies of CH4 emission and/or the use of models specificto carbon cycling in wet soils, such as the Wetland-DNDC model (Zhang et al., 2002;
http://www.globaldndc.net).

5.2.2.2

C HOICE OF EMISSION FA CTORS

Tier 1The default emission factors for IWMS (EFCH4-IWMS), stratified by climate region, are provided in Table 5.4. The
Tier 1 emission factors do not distinguish between continuous and intermittent inundation, as they were derived
from studies covering a range of inundation durations, therefore capturing a degree of variability in CH4emissions (Annex 5A.2). The uncertainties in the EFs can be reduced by using country-specific EFs thatincorporate information on water table position and period of inundation at higher Tier levels.

TABLE 5.4
DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR CH4 FROM MANAGED LANDS WITH IWMS WHERE WATER TABLELEVEL HAS BEEN RAISEDClimate Region

EFCH4-IWMS(kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1)

95% Confidence IntervalA

Number ofStudies

Boreal

76

±76B

1C

Temperate

235

±108

21

Tropical

900

±456

18

AThe 95% confidence interval is calculated from the mean, standard deviation, and the critical values of the t distribution, according to thedegrees of freedom. These are not expressed as a percentage of the mean.
B Bridgham et al. (2006)
C This study (Bridgham et al., 2006) is a synthesis of numerous studies; see publication for details.

5.2.2.3

C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DATAThe Tier 1 method requires data on areas of managed lands with IWMS where the water table level has beenraised, for instance as in rewetting or wetland creation, stratified by climate region. Although no organisation
catalogues changes in area as a result of rewetting or wetland creation, either nationally or globally, local activity
data for rewetting of managed lands with IWMS or the creation of wetlands may be obtained from agricultural,
forestry, or natural resources agencies, non-governmental conservation organisations, or other government
sources. In addition, organisations such as the Society for Ecological Restoration (http://www.ser.org), theGlobalRestoration
Network(http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org),
Wetlands
International

5.18

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils(http://www.wetlands.org), and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (http://www.ramsar.org) may be used assources of information for rewetting and/or wetland creation projects. In addition to the above, Tier 2 and Tier 3
methods generally require the areas of managed lands with IWMS stratified by annual average water table level,
and the seasonal and/or interannual changes in inundation. For the development of country-specific emission
factors and models, areas may be further stratified by vegetation community composition, vegetation biomass,soil temperature, and previous land-use. The use of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) on the Japanese Satellite
JERS, for example, can improve the accuracy of the quantification of inundated areas, by overcoming the bias
caused by clouds in more common satellite imagery on the visible spectrum (e.g. Landsat images). Also, higher
resolution satellite images (e.g. QuickBird) can reduce uncertainties in land-use and vegetation classifications.

5.2.2.4

U NCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

Estimates of uncertainty for EFCH4-IWMS, as ± 95% Confidence Interval, are provided in Table 5.4 for eachclimate region. Major sources of uncertainty in these values are the small number of studies on which theestimates are based, and the combination of studies with different inundation periods (continuously-inundated
and intermittently-inundated). The development of country-specific emission factors will aid in reducing
uncertainty.

5.3

LAND CONVERTED TO A NEW LAND-USE
CATEGORY

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines define land converted to a new land-use category as lands that have been converted
in the last 20 years as a default period. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide generic and land-use categoryspecific guidance (Chapters 2, Chapters 4-9, Volume 4) for estimating carbon stock changes in the carbon pools
and non-CO2 emissions from managed land on mineral soils for land converted to a new land-use category for allland-use categories. This chapter updates the guidance provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on changes in
SOC stocks and non-CO2 emissions from managed lands with IWMS that have been classified as land converted
to a new land-use category in all six land-use categories.

5.3.1

CO 2 emissions and removals

The set of general equations used to estimate the annual carbon stock changes of carbon pools in land remaining
in a land-use category for managed lands with IWMS are given in Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines, and these will also apply to managed lands with IWMS for land converted to a new land-use
category.
Figure 1.3, Chapter 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines presents a decision tree for the identification of
appropriate methodological Tier for the inventory of land converted to a new land-use category.

5.3.1.1

B IOMASS AND DEAD ORGA NIC MATTERThe guidance provided in Section 5.2.1.1 also applies to lands converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS. The guidance in sections pertaining to land converted to a new land-use category in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines should be used.

CHOICE OF METHOD AND EMISSION/REMOVAL FAC TORSThe guidance provided in Section 5.2.1.1 also applies to lands converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS. The guidance in sections pertaining to land converted to a new land-use category in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines should be used.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
The activity data consist of areas of managed lands with IWMS in land converted to a new land-use category,stratified by land-use category, climate region, soil type, and management practices, at a minimum. The
guidance provided in Section 5.2.1.1 also applies to lands converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS. The guidance in sections pertaining to land converted to a new land-use category in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines should be used.

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

5.19

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

UNCERTAINTY
The guidance provided in Section 5.2.1.1 also applies to lands converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS. The guidance in sections pertaining to land converted to a new land-use category in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines should be used.

5.3.1.2

S OIL CARBON

Conversion of land on IWMS to other land uses can result in an increase in SOC stocks (e.g. in Forest Land; see
Chapter 4, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) or a decrease in SOC stocks (e.g. in Cropland; see Chapter 5,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). In general, the guidance provided in Section 5.2.1.2 also applies to land
converted to a new land-use category for managed lands with IWMS. However, there are specific applications of
the new SOC stock change factors for rewetting, depending on the specific land-use conversion (see Choice ofEmission/Removal Factors below for details). The guidance in sections pertaining to land converted to a newland-use category in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines should be used.

CHOICE OF METHOD
The guidance provided in Section 5.2.1.2 also applies to land converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS. The guidance in sections pertaining to land converted to a new land-use category in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines should be used.

CHOICE OF EMISSION/R EMOVAL FACTORSThe guidance provided in Section 5.2.1.2 also applies to all land converted to a new land-use category for
managed lands with IWMS in any land-use category, including the updated SOCREF for IWMS (Table 5.2) andthe updated and new stock change factors (FLU, Table 5.3). The following are the key considerations in theapplication of stock change factors for managed lands with IWMS:

The stock change factors for SOC stock changes in mineral soils provided for Forest, Cropland, Grassland,
and Settlements in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are applicable for all land-use conversions (both to and from),
involving managed lands with IWMS classified under any of the land-use categories.



The new stock change factors for long-term cultivation and rewetting of Cropland with IWMS provided inthis supplement (Table 5.3) can be applied to land-use conversions involving Cropland taking account of thefollowing:(i)

The new stock change factor for land-use (FLU) for Cropland with IWMS under long-term
cultivation provided in this supplement should be used in place of the existing stock change factor
for Cropland under long-term cultivation for all mineral soil types provided in Table 5.5, Chapter 5,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

(ii)

The stock change factors for land-use (FLU) for Cropland with IWMS subject to rewetting can beused for land-use conversions involving Cropland in the following ways:oFor land-use conversion to Cropland with IWMS subject to rewetting, the final SOC stock (SOC0)
is determined using FLU = 0.80 for a period of 0–20 years following the first year of rewetting,along with the relevant stock change factors corresponding to the management and input regimes
after land-use conversion. The stock change factors used for estimating the initial SOC stocks(SOC(0-T)) should correspond to the land use, management and input regimes before the land-use
conversion.

o

For Cropland with IWMS subject to rewetting undergoing land-use conversion to any other landuse category, FLU = 1 should be used for a period of 21–40 years, or more than 40 years since thefirst year of rewetting activity respectively, along with relevant stock change factors corresponding
to the management and input regime before conversion. The stock change factors for land-use,management and input for the new land-use category (e.g. Forest Land or Grassland) should be
used to determine the final SOC stock (SOC0) along with relevant stock change factors
corresponding to the management and input regimes following the land-use conversion.

o

The guidance in sections pertaining to land converted to a new land-use category in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines should also be used.

CHOICE OF ACTIVITY D ATA
The activity data consist of areas of managed lands with IWMS in land converted to a new land-use category
stratified by land-use category, climate region, soil type, management practices, and time since conversion, at aminimum. The area of Cropland with IWMS subject to rewetting need to be stratified by the time since rewetting

5.20

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils(0–20 or 21–40 years since rewetting) for the correct application of stock change factors. If the compiler does nothave sufficient information to disaggregate the areas of rewetted Cropland with IWMS by the time sinceconversion, all the areas of rewetted Cropland with IWMS can be assumed to be within 0–20 years of rewetting,and therefore FLU = 0.8 may be applied to the entire rewetted Cropland with IWMS. The guidance provided in
Section 5.2.1.2 also applies to land converted to a new land-use category for managed lands with IWMS.

UNCERTAINTY
The guidance provided in Section 5.2.1.2 also applies to land converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS where the water table has been raised. The guidance in sections pertaining to land converted toa new land-use category in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines should also be used.

5.3.2

CH 4 emissions

The guidance provided in Section 5.2.2 also applies to land converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS.

5.3.2.1

C HOICE OF METHOD AND EMISSION FACTORSThe guidance provided in Section 5.2.2 also applies to land converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS.

5.3.2.2

C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DA TA

The activity data consist of areas of managed lands with IWMS in land converted to a new land-use category,stratified by land-use category, climate region, soil type, and management practices, at a minimum. The
guidance provided in Section 5.2.2 also applies to land converted to a new land-use category for managed lands
with IWMS.

5.3.2.3

U NCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

The guidance provided in Section 5.2.2 also applies to land converted to a new land-use category for managed
lands with IWMS.

5.4

COMPLETENESS, REPORTING AND
DOCUMENTATION

5.4.1

Completeness

It is good practice to disaggregate the types of managed lands with IWMS according to national circumstancesand employ country-specific emission factors if possible. It is suggested that flooded lands (including reservoirs),
peatlands, and coastal wetlands, are clearly excluded from land with IWMS, and that this separation is appliedconsistently throughout the reporting period.
Where guidance not provided for IWMS in this Chapter for some lands, some climates, some carbon pools, andsome GHGs, it is the result of a lack of relevant data that allow the development of emission factors. Countries
are encouraged to develop new research and accounting practices to fill gaps to better account for changes incarbon stocks and GHG emissions and removals from drained wetlands, rewetted wetlands, or created wetlands
on lands with IWMS.
General guidance on consistency in time-series is given in Chapter 7 of this supplement. The classification ofland, criteria for using activity data and emission factors and inventory methods should also be consistent withthe generic methodologies described in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and in this supplement. Chapter
6, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Chapter 7 of this supplement provide general guidance on theissues concerning Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC).

5.4.2

Reporting and Documentation

General guidance on reporting and documentation is given in Chapter 8, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Section 7.4.4, Chapter 7, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines states the following with regard to reportingand documentation.

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

5.21

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

EMISSION FACTORSThe scientific basis for new country-specific emission factors, parameters and models should be fully describedand documented. This includes defining the input parameters and describing the process by which the emission
factors, parameters, and models were derived, as well as describing sources of uncertainties.

ACTIVITY DATA
Sources of all activity data used in the calculations including data sources, databases and soil map references,
should be recorded, as well as communications with industry subject to any confidentiality considerations. This
documentation should include the frequency of data collection and estimation, estimates of accuracy andprecision, and reasons for any significant changes in emission levels.

TREND ANALYSIS
Any significant fluctuations in emissions between years should be explained. A distinction should be madebetween changes in activity levels and changes in emission factors, parameters and methods from year to year,
and the reasons for these changes documented. If different emission factors, parameters and methods are used for
different years, then the reasons for this should be explained and documented.

5.22

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

Annex 5A.1

Estimation of default stock change factors for longterm cultivated Cropland and rewetting with
Inland Wetland Mineral Soil carbon
emissions/removals

Default stock change factors that were computed using a dataset of experimental results for land use are provided
in Table 5.3. The land-use factor for long-term cultivation represents the loss of SOC that occurs after 20 yearsof continuous cultivation. The rewetting factor represents the effect of the restoration of natural hydrology ofcultivated cropland with IWMS (such as through the removal of drainage tiles, or plugging of drainage ditches),
which may or may not have continued crop production. The influence of this change on IWMS SOC stocks may
continue up to 40 years. Experimental data (citations listed below, and provided in the list of references) wereanalysed in linear mixed-effects models, accounting for both fixed and random effects (Ogle et al., 2005). Fixed
effects included depth and the number of years since a management change. For depth, data were not aggregatedbut included SOC stocks measured for each depth increment (e.g. 0–5 cm, 5–10 cm, and 10–30 cm) as a separate
point in the dataset. Similarly, time series data were not aggregated, despite those measurements being made on
the same plots. Consequently, random effects were used to account for the dependencies in times-series data andamong data points representing different depths from the same study. If significant, a country-level random
effect was used to assess an additional uncertainty associated with applying a global default value to a specificcountry. This is included in the default uncertainties. The long-term cultivation factor represents the average lossof SOC at 20 years or longer time period following cultivation of IWMS. Users of the Tier 1 method canapproximate the annual change in SOC storage by dividing the inventory estimate by 20. The rewetting factor
represents the average net gain in SOC after rewetting of cultivated cropland, 20 and 40 years after the first yearof rewetting. Variance was calculated for each of the factor values, and can be used with simple error
propagation methods, or to construct probability distribution functions with a normal density.
TABLE 5A.1.1
STUDIES USED FOR THE DERIVATION OF DEFAULT SOC STOCK CHANGE FACTORS
Study

Location

Stock Change Factor (LC= Long-term cultivation;
R = Rewetting)Badiou et al., 2011

Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Canada

LC, RBallantine et al., 2009

New York, USAR

Bedard-Haughn et al., 2006

Saskatchewan, Canada

LC

Besasie et al., 2012

Wisconsin, USA

LC, RDavid et al., 2009

Illinois, USALC

Euliss et al., 2006

North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota,
Montana, Iowa, USA

LC, R

Gleason et al., 2009

North Dakota, USAR

Huang et al., 2010

Sanjiang Plain, China

LC

Hunter et al., 2008

Louisiana, USA

LC, R

Jacinthe et al., 2001

Ohio, USALC

Lu et al., 2007

Lake Taihu, China

LC, R

Meyer et al., 2008

Nebraska, USA

LC, R

Morse et al., 2012

North Carolina, USA

LC

Norton et al., 2011

California, USA

LC

van Wesemael et al., 2010

Belgium

LC

Wang et al., 2012

Sanjiang Plain, China

LC, R

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

5.23

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

Annex 5A.2

Estimation of CH4 emission factors for managed
lands with Inland Wetland Mineral Soils, or dry
mineral soils, where the water table has been raised

The Tier 1 default emission factors in Table 5.4 were derived from the published studies listed in Table 5A.2.1.
The number of studies of CH4 emissions from rewetted IWMS as a result of rewetting of drained IWMS, andfrom wetted mineral soils as a result of wetland creation, is very limited. They are also restricted to temperate
climate regions. Thus, studies of CH4 emission from natural IWMS were included to derive emission factors
from boreal and tropical regions, and to supplement the number of studies in temperate region. Studies varied intheir reporting of emissions: some reported annual fluxes, while others reported seasonal fluxes or mean daily
fluxes. In the case of seasonal or daily flux reporting, an annual flux was estimated by assuming that noemissions occurred during cold seasons and/or by applying mean daily fluxes to part or all of the annual perioddepending on the climate region and/or specific recommendations made by the study authors.
TABLE 5A.2.1
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM RESTORED AND CREATED WETLANDS WITH IWMS WHERE WATER TABLE LEVEL HAS BEEN RAISED, AND NATURALWETLANDS, USED TO DERIVE DEFAULT VALUE FOR EFCH4
ClimateregionBorealTemperate

Wetlandtype

Naturalwetlands
Restoredwetlands,
previous use
Cropland

Location

Annualperiod ofinundation

CH4 emission(kg CH4 ha-1
yr-1)

CH4 Flux
measurement
methodCanadaUnspecified

76

Chamber, EC

CanadaIntermittent

49

Chamber

CH4 Flux
reported

Reference

AnnualBridghamet al.,
2006

Mean daily

Badiou etal., 2011

AnnualTemperate

Temperate

Temperate

Restoredwetlands,
previous use
CroplandRestoredwetlands,
previous use
CroplandRestoredwetlands,
previous use
Cropland

Temperate

Restoredwetland,previous use
Cropland

Temperate

Createdwetlands,
riparian

CanadaIntermittent

349

Chamber(modified for
diurnal variation
as stated instudy)

North Dakota, USA

Intermittent

142

Chamber

Mean daily

Gleason etal., 2009

North Carolina,
USA

Intermittent

7Chamber

AnnualMorse etal., 2012

Pennock etal., 2010

Annual (minus
Denmark

Intermittent

110

EC

emissions fromcattle on-site asstated in study)

Herbst etal., 2011

AnnualChina

Intermittent

13

Chamber(diffusive andebullitive fluxes
combined)

AnnualTemperate

Createdwetlands

Ohio, USA

Continuous

402

ChamberTemperate

Naturalwetland,marsh

Nebraska, USA

Continuous

800

EC

5.24

(mean of two
different years
from same site)

AnnualYang etal., 2012
Nahlik andMitsch,2010;
Altor andMitsch,2008
Kim et al.,1999

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

TABLE 5A.2.1(CONTINUED)
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM RESTORED AND CREATED WETLANDS WITH IWMS WHERE WATER TABLE LEVEL HAS BEEN RAISED, AND NATURALWETLANDS, USED TO DERIVE DEFAULT VALUE FOR EFCH4
Annualperiod ofinundation

CH4 emission(kg CH4 ha-1
yr-1)

Continuous

468

CH4 Flux
measurement
methodCH4 Flux
reported

Chamber

AnnualClimateregionWetlandtype

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
marshes

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
Carex
marshes

Temperate

Naturalwetland,riparian

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
Deyeuixa
marshesSanjiang Plain, NE
China

Intermittent

289

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
riparianGeorgia, USA

Intermittent

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
marshesSanjiang Plain, NE
China

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
marsh

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
shrub swamp

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
swampsGlobalIntermittent

113

Chamber

Mean daily

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
marshesGlobalIntermittent

105

Chamber

Mean daily

Temperate

Naturalwetlands,
floodplains

GlobalIntermittent

72

Chamber

Mean daily

Temperate

Naturalwetlands

TropicalTropicalNaturalwetlands,
rainforest
swamp
Naturalwetlands,
alluvial
marsh

Location

Sanjiang Plain, NE
China

Reference

Ding andCai, 2007

AnnualSanjiang Plain, NE
China

Ohio, USA

Continuous

Continuous

434

758

Chamber

Chamber(as reported inDing and Cai,
2007)

Song etal., 2003

AnnualNahlik andMitsch,2010

AnnualChamber(as reported inDing and Cai,
2007)

Song etal., 2003

226

Chamber

AnnualPulliam,
1993

Intermittent

225

Chamber

AnnualHuang etal., 2010

Sanjiang Plain, NE
China

Intermittent

58

Chamber

AnnualSong etal., 2009

Sanjiang Plain, NE
China

Intermittent

3Chamber

AnnualSong etal., 2009

Continental USA

Costa Rica

Costa Rica

unspecified

ContinuousIntermittent

76

2930

3500

Chamber, EC

Chamber

Chamber

Bartlett
andHarriss,
1993
Bartlett
andHarriss,
1993
Bartlett
andHarriss,
1993

AnnualBridghamet al.,
2006

AnnualNahlik andMitsch,2011

AnnualNahlik andMitsch,20112013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

5.25

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

TABLE 5A.2.1(CONTINUED)
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM RESTORED AND CREATED WETLANDS WITH IWMS WHERE WATER TABLE LEVEL HAS BEEN RAISED, AND NATURALWETLANDS, USED TO DERIVE DEFAULT VALUE FOR EFCH4
Annualperiod ofinundation

CH4 emission(kg CH4 ha-1
yr-1)

CH4 Flux
measurement
methodClimateregionWetlandtype

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
swampsGlobalIntermittent

297

Chamber

Mean daily

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
marshesGlobalIntermittent

419

Chamber

Mean daily

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

GlobalIntermittent

328

Chamber

Mean daily

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

Amazon, Upper
Negro Basin54

Chamber,Ebullition
funnelAnnualTropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

Pantanal, Brazil(Arara-Azul)

Intermittent

516

Chamber

Mean daily

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

Pantanal, Brazil(Bau)

Intermittent

1033

Chamber

Mean daily

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

Pantanal, Brazil(Sao Joao)

Intermittent

510

Chamber

Mean daily

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodedforests

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
aquatic
macrophytes

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodedforests

Jau River basin
floodplains/Amazon

Intermittent

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

Mojosbasin/Amazon

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

LocationIntermittent

CH4 Flux
reported

AnnualSolimoes/Amazon
floodplain

Intermittent

567

Chamber(as reported in
Melack et al.,2004)

AnnualReference
Bartlett
andHarriss,
1993
Bartlett
andHarriss,
1993
Bartlett
andHarriss,
1993
Belger etal., 2011
MaraniandAlvala,2007
MaraniandAlvala,2007
MaraniandAlvala,2007
MelackandForsberg,
2001
MelackandForsberg,
2001

Chamber(as reported in
Melack et al.,
2004)

306

Chamber(as reported in
Melack et al.,2004)

Rosenqvist
et al.,
2002

Intermittent

948

Chamber

AnnualMelack etal., 2004

Roraima/ Amazon

Intermittent

1341

Chamber

AnnualMelack etal., 2004

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

BananalIntermittent

954

Chamber

AnnualMelack etal., 2004

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

OrinocoIntermittent

951

Chamber

AnnualMelack etal., 2004

5.26

Solimoes/Amazon
floodplain

Intermittent

184

Annual2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

TABLE 5A.2.1(CONTINUED)
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM RESTORED AND CREATED WETLANDS WITH IWMS WHERE WATER TABLE LEVEL HAS BEEN RAISED, AND NATURALWETLANDS, USED TO DERIVE DEFAULT VALUE FOR EFCH4
Location

Annualperiod ofinundation

CH4 emission(kg CH4 ha-1
yr-1)

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodplains

Pantanal

Intermittent

TropicalNaturalwetlands,
floodedforest,aquatic
macrophytes,
open water

Solimoes/Amazon
floodplain

Continuous&Intermittent

ClimateregionWetlandtype

CH4 Flux
measurement
methodCH4 Flux
reported

949

Chamber

AnnualMelack etal., 2004

404

Chamber

AnnualMelack etal., 2004

Reference

The climate region with the greatest number of studies is the temperate region, including natural andcreated/rewetted wetlands, and sites under continuous and intermittent inundation. We tested for differences inCH4 emission factors between wetland types (natural vs. created/rewetted wetlands under intermittent inundation)and hydrologic regime (continuous vs. intermittent inundation) using paired Student’s t-test, two-tailed, at asignificance level of α=0.05 to: 1) determine whether it is valid to include studies of natural wetlands in thedevelopment of CH4 emission factors from created/rewetted wetlands; and 2) determine whether there is asignificant difference in CH4 emission between continuously and intermittently inundated wetlands.
There is no significant difference in the CH4 emissions for natural vs. created/rewetted wetlands underintermittent inundation located in temperate regions (Table 5A2.2; t-test value = 0.24). Therefore the inclusion ofstudies of natural wetlands in the development of the CH4 emission factors for created/rewetted wetlands on
IWMS is valid for temperate regions. As there are not sufficient studies on created/rewetted wetlands on IWMS
in boreal or tropical regions to carry out the same analysis, we make the assumption that, as above, there is no
significant difference between the CH4 emissions from natural and created/rewetted wetlands in boreal or
tropical regions, and thus include studies of natural wetlands in the development of the CH4 emission factors.
TABLE 5A.2.2
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM TEMPERATE, CREATED/REWETTED WETLANDS AND NATURAL WETLANDS WITH IWMS
Climate region
Temperate

Wetland type

Mean CH4
emission(kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1)

Standard
deviation

95% confidence
intervalA

Number ofstudiesCreated/Rewetted

153

160

±148

7B

Natural

136

99

±83

8C

Note: All values are derived from studies of temperate wetlands listed in Table 5A.2.1.
A The 95% confidence interval is calculated from the mean, standard deviation, and the critical values of t distribution, according to the degrees of freedom.
B The studies used to determine this value are listed in Table 5A.2.1: Altor and Mitsch, 2008 and Nahlik and Mitsch, 2010 (mean value for the same system determined by
two studies); Gleason et al., 2009; Pennock et al., 2010; Badiou et al., 2011; Herbst et al., 2011; Morse et al., 2012; and Yang et al., 2012.
C The studies used to determine this value are listed in Table 5A.2.1; Pulliam, 1993; Bartlett and Harriss, 1993 (n=3 wetland types); Song et al., 2003; Song et al., 2009 (n=2wetland types); Huang et al., 2010.

There is a significant difference in CH4 emissions for temperate region wetlands (created/rewetted and natural
wetlands are combined) under the two hydrologic regimes (Table 5A.2.3; t-test value = 6.47, p<0.0001). Thishighlights the importance of the period of inundation in annual CH4 emissions. Thus, the development ofcountry-specific emission factors that incorporate the period of inundation will reduce uncertainties.

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

5.27

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

TABLE 5A.2.3
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM TEMPERATE, REWETTED, CREATED AND NATURAL WETLANDS WITH IWMS, STRATIFIED BY PERIOD OFINUNDATION

Climate region
Temperate

Annualperiod ofinundation

Mean CH4 emission(kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1)

Standard
deviation

95% confidence
intervalA

Numberof studies

Continuous

572

191

±125

5B

Intermittent

126

108

±75

14C

Note: All values are derived from studies of temperate wetlands listed in Table 5A.2.1.
A The 95% confidence interval is calculated from the mean, standard deviation, and the critical values of the t distribution, according to the degrees of freedom.
B The studies used to determine this value are listed in Table 5A2.1; Kim et al., 1999; Song et al., 2003 (Carex marshes); Ding and Cai, 2007; Altor and Mitsch, 2008;
Nahlik and Mitsch, 2010.
C The studies used to determine this value are listed in Table 5A2.1; Pulliam, 1993; Bartlett and Harriss, 1993 (n=3 wetland types); Song et al., 2003 (Deyeuxia marshes);
Song et al., 2009 (n=2 wetland types); Huang et al., 2010; Badiou et al., 2011; Pennock et al., 2010; Gleason et al., 2009; Morse et al., 2012; Herbst et al., 2011; Yang etal., 2012.

5.28

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

Appendix 5a.1 Future methodological development
Lands with IWMS occupy significant areas in some countries and are important carbon stock compartments;
conversion of this land to other uses and management practices can potentially affect these stocks. However, atthe time of preparation of this supplement, except for changes in SOC stocks and CH4 emissions in
rewetted/created wetlands on lands with IWMS, and changes in SOC stocks as a result of long-term cultivation
and rewetting on Croplands with IWMS, little information was available to provide emission factors specific todifferent land uses and management practices, or to derive emission factors for N2O.
Particular effort should be made to differentiate between multiple uses on lands with IWMS (e.g. wetland forest
and wetland grasslands) for future methodological improvements. A good example of the methodologicalapproach necessary for this task can be found in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Report to theCongress (Dahl, 2011). This document describes how wetland inventories have been made in the United Statesand, although not providing figures for SOC stock changes, gives reference for future work to obtain such datawith the National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA), with methods described in detail at
www.epa.gov/wetlands/survey. Another example of a methodological approach for assessing carbon stocks and
GHG fluxes at a national level is found in a United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report(Zhu et al., 2010). This document describes SOC stock changes and GHG emissions from managed andunmanaged lands and it may serve as a useful example for a national-level carbon assessment. Surveys thatquantify the areas of land on IWMS under different land use and management practices, in conjunction withcarbon pool quantification, allow the future application of the general equations for carbon stock changes that aredescribed in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Other databases are available that contain flux information (mainly CO2 measured with the eddy covariancetechnique) at the ecosystem level, including IWMS (e.g. www.ghg-europe.eu, fluxnet.ornl.gov,
ameriflux.ornl.gov, www.tern-supersites.net.au and fluxnet.ccrp.ec.gc.ca).
New research is needed to fill a number of gaps for IWMS. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the effectsof IWMS land-use conversion on SOC stock changes following conversion to Grassland, Forest Land,
Settlements and Other Land. Moreover, new research is needed to understand the effect of IWMS conversion onother carbon stocks (biomass, dead organic matter) as well as CH4 and N2O fluxes. Although we were able todevelop guidance for CH4 fluxes from IWMS for some climate regions, specific guidance for climate and region
combinations would improve our estimates of CH4 fluxes. New research assessing N2O fluxes following
conversion of IWMS to other land-uses, especially Cropland, would add considerably to our ability to assess
GHG impacts and develop Tier 2 methods for GHG fluxes. N2O emissions from IWMS are typically very low,
unless there is a significant input of organic or inorganic nitrogen from runoff. Such inputs typically result fromanthropogenic activities such as agricultural fertilizer application (Hefting et al., 2006; Phillips and Beeri, 2008;
DeSimone et al., 2010), or Grassland management (Chen et al., 2011; Oates et al., 2008; Liebig et al., 2012;
Jackson et al., 2006; Holst et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2002). A review of the current literature suggests there isinsufficient data to provide robust emission factors and methodology to estimate N2O emissions from IWMS at
this time. We suggest that N2O emissions should be more thoroughly addressed in future updates to thisguidance, as research on this topic progresses. For future methodological improvement of N2O emission factors,
it is important to avoid double-counting N2O emissions already accounted for properly according to Chapter 11,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Fully functional models that consider the influence of changes in hydrology on carbon cycling and GHG fluxes
cannot be developed or tested until more databases are available for IWMS. Process-based models such as
Wetland-DNDC (Zhang et al., 2002) have substantial capabilities but have not been tested or calibrated acrossIWMS. Future model testing and development on IWMS could lead to development of Tier 3 approaches forIWMS.

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

5.29

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

References
Aber, J. S., Pavri, F. & Aber, S. W. Environmental Cycles and Feedback. In: Wetland environments: A Global
Perspective: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Altor, A. E. & Mitsch, W. J. (2008) Methane and carbon dioxide dynamics in wetland mesocosms: Effects ofhydrology and soils. Ecological Applications 18(5): 1307-1320.
Arnesen, A. (2013) Monitoring flood extent in the lower Amazon River floodplain using ALOS/PALSAR
ScanSAR images. Remote Sensing of the Environment 130: 51-61.
Badiou, P., McDougal, R., Pennock, D. & Clark, B. (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration
potential in restored wetlands of the Canadian prairie pothole region. Wetlands Ecology and Management
19(3): 237-256.
Bai, J., Cui, B., Deng, W., Yang, Z., Wang, Q. & Ding, Q. (2007) Soil organic carbon contents of two naturalinland saline-alkaline wetlands in northeastern China. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 62: 447452.
Ballantine, K. & Schneider, R. (2009) Fifty-five years of soil development in restored freshwater depressional
wetlands. Ecological Applications 19(6): 1467-1480.
Bartlett, K. B. & Harriss, R. C. (1993) Review and assessment of methane emissions from wetlands.
Chemosphere 26(1-4): 261-320.
Batjes, N. H. (2009) Harmonized soil profile data for applications at global and continental scales: updates to the
WISE database. Soil Use and Management 25(2): 124-127.
Batjes, N. H. (2010a) A global framework for soil organic carbon stocks under native vegetation for use with thesimple assessment option of the Carbon Benefits Project system. In: p. 72. Wageningen: Carbon Benefits
Project (CBP) and ISRIC World Soil Information.
Batjes, N. H. (2010b) IPCC default soil classes derived from the Harmonized World Soil Data Base (Ver. 1.1).
In: Report 2009/02b, Carbon Benefits Project (CBP) and ISRIC – World Soil Information, Wageningen(with dataset). http://www.isirc.org/isric/Webdocs/Docs/ISIRC_Report_2009_02.pdf.
Batjes, N. H. (2011) Soil organic carbon stocks under native vegetation - Revised estimates for use with thesimple assessment option of the Carbon Benefits Project system. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment
142(3-4): 365-373.
Bedard-Haughn, A., Jongbloed, F., Akkennan, J., Uijl, A., de Jong, E., Yates, T. & Pennock, D. (2006) The
effects of erosional and management history on soil organic carbon stores in ephemeral wetlands ofhummocky agricultural landscapes. Geoderma 135: 296-306.
Belger, L., Forsberg, B. R. & Melack, J. M. (2011) Carbon dioxide and methane emissions from interfluvial
wetlands in the upper Negro River basin, Brazil. Biogeochemistry 105(1-3): 171-183.
Besasie, N. J. & Buckley, M. E. (2012) Carbon Sequestration Potential at Central Wisconsin Wetland Reserve
Program Sites. Soil Science Society of America Journal 76(5): 1904-1910.
Bridgham, S., Megonigal, J., Keller, J., Bliss, N. & Trettin, C. (2006) The carbon balance of North American
wetlands. Wetlands 26(4): 889-916.
Brinson, M. & Malvarez, A. (2002) Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environmental
Conservation 29(2): 115-133.
Cabezas, A., Comin, F. A., Begueria, S. & Trabucchi, M. (2009) Hydrologic and landscape changes in the
Middle Ebro River (NE Spain): implications for restoration and management. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences 13(2): 273-284.
Chen, H., Wang, M., Wu, N., Wang, Y., Zhu, D., Gao, Y. & Peng, C. (2011) Nitrous oxide fluxes from thelittoral zone of a lake on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Environmental monitoring and assessment 182:
545-553.
Chen, H., Wu, N., Gao, Y. H., Wang, Y. F., Luo, P. & Tian, J. Q. (2009) Spatial variations on methane
emissions from Zoige alpine wetlands of Southwest China. Science of the Total Environment 407(3):1097-1104.
Cowardin, L. (1982) Some conceptual and schematic problems in wetland classification and inventory. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 10(1): 57-60.

5.30

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

Dahl, T. (2011) Status and Trends of Wetlands on the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. In: ed. U. S.
Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Report to the Congress. 107 pgs.
David, M. B., McLsaac, G. F., Darmody, R. G. & Omonode, R. A. (2009) Long-Term Changes in Mollisol
Organic Carbon and Nitrogen. Journal of Environmental Quality 38(1): 200-211.
DeSimone, J., Macrae, M. & Bourbonniere, R. (2010) Spatial variability in surface N2O fluxes across a riparianzone and relationships with soil environmental conditions and nutrient supply. Agriculture Ecosystems &Environment 138(1-2): 1-9.
Ding, W. X. & Cai, Z. C. (2007) Methane emission from natural wetlands in China: Summary of years 19952004 studies. Pedosphere 17(4): 475-486.
Ding, W. X., Cai, Z. C., Tsuruta, H. & Li, X. P. (2003) Key factors affecting spatial variation of methane
emissions from freshwater marshes. Chemosphere 51(3): 167-173.
Dynesius, M. & Nilsson, C. (1994) Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern 3rd of theworld. Science 266(5186): 753-762.
Euliss, N. H., Gleason, R. A., Olness, A., McDougal, R. L., Murkin, H. R., Robarts, R. D., Bourbonniere, R. A.
& Warner, B. G. (2006) North American prairie wetlands are important nonforested land-based carbon
storage sites. Science of the Total Environment 361(1-3): 179-188.
FAO. World reference base for soil resources. World Soil Resources Report 84.
Gleason, R. A., Tangen, B. A., Browne, B. A. & Euliss, N. H., Jr. (2009) Greenhouse gas flux from cropland andrestored wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 41(12): 2501-2507.
Hammer, D. A. (1989) Constructed wetland for wastewater treatment – municipal, industrial and agricultural.
Chelsea, Michigan, USA: Lewis Publishers,.
Hefting, M., Bobbink, R. & Janssens, M. (2006) Spatial variation in denitrification and N2O emission in relation
to nitrate removal efficiency in a n-stressed riparian buffer zone. Ecosystems 9(4): 550-563.
Herbst, M., Friborg, T., Ringgaard, R. & Soegaard, H. (2011) Interpreting the variations in atmospheric methane
fluxes observed above a restored wetland. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 151(7): 841-853.
Holst, J., Liu, C., Yao, Z., Bruggemann, N., Zheng, X., Han, X. & Butterbach-Bahl, K. (2007) Importance ofpoint sources on regional nitrous oxide fluxes in semi-arid steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Plant andSoil 296(1-2): 209-226.
Huang, Y., Sun, W., Zhang, W., Yu, Y., Su, Y. & Song, C. (2010) Marshland conversion to cropland innortheast China from 1950 to 2000 reduced the greenhouse effect. Global Change Biology 16(2): 680-695.
Hunter, R. G., Faulkner, S. P. & Gibson, K. A. (2008) The importance of hydrology in restoration of bottomland
hardwood wetland functions. Wetlands 28(3): 605-615.
Hupp, C. R. (1992) Riparian vegetation recovery patterns following stream channelization: a geomorphic
perspective. Ecology 73(4): 1209-1226.
IPCC. (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Japan: IGES.
Jacinthe, P. A., Lal, R. & Kimble, J. M. (2001) Organic carbon storage and dynamics in croplands and terrestrial
deposits as influenced by subsurface tile drainage. Soil Science 166(5): 322-335.
Jackson, R., Allen-Diaz, B., Oates, L. & Tate, K. (2006) Spring-water nitrate increased with removal of livestock
grazing in a california oak savanna. Ecosystems 9(2): 254-267.
Kim, J., Verma, S. B. & Billesbach, D. P. (1999) Seasonal variation in methane emission from a temperate
Phragmites-dominated marsh: effect of growth stage and plant-mediated transport. Global Change
Biology 5(4): 433-440.
Kleiss, B. A. (1996) Sediment Retention in a Bottomland Hardwood Wetland in Eastern Arkansas. Wetlands
16(3): 321-333.
Lavoie, M., Pare, D. & Bergeron, Y. (2005) Impact of global change and forest management on carbon
sequestration in northern forested peatlands. Env. Rev. 13(4): 199-240.
Liebig, M., Dong, X., Mclain, J. & Dell, C. (212) Greenhouse gas flux from managed grasslands in the U.S. In:
Managing agricultural greenhouse gases: Coordinated agricultural research through GRACEnet do
address our changing climate, eds. M. Liebig, A. Franzluebbers & R. Follet, pp. 183-202. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

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

5.31

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

Liu, C., Hoist, J., Yao, Z., Bruggemann, N., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Han, S., Han, X., Tas, B., Susenbeth, A. &Zheng, X. (2009) Growing season methane budget of an Inner Mongolian steppe. Atmospheric
Environment 43(19): 3086-3095.
Lu, J. W., Wang, H. J., Wang, W. D. & Yin, C. Q. (2007) Vegetation and soil properties in restored wetlands
near Lake Taihu, China. Hydrobiologia 581: 151-159.
Marani, L. & Alvala, P. C. (2007) Methane emissions from lakes and floodplains in Pantanal, Brazil.
Atmospheric Environment 41(8): 1627-1633.
Melack, J. M. & Forsberg, B. (2001) Biogeochemistry of Amazon floodplain lakes and associated wetlands. In:
The Biogeochemistry of the Amazon Basin and its Role in a Changing World, eds. M. E. McClain, R. L.
Victoria & J. E. Richey, pp. 235-276. Oxford University Press.
Melack, J. M., Hess, L. L., Gastil, M., Forsberg, B. R., Hamilton, S. K., Lima, I. B. T. & Novo, E. (2004)
Regionalization of methane emissions in the Amazon Basin with microwave remote sensing. Global
Change Biology 10(5): 530-544.
Meyer, C. K., Baer, S. G. & Whiles, M. R. (2008) Ecosystem recovery across a chronosequence of restored
wetlands in the platte river valley. Ecosystems 11(2): 193-208.
Mitsch, W. J. & Gosselink, J. G. (2007) Wetlands. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 572 p.
Mitsch, W. J., Nahlik, A., Wolski, P., Bernal, B., Zhang, L. & Ramberg, L. (2010) Tropical wetlands: seasonalhydrologic pulsing, carbon sequestration, and methane emissions. Wetlands Ecology and Management
18(5): 573-586.
Mitsch, W. J., Wu, X., Nairn, R. W., Weihe, P. E., Wang, N., Deal, R. & Boucher, C. E. (1998) Creating andrestoring wetlands: A whole-ecosystem experiment in self-design. BioScience 48(12): 1019-1030.
Mitsch, W. J., Zhang, L., Stefanik, K. C., Nahlik, A. M., Anderson, C. J., Bernal, B., Hernandez, M. & Song, K.
(2012) Creating Wetlands: Primary Succession, Water Quality Changes, and Self-Design over 15 Years.
Bioscience 62(3): 237-250.
Morse, J. L., Ardon, M. & Bernhardt, E. S. (2012) Greenhouse gas fluxes in southeastern U.S. coastal plain
wetlands under contrasting land uses. Ecological Applications 22(1): 264-280.
Nahlik, A. (2011) Methane emissions from tropical freshwater wetlands located in different climatic zones of
Costa Rica. Global Change Biology 17: 1321-1334.
Nahlik, A. M. & Mitsch, W. J. (2010) Methane Emissions From Created Riverine Wetlands. Wetlands 30(4):783-793.
Nilsson, C. & Berggren, K. (2000) Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river regulation. Bioscience
50(9): 783-792.
Noe, G. & Hupp, C. (2005) Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulation in floodplains of Atlantic Coastal
Plain rivers, USA. Ecological Applications 15(4): 1178-1190.
Norton, J. B., Jungst, L. J., Norton, U., Olsen, H. R., Tate, K. W. & Horwath, W. R. (2011) Soil Carbon andNitrogen Storage in Upper Montane Riparian Meadows. Ecosystems 14(8): 1217-1231.
Oates, L. G., Jackson, A. R. D. & Allen-Diaz, B. (2008) Grazing removal decreases the magnitude of methaneand the variability of nitrous oxide emissions from spring-fed wetlands of a California oak savanna.
Wetlands Ecology and Management 16: 395-404.
Ogle, S. (2005) Agricultural management impacts on soil organic matter storage under moist and dry climaticconditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 72(1): 87-121.
Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J., Easter, M., Williams, S., Killian, K. & Paustian, K. (2010) Scale and uncertainty inmodeled soil organic carbon stock changes for US croplands using a process-based model. Global
Change Biology 16(2): 810-822.
Ogle, S. M., Breidt, F. J. & Paustian, K. (2006) Bias and variance in model results associated with spatial scalingof measurements for parameterization in regional assessments. Global Change Biology 12(3): 516-523.
Page, K. & Dalal, R. (2011) Contribution of natural and drained wetland systems to carbon stocks, CO2, N2O,
and CH4 fluxes: an Australian perspective. Soil Research 49(5): 377-388.
Parton, W. J., Hartman, M., Ojima, D. & Schimel, D. (1998) Daycent and Its Land Surface Submodel:
Description and Testing. Global and Planetary Change 19(1-4): 35-48.

5.32

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

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

Parton, W. J., Ojima, D. S. & Schimel, D. S. (1994) Environmental-Change in Grasslands - Assessment Using
Models. Climatic Change 28(1-2): 111-141.
Parton, W. J., Schimel, D. S., Cole, C. V. & Ojima, D. S. (1987) Analysis of factors controlling soil organic
matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51: 1173-1179.
Pennock, D., Yates, T., Bedard-Haughn, A., Phipps, K., Farrell, R. & McDougal, R. (2010) Landscape controlson N2O and CH4 emissions from freshwater mineral soil wetlands of the Canadian Prairie Pothole region.
Geoderma 155(3-4): 308-319.
Phillips, R. & Beeri, O. (2008) The role of hydropedologic vegetation zones in greenhouse gas emissions for
agricultural wetland landscapes. Catena 72(3): 386-394.
Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Bain, M. B., Karr, J. R., Prestegaard, K. L., Richter, B. D., Sparks, R. E. & Stromberg, J.
C. (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47(11): 769-784.
Powers, J. S., Read, J. M., Denslow, J. S. & Guzman, S. M. (2004) Estimating soil carbon fluxes following landcover change: a test of some critical assumptions for a region in Costa Rica. Global Change Biology 10(2):170-181.
Pulliam, W. M. (1993) Carbon dioxide and methane exports from a southeastern floodplain swamp. Ecological
Monographs 63(1): 29-53.
Rodriguez-Murillo, J. C., Almendros, G. & Knicker, H. (2011) Wetland soil organic matter composition in a
Mediterranean semiarid wetland (Las Tablas de Daimiel, Central Spain): Insight into different carbon
sequestration pathways. Organic Geochemistry 42(7): 762-773.
Rosenqvist, A., Forsberg, B. R., Pimentel, T., Rauste, Y. A. & Richey, J. E. (2002) The use of spaceborne radar
data to model inundation patterns and trace gas emissions in the central Amazon floodplain. International
Journal of Remote Sensing 23(7): 1303-1328.
Saarnio, S., Winiwarter, W. & Leitao, J. (2009) Methane release from wetlands and watercourses in Europe.
Atmospheric Environment 43(7): 1421-1429.
Semeniuk, C. & Semeniuk, V. (1995) A geomorphic approach to global classification for inland wetlands.
Vegetatio 118(1-2): 103-124.
Shaw, P. A. & Bryant, R. G. (2011) Chapter 15: Pans, Playas and Salt Lakes. In: Arid Zone Geomorphology:
Process, Form and Change in Drylands, Third Edition, ed. D. S. G. Thomas, pp. 373-401. New York,
NY: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Song, C., Xu, X., Tian, H. & Wang, Y. (2009) Ecosystem-atmosphere exchange of CH4 and N2O and ecosystem
respiration in wetlands in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeastern China. Global Change Biology 15(3): 692-705.
Song, C. C., Yan, B. X., Wang, Y. S., Wang, Y. Y., Lou, Y. J. & Zhao, Z. C. (2003) Fluxes of carbon dioxideand methane from swamp and impact factors in Sanjiang Plain, China. Chinese Science Bulletin 48(24):2749-2753.
Spahni, R., Wania, R., Neef, L., van Weele, M., Pison, I., Bousquet, P., Frankenberg, C., Foster, P. N., Joos, F.,
Prentice, I. C. & van Velthoven, P. (2011) Constraining global methane emissions and uptake byecosystems. Biogeosciences 8(6): 1643-1665.
Staff, S. S. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2ndedition.Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
van Wesemael, B., Paustian, K., Meersmans, J., Goidts, E., Barancikova, G. & Easter, M. (2010) Agricultural
management explains historic changes in regional soil carbon stocks. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(33): 14926-14930.
Walker, J., Geron, C., Vose, J. & Swank, W. (2002) Nitrogen trace gas emissions from a riparian ecosystem insouthern Appalachia. Chemosphere 49(10): 1389-1398.
Wang, Y., Liu, J. S., Wang, J. D. & Sun, C. Y. (2012) Effects of Wetland Reclamation on Soil Nutrient Losses
and Reserves in Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 11(3): 512-520.
Wilson, J. O., Crill, P. M., Bartlett, K. B., Sebacher, D. I., Harriss, R. C. & Sass, R. L. (1989) Seasonal variationof methane emissions from a temperate swamp. Biogeochemistry 8(1): 55-71.
Yang, L., Lu, F., Wang, X. K., Duan, X. N., Song, W. Z., Sun, B. F., Chen, S., Zhang, Q. Q., Hou, P. Q., Zheng,
F. X., Zhang, Y., Zhou, X. P., Zhou, Y. J. & Ouyang, Z. Y. (2012) Surface methane emissions fromdifferent land use types during various water levels in three major drawdown areas of the Three Gorges
Reservoir. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 117.

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

5.33

Chapter 5: Inland Wetlands Mineral Soils

Yao, Z. (2010) Spatial variability of N2O, CH4 and CO2 fluxes within the Xilin River catchment of Inner
Mongolia, China: a soil core study. Plant and Soil 331: 341-359.
Zhang, Y., Li, C. S., Trettin, C. C., Li, H. & Sun, G. (2002) An integrated model of soil, hydrology, andvegetation for carbon dynamics in wetland ecosystems. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16(4).
Zhu, Z. (2010) A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhousegas fluxex inecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios. In: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report, p. 190.

5.34

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

CHAPTER 6

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FORWASTEWATER TREATMENT

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

6.1

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Coordinating Lead Author s
Yoshitaka Ebie (Japan) and Sirintornthep Towprayoon (Thailand)

Lead Authors
Chart Chiemchaisri (Thailand), Ülo Mander (Estonia) and Sandra Furlan Nogueira (Brazil)Cont ributing Author
Baasansuren Jamsranjav (IPCC TFI TSU)

Review Editors
Christopher Gordon (Ghana) and Detelina Rumyanova Petrova (Bulgaria)

6.2

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Contents
6

Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment .......................................................................................... 5
6.1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5

6.1.1

Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment.............................................................................. 5

6.1.2

Relation to 2006 IPCC Guidelines................................................................................................. 8

6.2

Methane emissions from constructed wetlands................................................................................. 10

6.2.1

Methodological issues ................................................................................................................. 10

6.2.1.1

Choice of method ................................................................................................................ 11

6.2.1.2

Choice of emission factors .................................................................................................. 13

6.2.1.3

Choice of activity data......................................................................................................... 13

6.2.2

Time series consistency............................................................................................................... 14

6.2.3

Uncertainties............................................................................................................................... 14

6.2.4

QA/QC, Completeness and Reporting ......................................................................................... 15

6.3

Nitrous oxide emissions from constructed wetlands ........................................................................ 16

6.3.1

Methodological issues ................................................................................................................. 16

6.3.1.1

Choice of method ................................................................................................................ 16

6.3.1.2

Choice of emission factors .................................................................................................. 19

6.3.1.3

Choice of activity data......................................................................................................... 19

6.3.2

Time series consistency............................................................................................................... 20

6.3.3

Uncertainties............................................................................................................................... 20

6.3.4

QA/QC, Completeness and Reporting ......................................................................................... 20

References ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
Annex 6A.1 Estimation of default emission factors for CH4 and N2O in constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

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

6.3

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Equations
Equation 6.1

CH4 emissions from constructed wetlands ............................................................................ 11

Equation 6.2

CH4 emission factor for constructed wetlands ....................................................................... 13

Equation 6.3

Total organically degradable material in domestic wastewater .............................................. 14

Equation 6.4

Total organically degradable material in industrial wastewater .............................................. 14

Equation 6.5

N2O emissions from constructed wetlands ............................................................................ 16

Equation 6.6

Total nitrogen in domestic wastewater .................................................................................. 19

Equation 6.7

Total nitrogen in industrial wastewater ................................................................................. 19

FiguresFigure 6.1

Classification and configuration of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment.................. 6

Figure 6.2

Wastewater treatment systems and discharge pathways .......................................................... 9

Figure 6.3

Decision tree for CH4 emissions from constructed wetlands .............................................

Figure 6.4

Decision tree for N2O emission from constructed wetland .................................................... 18

Figure 6A1.1

The relationship between inflow TOC loading and CH4-C emission (left column) and between
inflow TN loading and N2O-N emission (right columns) in SF, HSSF, and VSSF CWs. In allcases, p < 0.05. ................................................................................................................... 26

12

TablesTable 6.1

Selected factors impacting CH4 and N2O emissions in constructed wetlands .......................... 8

Table 6.2

Influent total organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN) values, relevant CH4-C and N2ON emissions, and share (%) of CH4-C and N2O-N in the initial loading of TOC and TN inconstructed wetlands ............................................................................................................ 8

Table 6.3

Coverage of wastewater types and greenhouse gas emissions from constructed wetlands .... 10

Table 6.4

Methane Correction Factors by type of constructed wetland ................................................ 13

Table 6.5

Default uncertainty ranges for domestic and industrial wastewater ...................................... 15

Table 6.6

Example of N content in some nitrogen-rich industrial wastewater ...................................... 20

Table 6.7

Nitrous oxide methodology default uncertainties ................................................................. 20

Table 6A1. 1

Average, standard error, median, 2.5% and 97.5% percentile values of CH4-C and N2O-N
emission factors (%) for different types of constructed wetlands.......................................... 25

6.4

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

6 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FORWASTEWATER TREATMENT
6.1

INTRODUCTION

6.1.1

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Wetland ecosystems can act as sources, sinks, or transformers of nutrients and carbon (C) (Mitsch andGossenlink, 1993). This ability of wetlands has led to a widespread use of natural and constructed wetlands(CWs) for water quality improvement (Brix, 1997).
Constructed wetlands systems are fully human-made wetlands for wastewater treatment, which apply various
technological designs, using natural wetland processes, associated with wetland hydrology, soils, microbes andplants. Thus, CWs are engineered systems that have been designed and constructed to utilize the naturalprocesses involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to assist in treating
wastewater. Synonymous terms to “constructed” include “man-made”, “engineered” or “artificial” (Vymazal,2007).
“Semi-natural treatment wetlands” (SNTWs) for wastewater treatment are natural wetland systems that havebeen modified for this purpose. Modifications made within these systems are usually based on increasing thevolume of water reserved (i.e. dams) and constructing channels for targeting the influent and effluent. Thesesystems can be found in both freshwater and coastal wetlands. The functioning of SNTWs is similar to those of
surface flow CWs.
This chapter only provides guidance for CWs and SNTWs for wastewater treatment. Decision tree for finding
the appropriate guidance chapter within this supplement or the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines) is provided as Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1 of this supplement.
It is good practice that reporting of emissions from wastewater treatment be complete, covering all domestic andindustrial wastewater. CW is a wastewater treatment pathway not specifically described in 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. It is good practice that countries apply the guidance in this chapter on “constructed wetlands”, if
emissions from CWs represent a key wastewater treatment pathway. In accordance with Chapter 4 of Volume 1,
those subcategories that together contribute more than 60 percent to a key category should be treated as
significant1. When wastewater treatment is identified as a key category, key pathways are identified in the same
way as significant subcategories. When countries have access to data and information on wastewater treatment
by CWs, it is a good practice to use this guidance to estimate emissions from CWs.
Emissions from CWs and SNTWs must be reported in the waste sector. If freshwater and coastal wetlands are
modified to SNTWs, inventory compilers should check with relevant land-use category in this supplement toavoid double-counting. Constructed wetlands and SNTWs can be used to improve the quality of collected
wastewater including domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater such as wastewater from processing factories
of agricultural products and dairy farms, collected runoff from agricultural lands and leachate from landfills. For
some wastewaters, CWs are the sole treatment; for others, they are one component in a sequence of treatment
processes (US EPA, 1995).
There are various types of CWs used for treatment of wastewater, the following paragraphs highlight the mainclassification of CWs.

TYPE OF CONSTRU CTED WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Constructed wetlands may be categorized according to various design parameters, but the three most importantcriteria are hydrology (water surface flow and subsurface flow), macrophyte growth form (emergent, submerged,
free-floating, and floating leaved plants) and flow path (horizontal and vertical) (see Figure 6.1; Vymazal 2007,2011). Different types of CWs may be combined (which are called hybrid or combined systems) to utilize thespecific advantages of the different systems. For instance, to guarantee more effective removal of ammonia andtotal nitrogen (N), during the 1990s and 2000s an enhanced design approach combined vertical and horizontal
flow CWs to achieve higher treatment efficiency (Vymazal, 2011).
1

An assessment of significance can be based on expert judgment following the protocol described in Annex 2A.1 of Chapter
2, Volume 1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Protocol for Expert Elicitation). Information concerning the percentage of
population connected to wastewater treatment, which may facilitate expert judgment can be obtained from internationalsources (notably UNSTAT or FAO).

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

6.5

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Figure 6.1

Classification and configuration of constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment
Constructed Wetlands

Surface Flow

Subsurface Flow

Free-Floating plants

Horizontal flow

Floating leaved plants

Submerged plants
Vertical flow
Emergent plants

Hybrid system
Note: Adapted from Vymazal, 2007, 2011. Lower part is original. Most of SNTWs represent surface flow type wetlands.

Co nst ructed Wet lands w it h S urface Flow
Constructed wetlands with surface flow (SF), known as free water surface CWs, contain areas of open water andfloating, submerged, and emergent plants (Kadlec and Wallace 2008). The shallow water depth, low flow
velocity, and presence of plant stalks and litter regulate water flow and, particularly in long, narrow channels(Crites et al. 2005), ensure better water purification. The most common applications for SF CWs are for tertiary
treatment of municipal wastewater and also for stormwater runoff and mine drainage waters (Kadlec and Knight
1996; Kadlec and Wallace 2008). SF CWs are suitable in all climates, including the far north (Mander andJenssen 2003).

Co nst ructed Wet lands w it h S ubs urface Flo w
In horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands (HSSF CWs), the wastewater flows from the inlet and flows
slowly through the porous medium under the surface of a bed planted with emergent vegetation to the outlet
where it is collected before leaving via a water level control structure (Vymazal et al., 1998). During passage thewastewater comes into contact with a network of aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic zones. Most of the bed is
anoxic/anaerobic because of permanent saturation of the beds. The aerobic zones occur around roots andrhizomes that leak oxygen into the substrate (Brix 1987). HSSF CWs are commonly sealed with a liner toprevent seepage and to ensure the controllable outflow. HSSF CWs are commonly used for secondary treatmentof municipal wastewater although many other applications have been reported in the literature (Vymazal andKröpfelova 2008). The oxygen transport capacity in these systems is insufficient to ensure aerobic
decomposition, thus, anaerobic processes play an important role in HSSF CWs (Vymazal and Kröpfelova 2008).
Some HSSF CWs, having the ability to insulate the surface of the bed, are capable of operation under colder
conditions than SF systems (Mander and Jenssen 2003).

6.6

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands (VSSF CWs) comprise a flat bed of graded gravel topped withsand planted with macrophytes. VSSF CWs are fed with large intermittent wastewater flows, which flood thesurface of the bed, then percolate down through the bed and are collected by a drainage network at the bottom.
The bed drains completely which allows air to refill the bed. Thus, VSSF CWs provide greater oxygen transfer
into the bed, producing a nitrified (high NO3-) effluent (Cooper et al., 1996; Cooper 2005). Consequently, VSSF
CWs do not provide suitable conditions for denitrification to complete conversion to gaseous nitrogen forms,
which then escape to the atmosphere.
In recently developed tidal (“fill and drain”) flow systems better contact of wastewater with the microorganisms
growing on the media is guaranteed. This significantly enhances the purification processes (Vymazal 2011).

Hybrid Co ns tructed Wet lands
Various types of CWs can be combined to achieve higher removal efficiency, especially for nitrogen. The design
consists of two stages, several parallel vertical flow (VF) beds followed by 2 or 3 horizontal flow (HF) beds inseries (VSSF-HSSF system). The VSSF wetland is intended to remove organics and suspended solids and topromote nitrification, while in HSSF wetland denitrification and further removal of organics and suspended
solids occur.
Another configuration is a HSSF-VSSF system. A large HSSF bed is placed first to remove organics andsuspended solids and to promote denitrification. An intermittently loaded small VF bed is used for additionalremoval of organics and suspended solids and for nitrification of ammonia into nitrate. To maximize removal of
total N, however, the nitrified effluent from the VF bed must be recycled to a sedimentation tank (Vymazal2011).
VSSF-HSSF and HSSF-VSSF CWs are the most common hybrid systems, but in general, any kind of CWs
could be combined to achieve higher treatment efficiency (Vymazal 2007).

GREENHOUSE GASES EMI SSIONS FROM VARIOUS TYPES OFCONSTRUCTED WETLANDSEmissions of greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are a byproduct of CWs, theimportance of which has been increasing recently. CH4 is produced by methanogenesis whereas N2O is a productof denitrification and/or nitrification of N compounds by microorganisms. Among several environmental factors
controlling the greenhouse gases emissions, the availability of C and nutrients (especially N) which directly
depend on wastewater loading, temperature, hydrological regime (pulsing vs steady-state flow), groundwater
depth, moisture of the filter material (water filled soil pores (WFSP)), and the presence of aerenchyma plants
play a significant role (see Table 6.1).
Soil temperature, oxidation reduction potential and soil moisture (WFSP, depth of the ground water level) are themost significant factors affecting the emissions of CH4 from CWs (Mander et al., 2003; Van der Zaag et al.,2010). Several investigations have shown that a water table deeper than 20 cm from the surface of the wetlands
and/or water-logged soils oxidizes most of the CH4 fluxes (Soosaar et al., 2011; Salm et al., 2012). Fluxes of
N2O, however do not show a clear correlation with soil/air temperature, and significant emissions of N2O fromCWs have been observed in winter (Søvik et al., 2006). Likewise, freezing and thawing cycles enhance N2O
emissions (Yu et al., 2011). The hydrological regime also plays a significant role in greenhouse gases emissions
from CWs. Altor and Mitsch (2008) and Mander et al., (2011) demonstrated that the intermittent loading(pulsing) regime and fluctuating water table in CWs enhance CO2 emissions and significantly decrease CH4
emissions. N2O emissions, in contrast, do not show a clear pattern regarding the pulsing regime.
Table 6.2 shows CH4 and N2O conversion rates derived from the relationship between the initial (input) C and N
loadings and respective CH4 and N2O emissions from the main types of CWs. There is a significant positive
correlation (p < 0.05) between the initial loadings and CH4 and N2O emissions from both SF and VSSF CWs,
whereas no correlation was found for HSSF CWs types. Seemingly, high variability of conditions andcombination of several factors in HSSF CWs may be the reason for that. The limited amount of available data
did not allow derivation of reliable relationships for HSSF CWs. These shares (%) can be used as a base for the
calculation of emission factors for Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies. The high emission factor for CH4 from SF
CWs (Table 6.4) is thought to be due to the additional CH4 from sediments accumulated at the bottom of SF
CWs.

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

6.7

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

TABLE 6.1
SELECTED FACTORS IMPACTING CH4 AND N2O EMISSIONS IN CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Factors/processes

CH4

N2O

Higher water/soil/air temperature

Increase in almost all cases 1-6 withfew exceptions 7

No clear relationship 1-4, 7, 8Higher moisture of soil or filter material(higher value of WFSP)

Clear increase 9, 10

Decrease 9, 10Higher wastewater loading

Increase 1-4, 11, 12

Increase 1, 2, 4, 13

Presence of aerenchymal plants

Increase 14-16
Decrease (depends on conditions) 17

Increase 16, 18
Decrease 16, 19

Pulsing hydrological regime(intermittent loading)

Clear decrease 9, 20

Increase 9, 21, 22
Decrease in some SF CWs 23

Deeper water table (from the surface) in
HSSF CWs

Decrease 9, 10

Increase 9, 10

Source:1

Mander and Jenssen 2003; 2 Mander et al., 2005; 3 Teiter and Mander 2005; 4 Søvik et al., 2006; 5 Kayranli et al., 2010; 6 Van der Zaag etal., 2010; 7 Søvik and Kløve 2007; 8 Fey et al., 1999; 9 Mander et al., 2011; 10 Yang et al., 2013; 11 Tanner et al., 1997; 12 Tai et al., 2002; 13
Hunt et al., 2009; 14 Inamori et al., 2007; 15 Inamori et al., 2008; 16 Wang et al., 2008; 17 Maltais-Landry et al., 2009; 18 Rückauf et al.,
2004; 19 Silvan et al., 2005; 20 Altor and Mitsch 2008; 21 Jia et al., 2011; 22 Van de Riet et al., 2013; 23 Hernandez and Mitsch 2006

TABLE 6.2
INFLUENT TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC) AND TOTAL NITROGEN (TN) VALUES, RELEVANT CH4-C AND N2O-N
EMISSIONS, AND SHARE (%) OF CH4-C AND N2O-N IN THE INITIAL LOADING OF TOC AND TN IN CONSTRUCTEDWETLANDS

Type of
CW
SF
HSSF
VSSF

Influent TOC*
(mg C m-2 h-1)

CH4-C emission*(mg CH4-C m-2 h-1)

1.04-173.6 (10)0.15-181.0 (10.7) 1-

1-11

11

15.0-2190.2(177) 8, 10-12, 15-20

0.048-17.5 (1.7) 8, 10,17.88-1417.50(317) 6, 8, 10, 12

11, 15-20

0.3-5.4 (1.3) 6, 8, 10, 12

CH4-C/TOC**(%)
42 (20)12 (6.9)
1.17 (0.33)

Influent TN*(mg N m-2 h-1 )N2O-Nemission*(mg N2O-N
m-2 h-1)

0.76-202.8(12) 2, 3, 6-11, 21-23
1.04-295.20(40) 6, 10, 12, 15-17,0.009-0.65(0.03) 2, 6-11, 21-23
0.014-0.89(0.10) 6, 10-12, 15-

24, 25102.5-2105.0(155) 6, 8, 10, 12-14

17, 25

N2O-N/TN**(%)
0.13 (0.02)
0.79 (0.4)

0.033-0.424(0.03) 6, 8, 10, 11,12-14

0.023 (0.005)* Range and standard error (in parentheses)** Average and standard error (in parentheses)
Source: 1 Tanner et al., 1997; 2 Wild et al., 2001; 3 Tai et al., 2002; 4 Johansson et al., 2004; 5 Stadmark and Leonardson 2005; 6 Søvik etal., 2006; 7 Søvik and Kløve 2007; 8 Gui et al., 2007; 9 Ström et al., 2006; 10 Liu et al., 2009; 11 Van der Zaag et al., 2010; 12 Teiter andMander 2005; 13 Inamori et al., 2007; 14 Wang et al., 2008; 15 Mander et al., 2003; 16 Mander et al., 2008, 17 Liikanen et al., 2006; 18
Garcia et al., 2007; 19 Picek et al., 2007; 20 Chiemchaisri et al., 2009; 21 Xue et al., 1999; 22 Johansson et al., 2003; 23 Wu et al., 2009; 24
Inamori et al., 2008; 25 Fey et al., 1999

6.1.2

Relation to 2006 IPCC Guidelines

This chapter is a supplement to Chapter 6 Wastewater Treatment and Discharge of Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines include a section on estimating CH4 emissions from uncollected
wastewater. This Wetlands Supplement includes guidance on estimation of CH4 and N2O emissions from CWs
and SNTWs. Emission factors for CH4 and N2O emissions from CWs and SNTWs treating industrial wastewater
are the same as those for treating domestic wastewater. CO2 emissions are not included in greenhouse gases
emissions from wastewater treatment as CO2 from wastewater is considered biogenic.

6.8

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Figure 6.2

Wastewater treatment systems and discharge pathways
Domestic and Industrial Wastewater

Collected

Uncollected

Untreated

Rivers, Lakes,
Estuaries, Sea

TreatedTreatedStagnant
sewer
Sewered toplant

Aerobic treatment

Treated on site
Domestic: latrine,
septic tankIndustrial: On site
plant

Untreated

Rivers, Lakes,
Estuarine, Sea

To ground

Anaerobic treatment
Constructed wetlands,
Semi-natural treatment
wetlands

SludgeAnaerobic
Digestion

ReactorLand
Disposal

LagoonLandfill orIncineration

Note: This figure was modified from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Emissions from boxes with bold frames are accounted for in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. This supplement provides emission factors for grey-coloured box: CWs and SNTWs for treatment of collected and uncollected
wastewater.

Coverage o f w as tew ater ty pes and g ases
Chapter 6 of Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides guidance on estimating CH4 and N2O emissions
from domestic wastewater using emission factors based on treatment technology. Constructed wetlands in this
supplement are an additional treatment technology. The emission factors provided in this chapter cover CWs and
SNTWs (collected/uncollected and treated; see Figure 6.2).
Methodology is provided for estimation of CH4 and N2O emissions from both domestic and industrial
wastewater (Table 6.3). Indirect N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff from agricultural land are covered in
Chapter 11, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Emissions from processing factories of agricultural
products and dairy farm wastewater, collected runoff from agricultural lands and leachate from landfills are
considered as industrial wastewater. According to Chapter 3 of Volume 5 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, allamount of degradable organic carbon (DOC) in solid waste is subjected to estimation of CH4 in landfill site, andcarbon loss with leachate is not considered because of its low percentage. That means that CH4 emissions fromleachate treatment are already covered, and are not included in Section 6.2, while N2O emissions are consideredin Section 6.3 of this supplement. If CH4 emissions from CWs are accounted for, the amount of DOC in theleachate must be subtracted from that in the solid waste to avoid double counting. Because the C in the leachate
is normally presented in terms of COD, conversion rate from COD in the leachate to TOC in the solid waste isrequired to subtract the amount of DOC entering the CW from that in the solid waste. This logic can be appliedin Tier 2 or 3 estimation.

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

6.9

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

TABLE 6.3
COVERAGE OF WASTEWATER TYPES AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Type of wastewater

MethaneNitrous oxide

Domestic wastewater

Included in this supplement (Section
6.2) with provision of methanecorrection factors (MCFs)

Included in this supplement (Section
6.3) with the provision of default
emission factors

Industrial wastewater including
wastewater from processing
factories of agricultural products
and dairy farms *Included in this supplement (Section
6.2) with provision of MCFs

Included in this supplement (Section
6.3) with provision of default emission
factors

Collected runoff fromagricultural lands

Emissions can be calculated using thesame methodology as for industrial
wastewater and are covered in this
supplement (Section 6.2)

Emissions can be calculated using thesame methodology as for industrial
wastewater and are covered in this
supplement (Section 6.3)
Note: Indirect N2O emissions from N
leaching and runoff from agriculturalland are considered in Chapter 11,
Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. If agricultural runoff iscollected and treated by CWs or
SNTWs, the amount of N flowing into
CWs or SNTWs must be subtracted to
avoid double counting.

Leachate from landfill

The amount of DOC leached from asolid waste disposal site is notconsidered in the estimation of DOCf.
Generally the amount of DOC lostwith the leachate is less than 1 percent
and can be neglected in thecalculations (Chapter 3, Volume 5,2006 IPCC Guidelines) and is notconsidered in this supplement

Emissions can be calculated using thesame methodology as for industrial
wastewater and are covered in this
supplement (Section 6.3)

*Dairy farm wastewater does not cover the manure itself but comes from other activities in the farm.

6.2

METHANE EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTEDWETLANDS

6.2.1

Methodological issues

Methane emissions are a function of the organic materials loaded into CWs and the emission factor.
Three tiers of methods for estimation of CH4 from CWs are summarised below.
The Tier 1 method applies default values for the emission factor and activity parameters. This method is
considered good practice for countries with limited data.
The Tier 2 method follows the same method as Tier 1 but allows for incorporation of country-specific emission
factor and country-specific activity data. For example, a specific emission factor based on field measurements
can be incorporated under this method.
The Tier 3 method is used by countries with good data and advanced methodologies. A more advanced countryspecific method can be based on treatment system-specific data such as plant species, climate, temperature,seasonal effects and composition of wastewater.
In general anaerobic conditions occur in CWs. However, CH4 generated by CWs is usually not recovered andcombusted in a flare or energy device, and thus CH4 recovery is not considered here.
The amount of vegetation harvested from CWs is generally very small and its impact on total emissions fromCWs is considered insignificant. Moreover, the harvesting is usually not performed on regular basis and thequantity of harvested biomass is typically not recorded so it is not considered in this supplement.

6.10

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

6.2.1.1

C HOICE OF METHOD

A decision tree for domestic and industrial wastewater is shown in Figure 6.3.
The general equation for estimating CH4 emissions from CWs treating domestic and industrial wastewater isgiven in Equation 6.1.

EQUATION 6.1
CH4 EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
∑(

)

∑(

)

Where:
CH4 emissions=

CH4 emissions in inventory year, kg CH4/yr

TOWj

=

total organics in the wastewater entering the CW in inventory year, kg
BOD/yr or kg COD/yr

EFj=emission factor, kg CH4/kg BOD (for domestic wastewater only) or kg
CH4/kg COD (for both domestic and industrial wastewater)
If more than one type of CW is used in an industrial sector this factor would
be a TOWi,j-weighted average.

i=industrial sectorj=type of CW2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

6.11

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Decision tree for CH 4 emissions from constructed wetlands

Figure 6.3
Start

Is CW used for
wastewater treatmentin the country?

No

Use the 2006 IPCC Guidelines forthe estimation of emissions fromother wastewater treatment systemand discharge pathways

No

Collect or estimate activity data on
wastewater treatment in CW

Yes

Are activity data on
wastewater treatment in CW
avaialable?

Yes

Are measurement orsite-specific measurement data
available for CW?

Is a country-specific method
available?

Yes

Yes

Estimate emissions
using site-specificmeasurement data
Box 3: Tier 3NoNo

Are country-specificemission factors available
for CW?

Yes

Estimate emissions using countryspecific emission factor
Box 2: Tier2

No

Is CW a key pathway of
key category?

Yes

No

Estimate country-specific Bo and
MCF

Estimate emissions using default
emission factors
Box 1: Tier 1

6.12

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

6.2.1.2

C HOICE OF EMISSION FA CTORSThe emission factor for wastewater treatment using CWs is a function of the maximum CH4 producing potential(Bo) and the methane correction factor (MCF).

EQUATION 6.2
CH4 EMISSION FACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Where:
EFj=

emission factor, kg CH4/kg BOD or kg CH4/ kg COD

j=type of CWs

Bo=

maximum CH4 producing capacity, kg CH4/kg BOD or kg CH4/ kg COD

MCFj

=

methane correction factor (fraction), See Table 6.4

Good practice is to use country-specific data for Bo, where available, expressed in terms of kg CH4/kg BOD
removed for domestic wastewater or kg CH4/kg COD removed for industrial wastewater to be consistent withthe activity data. If country-specific data are not available, the following default values can be used.
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide default Bo values for domestic and industrial wastewater: 0.6 kg CH4/kg
BOD and 0.25 kg CH4/kg COD, respectively
The MCF indicates the extent to which Bo is realised in each type of CWs. It is an indication of the degree towhich the system is anaerobic. The proposed MCFs for SF, HSSF and VSSF CWs are provided in Table 6.4 andderived from literature-based analysis of CH4 conversion rates. Each MCF in Table 6.4 is calculated from therelation of initial TOC loading to CH4 emission flux derived from references provided in Table 6.2.
TABLE 6.4
METHANE CORRECTION FACTORS (MCF) BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTED WETLAND (CW)CW typeSurface flow (SF)

MCF
0.4

Range
0.08-0.7

Horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF)

0.1

0.07-0.13

Vertical subsurface flow (VSSF)

0.01

0.004-0.016

These MCF values are based on actual measurement data derived under different operating and environmental
conditions thus factors such as vegetation types and temperature effect have been taken into account. Based on
the reported scientific data, there was insufficient information to differentiate the MCF values by vegetation typeand operating temperature. Nevertheless, these influencing factors can be considered for the estimation using
higher tier approach. There was insufficient actual measurement data of hybrid systems to derive default MCF
values. If the area fractions of SF, VSSF and HSSF for hybrid systems can be determined, the MCF values of thehybrid systems can be estimated as the area-weighted average of the MCFs for SF, VSSF and HSSF. Most
commonly, SNTWs are the SF type (Kadlec and Wallace, 2008), therefore, the default MCF of 0.4 can be used.
If the type of CW cannot be recognized, the MCF for surface flow can be used as a conservative value.
Otherwise country-specific data should be used in higher tier method.

6.2.1.3

C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DA TA

The activity data for this source category is the amount of organic materials (TOW) in the wastewater treated by
the CW. This parameter is a function of the population served by the CW system, and the biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) generation per person per day. BOD default values for selected countries are provided in the2006 IPCC Guidelines (Table 6.4, Chapter 6 of Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). In the case of industrial
wastewater, COD loading to the CW system per day (kg COD/day) can be used. Examples of industrial
wastewater data for various industries are provided in Table 6.9, Chapter 6, Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines.

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

6.13

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

If industrial wastewater is released into domestic sewers, it is estimated together with domestic wastewater .
The equations for TOW are:

EQUATION 6.3
TOTAL ORGANICALLY DEGRADABLE MATERIAL IN DOMESTIC WASTEWATEREQUATION 6.4
TOTAL ORGANICALLY DEGRADABLE MATERIAL IN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER

Where:
TOWj=

total organics in domestic wastewater treated in the CW in inventory year (kgBOD/year)

TOWi,j=total organics in wastewater from industry i treated in the CW in inventory year (kgCOD/year)i=

industrial sector

Pj=population whose wastewater is treated in the CW. The population should be
subtracted from total the population used in Equation 6.3 in Chapter 6, Volume 5 in
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to avoid double-counting.

BOD=

per capita BOD generation in inventory year (g BOD/person/day)I=

correction factor for additional industrial BOD discharged into sewers (for collected
the default is 1.25, for uncollected the default is 1.00 as given in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines)

CODi

=

COD concentration in wastewater from industry i entering the CW in inventory year
(kg COD/m3)

Wi,j

=

daily flow rate of industrial wastewater treated by the CW, m3/day

6.2.2

Time series consistency

The same method and data sets should be used for estimating CH4 emissions from CWs treating wastewater foreach year. The MCF for different treatment systems should not change from year to year, unless such a change isjustifiable and documented. If the share of wastewater treated in different treatment systems changes over thetime period, the reasons for these changes should be documented.
For activity data that are derived from population data, countries must determine the fraction of the population
served by CW systems. If data on the share of wastewater treated are missing for one or more years, the splicing
techniques such as use of surrogate data and extrapolation/interpolation described in Chapter 5, Time Series
Consistency, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines can be used to estimate emissions. Emissions fromwastewater treated in CWs typically do not fluctuate significantly from year to year.

6.2.3

Uncertainties

Chapter 3 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides guidance on quantifying uncertainties in practice.
It includes guidance on eliciting and using expert judgments which in combination with empirical data canprovide overall uncertainty estimates. Table 6.5 provides default uncertainty ranges for emission factors andactivity data for domestic and industrial wastewater. The following parameters are believed to be very uncertain:The quantity of wastewater that is treated in CWs or SNTWs.



The fraction of organics that is converted anaerobically to CH4 during wastewater collection. This will
depend on hydraulic retention time and temperature in the wastewater collection pipeline, as well as other6.14

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

factors including the presence of anaerobic condition in the wastewater collection pipeline and possiblycomponents that are toxic to anaerobic bacteria in some industrial wastewater.


The amount of industrial TOW from small or medium-scale industries and rural domestic wastewater that isdischarged into CWs in developing countries.



Different plant species applied in CWs that are involved in gas exchange.
TABLE 6.5
DEFAULT UNCERTAINTY RANGES FOR DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Parameter

Uncertainty range*

Emission factor
Maximum CH4 producing capacity (Bo)Methane correction factor (MCF)± 30%
SF: ± 79%
HSSF: ± 31%
VSSF: ± 56%

Activity data
Human population± 5%

BOD per person± 30%

Correction factor for additional industrial BOD
discharged into sewers (I)COD loading from industrial wastewater

For uncollected, the uncertainty is zero %. For collected theuncertainty is ± 20%-55%, +103%* Uncertainty of MCF calculated as 95% confidence interval is shown in Table 1 in the Annex. Uncertainty in the COD
loading from industrial wastewater is calculated based on Table 6.10 in Chapter 6 in Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Others are the same to Table 6.7 in Chapter 6 in Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6.2.4

QA/QC, Completeness and Reporting

It is good practice to conduct quality control (QC) checks and quality assurance (QA) procedures as outlined in
Chapter 6, QA/QC and Verification, Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Some fundamental QA/QC
procedures include:
Activity Data
 Make sure that the sum of the wastewater flows for all types of wastewater treatment processes including
CWs equal 100 percent of the wastewater collected/uncollected and treated in the country.


Inventory compilers should compare country-specific data on BOD in domestic wastewater to IPCC default
values. If the inventory compilers use country-specific values they should provide documented justification
why their country-specific values are more appropriate for their national circumstances.

Emission Factors
 For domestic wastewater, inventory compilers can compare country-specific values for Bo with the IPCC
default value (0.25 kg CH4/kg COD or 0.6 kg CH4/kg BOD). As there are no IPCC default values for thefraction of wastewater treated anaerobically, inventory compilers are encouraged to compare values for
MCFs against those from other countries with similar wastewater handling practices.


Inventory compilers should confirm agreement between the units used for organic degradable material in
wastewater (TOW) with the units for Bo. Both parameters should be based on the same units (either BOD or
COD) in order to calculate emissions. This same consideration should be taken into account whencomparing the emissions.



For countries that use country-specific parameters or higher-tier methods, inventory compilers shouldcrosscheck the national estimates with emissions estimated using the IPCC default method and parameters.



For industrial wastewater, inventory compilers should cross-check values for MCFs against those from othernational inventories with similar CW types.

COMPLETENESS
Completeness can be verified on the basis of the degree of utilization of a treatment or discharge system orpathway (T) for all wastewater treatment systems used. The sum of T should equal 100 percent. It is a goodpractice to draw a diagram for the country to consider all potential anaerobic treatment and discharge systems

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

6.15

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

and pathways, including collected and uncollected, as well as treated and untreated. CWs and SNTWs are under
treated and collected/uncollected pathway. In general, the amount of vegetation harvested from CWs is verysmall. If vegetation biomass is removed for the purpose of composting, incineration and burning, disposal in
landfills or as fertilizer on agricultural lands, the amount of biomass should be consistent with the data used in
the relevant sectors.
Completeness for estimating emissions from industrial wastewater depends on accurate characterization ofindustrial sectors that produce organic wastewater and the organic loading applied to CW systems. So inventory
compilers should ensure that these sectors are covered. Periodically, inventory compilers should re-survey
industrial sources, particularly if some industries are growing rapidly. This category should only cover industrial
wastewater treated onsite. Emissions from industrial wastewater released into domestic sewer systems should be
addressed and included with domestic wastewater.

REPORTING
Methane emissions from CWs for wastewater treatment are reported in the waste sector under the categories ofdomestic or industrial wastewater. Methane emissions from CWs treating collected runoff from agriculturallands are reported under the category of industrial wastewater.

6.3

NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS FROMCONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

6.3.1

Methodological issues

Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions can occur as direct emissions from wastewater treatment in CWs throughnitrification and denitrification. Emissions are calculated based on the total nitrogen loaded into the CWs andemission factor.
Three tier methods for estimating N2O emissions from this category are summarised below.
The Tier 1 method applies default values for the emission factor and activity parameters. This method is
considered good practice for countries with no country-specific data.
The Tier 2 method follows the same method as Tier 1 but allows for incorporation of country-specific emission
factors and country-specific activity data.
The Tier 3 method is used by countries with good data and advanced methodologies. A more advanced countryspecific method is based on treatment system-specific data such as plant species and composition of wastewater.
The methodology provided assumes typical vegetation harvesting practices. However, to date, the amount ofvegetation harvested from CWs is generally very small and the harvested plant biomass is commonly notrecorded. Therefore, harvesting practice is not considered as an influencing factor in the estimation of emissions.
Emissions from SNTWs treating collected/uncollected wastewater are estimated using the same methodology.
Indirect N2O emission from domestic wastewater treatment effluent that is discharged into aquatic environments
has already been covered in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6.3.1.1

C HOICE OF METHOD

A decision tree for domestic and industrial wastewater is shown in Figure 6.4.
The general equation for estimating N2O emissions from CWs treating domestic or industrial wastewater isshown in Equation 6.5.

EQUATION 6.5
N2O EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS∑(
Where:
N2O emissions

6.16

=

⁄

)

∑(

⁄

)

N2O emissions in inventory year, kg N2O/yr

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Nj=

total nitrogen in domestic wastewater entering CWs in inventory year, kg
N/yearNi,j=total nitrogen in industrial wastewater entering CW in inventory year, kg
N/yearEFj=

emission factor, kg N2O-N/kg N
If more than one type of CW is used in an industrial sector this factor would
be a Ni,j-weighted average.

i=industrial sectorj=type of CWs

The factor 44/28 is the conversion of kg N2O-N into kg N2O.

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

6.17

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Figure 6.4

Decision tree for N 2 O emission from constructed wetland
Start

Is CW used for
wastewater treatmentin the country?

No

Use the 2006 IPCC Guidelines forthe estimation of emissions fromother wastewater treatment systemand discharge pathways

No

Collect or estimate activity data on
wastewater treatment in CW

Yes

Are activity dataon wastewater treatment in
CW avaialable?

Yes

Are measurement orsite-specific measurement data
available for CW?

Is a country-specific method
available?

Yes

Yes

Estimate emissions
using site-specificmeasurement data
Box 3: Tier 3NoNo

Are country-specificemission factors available
for CW?

Yes

Estimate emissions using countryspecific emission factor
Box 2: Tier2

No

Is CW a key pathway of
key category?

Yes

No

Estimate country-specific emission
factorEstimate emissions using default
emission factors
Box 1: Tier 1

6.18

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

6.3.1.2

C HOICE OF EMISSION FA CTORSThe default emission factors for N2O emitted from domestic and industrial wastewater treated by CWs are
0.0013 kg N2O-N/kg N for SF, 0.0079 kgN2O-N/kg N for HSSF and 0.00023 kgN2O-N/kg N for VSSF. These
values are based on data provided in the literature (Table 6.2) and are influenced by the extent of nitrificationand denitrification taking place in CWs, coverage of vegetation in CWs and climatic conditions. There wasinsufficient actual measurement data for hybrid systems to derive emission factors. If the area fractions of SF,
VSSF and HSSF for hybrid systems can be determined, the emission factors of the hybrid systems can be
estimated as the area-weighted average of the emission factors for SF, VSSF and HSSF CWs. Good practice isto use country-specific data for emission factor, where available, expressed in term of kg N 2O-N/kg N loaded fordomestic and industrial wastewater to be consistent with the activity data. The amount of N associated with N2Oemissions from CWs must be back calculated and subtracted from the NEFFLUENT (Equation 6.7 in Chapter 6,
Volume 5 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

6.3.1.3

C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DA TA

The activity data for this source category are the amount of nitrogen in the wastewater entering CWs (TN). Thisparameter is a function of the population served by the CW system, annual per capita protein consumption(protein) and a factor for non-consumed nitrogen added to the wastewater for domestic wastewater. In case ofindustrial wastewater, TN loading to the CW system in the inventory year (kg N) can be used directly. The
equations for determining TN for domestic and industrial wastewater are:

EQUATION 6.6
TOTAL NITROGEN IN DOMESTIC WASTEWATEREQUATION 6.7
TOTAL NITROGEN IN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER

Where:
Nj=

total nitrogen in domestic wastewater entering the CW in inventory year (kg N/year)Ni=total nitrogen in wastewater from industry i entering the CW in inventory year (kgN/year)i=

industrial sector

Pj=human population whose wastewater entering the CWs

Protein=annual per capita protein consumption, kg/person/yr

FNPR

=

fraction of nitrogen in protein (default is 0.16 kg N/ kg protein as given in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines)

FNON-CON =factor for non-consumed nitrogen added to the wastewater (default is 1.1 for countries
with no garbage disposals, 1.4 for countries with garbage disposals as given in the2006 IPCC Guidelines)

FIND-COM =factor for industrial and commercial co-discharged protein into sewer system (default
is 1.25 as given in 2006 IPCC Guidelines)

TNi=

total nitrogen concentration in wastewater from industry i entering the CWs ininventory year (kg N/m3)

Wi,j

=

flow rate of industrial wastewater entering the CW, m3/yr

Ni is a function of the total N concentration and the flow rate which can be estimated by multiplying theindustrial production P (ton/yr), wastewater generation (m3/ton product) (Table 6.9, Chapter 6, Volume 5 in the2006 IPCC Guidelines) and the N content in Table 6.6 of this supplement.

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

6.19

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

TABLE 6.6
EXAMPLE OF N CONTENT IN SOME NITROGEN-RICH INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Wastewater generation W (m3/tonproduct)

N content (kg/m3)

24 (16-32)1

2.40 (0.94-3.86)2

Fish processing industry

5 (2-8)20.60 (0.21-0.98)3

Seasoning source industry

NA

0.60 (0.22-1.00)3

Meat & poultry

13 (8-18)1

0.19 (0.17-0.20)3

Starch production

9 (4-18)1

0.90 (0.80-1.10)4

2.89 (0.46-8.3)20.50 (0.10-0.80)2

15-20% of annual precipitation in wellcompacted landfill site.
25-50% of annual precipitation for not wellcompacted landfill site6.

0.74 (0.01-2.50)5

Industry type
Alcohol refining

Nitrogen fertilizer plant
Landfill leachate

Note: Average value and range (in brackets) are presented
Sources: 1 IPCC 2006; 2Samokhin (1986); 3 Pilot Plant Development and Training Institute (1994); 4 Hulle et.al. (2010); 5 Kjeldsen et al.
(2002); 6 Ehrig (1983)

6.3.2

Time series consistency

The same method and data sets should be used for estimating N2O emissions from CWs for each year. If a
country decides to change the estimation method from the default methodology (Tier 1) to country-specific (Tier2), this change must be made for the entire time series.

6.3.3

Uncertainties

Large uncertainties are associated with the default emission factors for N2O emissions from CWs due to limited
available data (Table 6.7).
TABLE 6.7
NITROUS OXIDE METHODOLOGY DEFAULT UNCERTAINTIESParameter

Default value
0.0013 for SF
0.0079 for HSSF
0.00023 for VSSF

Range
± 90% for SF± 79% for HSSF
± 70% for VSSF

Human population

Country-specific± 10%

Annual per capita protein consumption

Country-specific

± 10%

0.16

0.15-0.17

1.1 for countries with nogarbage disposals,
1.4 for countries withgarbage disposals
Country-specific1.0-1.5

Emission factor (kg N2O-N/kg N)
Activity data

Fraction of nitrogen in protein
Factor for non-consumed nitrogen

TN loading from industrial wastewater-55%, +103%* Uncertainties of emission factors calculated as 95% confidence interval are shown in Table 6A1.1 in Annex. The
uncertainty in TN loading from industrial wastewater is the same to that of COD loading from industrial wastewater(Expert judgement by Authors of this chapter). Others are derived from Tables 6.11 in Chapter 6 in Volume 5 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines.

6.3.4

QA/QC, Completeness and Reporting

This method makes use of several default parameters. It is recommended to solicit experts’ advice in evaluating
the appropriateness of the proposed default factors. The methodology for estimating emissions is based on N

6.20

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

associated with domestic and industrial discharges either collected in the collection system and treated in
CWs/SNTWs or uncollected and discharged into CWs/SNTWs. This estimate can be seen as conservative andcovers the entire source associated with domestic and industrial wastewater discharge.

REPORTING
Nitrous oxide emission from CWs for wastewater treatment is reported in waste sector under the categories ofdomestic or industrial wastewater. Nitrous oxide emissions from CWs treating collected runoff from agriculturallands and landfill leachate are reported under the category of industrial wastewater. If agricultural runoff iscollected and treated by CWs or SNTWs, the amount of nitrogen flowing into the CWs/SNTWs must be
subtracted to avoid double counting.

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

6.21

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

References
Altor, A. E. & Mitsch, W. J. (2008) Pulsing hydrology, methane emissions, and carbon dioxide fluxes in createdmarshes: a 2- year ecosystem study. Wetlands 28: 423-438.
Brix, H. (1987) Treatment of wastewater in the rhizosphere of wetlands plants - the root zone method. Water Sci.
Technol. 19(10): 107-118.
Brix, H. (1997) Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands? Water Sci. Technol. 35(5): 11-17.
Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Junsod, J., Threedeach, S. & Wicranarachchi, P. N. (2009) Leachate
treatment and greenhouse gas emission in subsurface horizontal flow constructed wetland. Bioresour. Technol.
100(16): 3808-3814.
Cooper, P. F., Job, G. D., Green, M. B. & Shutes, R. B. E. (1996) Reed Beds and Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment. WRc Publications, Medmenham, Marlow, UK.
Cooper, P. F. (2005) The performance of vertical flow constructed wetland systems with special reference to thesignificance of oxygen transfer and hydraulic loading rates. Water Sci. Technol. 51(9): 81-90.
Crites, R. W., Middlebrooks, E. J. & Reed, S. C. (2005) Natural wastewater treatment systems. CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, pp. 552.
Ehrig, H. J. (1983) Quality and quantity of sanitary landfill leachate. Waste Manage. Res. 1: 53-68.
Fey, A., Benckiser, G. & Ottow, J. C. G. (1999) Emissions of nitrous oxide from a constructed wetland using agroundfilter and macrophytes in waste-water purification of a dairy farm. Biol. Fertil. Soils 29: 354-359.
Garcia, J., Capel, V., Castro, A., Ruiz, I. & Soto, M. (2007) Anaerobic biodegradation tests and gas emissions
from subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Bioresour. Technol. 98(16): 3044-3052.
Gui, P., Inamori, R., Matsumura, M. & Inamori, Y. (2007) Evaluation of constructed wetlands by waste water
purification ability and greenhouse gas emissions. Water Sci. Technol. 56(3): 49-55.
Hernandez, M. E. & Mitsch, W. J. (2006) Influence of hydrologic pulses, flooding frequency, and vegetation on
nitrous oxide emissions from created riparian marshes. Wetlands 26(3): 862-877.
Hulle, V. S., Vandeweyer, H. J. P., Meesschaert, D., Vanrolleghem A. P., Dejans, P. & Dumoulin, A. (2010)
Engineering aspects and practical application of autotrophic nitrogen removal from nitrogen rich streams. Chem.
Eng. J. 162: 1-20.
Hunt, P. G., Stone, K. C., Matheny, T. A., Poach, M. E., Vanotti, M. B. & Ducey, T. F. (2009) Denitrification of
nitrified and non-nitrified swine lagoon wastewater in the suspended sludge layer of treatment wetlands. Ecol.
Eng. 35(10): 1514-1522.
Inamori, R., Gui, P., Dass, P., Matsumura, M., Xu, K. Q., Kondo, T., Ebie, Y. & Inamori, Y. (2007)
Investigating CH4 and N2O emissions from eco-engineering wastewater treatment processes using constructedwetland microcosms. Proc. Biochem. 42(3): 363-373.
Inamori, R., Wang, Y., Yamamoto, T., Zhang, J., Kong, H., Xu, K. & Inamori, Y. (2008) Seasonal effect on N2O
formation in nitrification in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 73(7): 1071-1077.
IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa K., Ngara, T., and Tanabe, K.
(eds). Published: IGES, Japan.
Jia, W., Zhang, J., Li, P., Xie, H., Wu, J. & Wang, J. (2011) Nitrous oxide emissions from surface flow andsubsurface flow constructed wetland microcosms: Effect of feeding strategies. Ecol. Eng. 37(11): 1815-1821.
Johansson, A. E., Klemedtsson, K., Klemedtsson, L., Svensson, B. N. & Dass, P. (2003) Nitrous oxide
exchanges with the atmosphere of a constructed wetland treating wastewater - Parameters and implications foremission factors. Tellus 55B: 737-750.
Johansson, A. E., Gustavsson, A. M., Oquist, M. G. & Svensson, B. H. (2004) Methane emissions from a
constructed wetland treating wastewater- seasonal and spatial distribution and dependence on edaphic factors.
Water Res. 38(18): 3960-3970.
Kadlec, R. H. & Knight, R. L. (1996) Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press/Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, pp.
893.
Kadlec, R. H. & Wallace, S. D. (2008) Treatment Wetlands, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 1016

6.22

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Kayranli, B., Scholz, M. Mustafa, A. & Hedmark, Å. (2010) Carbon storage and fluxes within freshwater
wetlands: a critical review. Wetlands 30: 111-124.
Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P., Baun, A., Ledin, A. & Christensen, T. H. (2002) Present and longterm composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(4): 297-336.
Liikanen, A., Huttunen, J. T., Karjalainen, S. M., Heikkinen, K., Väisänen, T. S., Nykänen, H. & Martikainen, P.
J. (2006) Temporal and seasonal changes in greenhouse gas emissions from a constructed wetland purifying peatmining runoff waters. Ecol. Eng. 26(3): 241-251.
Liu, C., Xu, K., Inamori, R., Ebie, Y., Liao, J. & Inamori, Y. (2009) Pilot-scale studies of domestic wastewater
treatment by typical constructed wetlands and their greenhouse gas emissions. Front. Environ. Sci. Engin. China
3(4): 477-482.
Maltais-Landry, G., Maranger, R. & Brisson, J. (2009) Effect of artificial aeration and macrophyte species on
nitrogen cycling and gas flux in constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 35: 221-229.
Mander, Ü. & Jenssen, P. D. (eds.) (2003) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in cold climates. WIT
Press, Southampton, UK, pp. 325.
Mander, Ü., Kuusemets, V., Lõhmus, K., Mauring, T., Teiter, S. & Augustin, J. (2003) Nitrous oxide, dinitrogen,and methane emission in a subsurface flow constructed wetland. Water Sci. Technol. 48(5): 135-142.
Mander, Ü., Teiter, S. & Augustin, J. (2005) Emission of greenhouse gases from constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment and from riparian buffer zones. Water Sci. Technol. 52(10-11): 167-176.
Mander, Ü., Lõhmus, K., Teiter, S., Mauring, T., Nurk, K., & Augustin, J. (2008) Gaseous fluxes in the nitrogenand carbon budgets of subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 404: 343-353.
Mander, Ü., Maddison, M., Soosaar, K. & Karabelnik, K. (2011) The impact of intermittent hydrology andfluctuating water table on greenhouse gas emissions from subsurface flow constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment. Wetlands 31(6): 1023-1032.
Mitsch, W. J. & Gosselink, J.G. ( 2007) Wetlands. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp. 582.
Picek, T., Čižkova, H. & Dušek, J. (2007) Greenhouse gas emissions from a constructed wetland plants asimportant sources of carbon. Ecol. Eng. 31(2): 98-106.
Pilot Plant Development and Training Institute (1994) The study and survey of environment in agro-industry forcanning tuna industry King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 13-17.
Rückauf, U., Augustin, J., Russow, R. & Merbach, W. (2004) Nitrate removal from drained and reflooded fen
soils affected by soil N transformation processes and plant uptake. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36(1): 77-90.
Salm, J. O., Maddison, M., Tammik, S., Soosaar, K., Truu, J. & Mander, Ü. (2012) Emissions of CO2, CH4 andN2O from undisturbed, drained and mined peatlands in Estonia. Hydrobiologia 692: 41-55.
Samokhin, V. N. (1986) Design handbook of wastewater systems: Volume 3 Municipal and industrial systems,
Allerton Press, Inc., New York, pp. 1060.
Silvan, N., Tuittila, E. S., Kitunen, V., Vasander, H. & Laine, J. (2005) Nitrate uptake by Eriophorum vaginatum
controls N2O production in a restored peatland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37(8): 1519-1526.
Soosaar, K., Mander, Ü., Maddison, M., Kanal, A., Kull, A., Lohmus, K., Truu, J. & Augustin, J. (2011)
Dynamics of gaseous nitrogen and carbon fluxes in riparian alder forests. Ecol. Eng. 37: 40-53.
Søvik, A. K., Augustin, J., Heikkinen, K., Huttunen, J. T., Necki, J. M., Karjalainen, S. M., Kløve, B., Liikanen,A., Mander, Ü., Puustinen, M., Teiter, S. & Wachniew, P. (2006) Emission of the greenhouse gases nitrous oxideand methane from constructed wetlands in Europe. J. Environ. Qual. 35: 2360-2373.
Søvik, A. K. & Kløve, B. (2007) Emission of N2O and CH4 from a constructed wetland in southeastern Norway.
Sci. Total Environ. 380: 28-37.
Stadmark, J. & Leonardson, L. (2005) Emissions of greenhouse gases from ponds constructed for nitrogen
removal. Ecol. Eng. 25(5): 542-551.
Ström, L., Lamppa, A. & Christensen, T. R. (2006) Greenhouse gas emissions from a constructed wetland insouthern Sweden. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 15(1): 43-50.
Tai, P. D., Li, P. J., Sun, T. H., He, Y. W., Zhou, Q. X., Gong, Z. Q., Mizuochi, M. & Imamori, Y. (2002)
Greenhouse gas emissions from a constructed wetland for municipal sewage treatment. J. Environ. Sci. 14(1):27-33.

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

6.23

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Tanner, C. C., Adams, D. D. & Downes, M. T. (1997) Methane emissions from constructed wetlands treating
agricultural wastewater. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1056-1062.
Teiter, S. & Mander, Ü. (2005) Emission of N2O, N2, CH4, and CO2 from constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment and from riparian buffer zones. Ecol. Eng. 25(5): 528-541.
USEPA (1995) A handbook of constructed wetlands, Volume 1: General considerations. US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, pp. 47.
Van de Riet, B. P., Hefting, M. M. & Verhoeven, J. T. A. (2013) Rewetting drained peat meadows: risks andbenefits in terms of nutrient release and greenhouse gas exchange. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224: 1440-1452.
Van der Zaag, A. C., Gordon, R. J., Burton, D. L., Jamieson, R. C. & Stratton, G. W. (2010) Greenhouse gas
emissions from surface flow and subsurface flow constructed wetlands treating dairy wastewater. J. Environ.
Qual. 39: 460-471.
Vymazal, J., Brix, H., Cooper. P. F., Green, M. B. & Haberl, R. (eds) (1998) Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment in Europe. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 366.
Vymazal, J. (2007) Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 380: 48-65.
Vymazal, J. & Kröpfelova, L. (2008) Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal SubSurface Flow. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 566.
Vymazal, J. (2011) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: five decades of experience. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 45(1): 65-69.
Wang, Y., Inamori, R., Kong, H., Xu, K., Inamori, Y., Kondo, T. & Zhang, J. (2008) Nitrous oxide emission
from polyculture constructed wetlands: Effect of plant species. Environ. Poll. 152(2): 351-360.
Wild, U., Kamp, T., Lenz, A., Heinz, S. & Pfadenhauer, J. (2001) Cultivation of Typha spp. in constructedwetlands for peatland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 17(1): 49-54.
Wu, J., Zhang, J., Jia, W., Xie, H. & Zhang, B. (2009) Relationships of nitrous oxide ﬂuxes with water quality
parameters in free water surface constructed wetlands. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. China 3(2): 241–247.
Xie, Y., Kovacic, D. A., David, M. B., Centry, L. E., Mulvaney, R. L. & Lindau, C. W. (1999) In situ
measurements of denitrification in constructed wetlands. J. Environ. Qual. 28: 263-269.
Yang, J., Liu, J., Hu, X., Li, X., Wang, Y. & Li, H. (2013) Effect of water table level on CO2, CH4 and N2Oemissions in a freshwater marsh of Northeast China. Soil Biol. Biochem. 61: 52-60.
Yu, X. F., Zou, Y. C., Jiang, M., Lu, X. G. & Wang, G. P. (2011) Response of soil constituents to freeze-thaw
cycles in wetland soil solution. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43(6): 1308-1320.

6.24

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

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Annex 6A.1 Estimation of default emission factors for CH4 andN2O in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment
We reviewed about 150 papers published in international peer-reviewed journals indexed by the Thomson
Reuters Web of Knowledge from 1994 to 2013. The terms “free water surface”, “surface flow”, “constructedwetland(s)”, “artificial wetland(s)”, “treatment wetland(s)”, “subsurface flow wetland(s)”, “vertical flow” and“horizontal flow” in combination with the terms “carbon dioxide”, “CO 2”, “methane”, “CH4”, “nitrous oxide”
and “N2O” were searched.
We found a total of 14 publications that provided information on emissions of either CH4, N2O or both gases insurface flow (SF) constructed wetlands (CWs). These publications presented information on 17 different SF CW
systems, whereas for CH4 and N2O, there were 24 and 25 subsystems/measuring events respectively. Six SF
CWs (Nykvarn, Lakeus, Ruka, Skjønhaug, Hässleholm, and Ibaraki) treated domestic wastewater (Johansson etal., 2003, 2004; Søvik et al., 2006, Ström et al., 2006; Gui et al., 2007; Søvik & Kløve, 2007; Liu et al., 2009),
six CWs (mesocosms in Xue et al. (1999), Donaumoos, Genarp, Görarp, Ormastorp, and Hovi) treated waters ofagricultural non-point pollution (Xue et al., 1999; Wild et al., 2001; Stadmark and Leonardson, 2005; Søvik etal., 2006), two systems (Ngatea and Truro) were used for dairy farm wastewater treatment (Tanner et al., 1997;
Van der Zaag et al., 2010), the Kompsasuo CW treated wastewater from a peat extraction area (Søvik et al.,2006), the Jiaonan CW (Tai et al., 2002) purified raw municipal wastewater, and synthetic wastewater is used in
the Jinan laboratory mesocosms (Wu et al., 2009).
For vertical subsurface flow (VSSF) CWs, there were only 4 measurement periods presented for 3 CWs fromwhich CH4 emissions data and ratios could be calculated: Kõo in Estonia (Teiter & Mander 2005; Søvik et al.,2006), Ski in Norway (Søvik et al., 2006), and Miho/Ibaraki, Japan (Gui et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2009). For N2Oemissions, additional laboratory microcosm experiments with different plant species from Ibaraki, Japan(Inamori et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2008) were included.
For CH4 fluxes from horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF) CWs we used data from two system in Estonia treating
domestic wastewater, Kodijärve and Kõo (Mander et al., 2003, 2008; Teiter & Mander, 2005; Søvik et al., 2006),
four CWs treating domestic wastewater in Ski, Norway (Søvik et al., 2006), Barcelona, Spain (Garcia et al.,2007), Miho/Ibaraki, Japan (Gui et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2007) and Slavosovice, Czech Republic (Picek et al.,2007), an HSSF treating wastewater from a peat extraction area in Kompsasuo, Finland (Liikanen et al., 2006),
an HSSF treating landfill leachate in Bangkok, Thailand (Chiemchaisri et al., 2009), and a dairy farm wastewater
treatment HSSF in Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada (Van der Zaag et al., 2010). For N2O emissions from HSSFs, a
CW for dairy farm wastewater treatment in Friedelhausen, Germany (Fey et al., 1998) was also included.
Tanner et al., (1997) presented estimated values for inflow total organic carbon (TOC in), Xue et al., (1999) for
inflow total nitrogen (TNin), and Søvik et al., (2006) for both TOCin and TNin. For most of the systems, TOCin
and TNin values were calculated based on area, hydraulic load and inflow TOC and TN concentration data. For
some systems only biological oxygen demand (BOD) values were usable, and for them the following
approximation based on domestic wastewater data was used: TOC = 0.5 BOD (Garcia et al., 2007). For the
calculations of emission factors, we used data series from one year or at least a vegetation period.
TABLE 6A1. 1
AVERAGE, STANDARD ERROR, MEDIAN, 2.5% AND 97.5% PERCENTILE VALUES OF CH4-C AND N2O-N EMISSION FACTORS(%) FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Type
of
CWs

Emission factor CH4-C/TOC (%)

Emission factor N2O-N/TN (%)

AverageStandard
Error

Median

2.5%

97.5%

AverageStandard
Error

Median

2.5%

97.5%

SF
HSSF
VSSF

42.2
12.0
1.17

20.4
7.56
0.33

18
4.15
1.28

4
0.03
0.38

446
79
1.73

0.13
0.79
0.023

0.024
0.38
0.005

0.11
0.34
0.018

0
0.04
0.001

0.47
3.01
0.096

Table 6A1.1 presents values of emission factors calculated based on literature sources described above.
In Figure 6A1.1, correlations between the inflow TOC loading and CH4-C emissions and between the inflow TN
loading and N2O emissions for SF, HSSF and VSSF CWs are presented.

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

6.25

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Figure 6A1.1

The relationship between inflow TOC loading and CH 4 -C emission (left-handcolumn) and between inflow TN loading and N 2 O-N emission (right-handcolumn) in SF, HSSF, and VSSF CWs. In all cases, p < 0.05.

0.3
N2O-N emission(mg m-2 h-1)

CH4-C emission(mg m-2 h-1)

1000

100
10
1

100

150

0.1

0

200

20

0.5

16

0.4

12
8
4
0
1

HSSF

10

100

1000

0.1
0

0.4

N2O-N emission(mg m-2 h-1)

5

1
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Inflow TN loading (mg m-2 h-1)

0.5

2

200

0.2

6

3

150

0.3

HSSF

4

100

0

10000

Inflow TOC loading (mg m-2 h-1)

50

Inflow TN loading (mg m-2 h-1)

SF

N2O-N emission(mg m-2 h-1)

CH4-C emission(mg m-2 h-1)

50

Inflow TOC loading (mg m-2 h-1)

SF

CH4-C emission(mg m-2 h-1)

0.15

0
0

0.3

0.2
0.1
0.0

0

6.26

0.2

0.05

0.1

VSSF

0.25

500

1000

Inflow TOC loading (mg m-2 h-1)

1500

0

VSSF

500

1000

1500

2000

Inflow TN loading (mg m-2 h-1)

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

CHAPTER 7

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES ANDREPORTING

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

7.1

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

Coordinating Lead Autho rs
Riitta Pipatti (Finland) and Pantaleo Munishi (Tanzania)

Lead Autho rs
Patrick Gonzalez (USA) and Papa Mawade Wade (Senegal)Cont ributing Autho r
Kiyoto Tanabe (IPCC TFI TSU)

Review Edito rs
Werner Leo Kutsch (Germany) and Erda Lin (China)

7.2

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Contents
7

Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting ............................................................................................................. 5
7.1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5

7.2

Reporting and documentation ............................................................................................................. 5

7.2.1

Changes to reporting categories in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines ..................................................... 5

7.2.1.1 Drained inland organic soils ....................................................................................................... 6
7.2.1.2 Rewetted organic soils................................................................................................................ 6
7.2.1.3 Coastal wetlands ........................................................................................................................ 7
7.2.1.4 Inland wetland mineral soils ....................................................................................................... 8
7.2.1.5 Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment........................................................................... 8
7.2.2

Mapping the changes to categories in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines................................................. 9

7.2.3

Documentation ......................................................................................................................... 12

7.2.4

Reporting tables ....................................................................................................................... 12

7.2.5

Worksheets .............................................................................................................................. 13

7.3

Uncertainties.................................................................................................................................... 13

7.3.1

Overview of uncertainty analysis .............................................................................................. 13

7.3.2

Methods for quantifying uncertainty ......................................................................................... 14

7.4

Impact on key categories .................................................................................................................. 18

7.4.1

Overview of key category analysis ............................................................................................ 18

7.4.2

Key category analysis including the categories affected by the Wetlands Supplement ................. 19

7.5

Completeness .................................................................................................................................. 19

7.6Time series consistency.................................................................................................................... 19

7.6.1

Overview of time series issues .................................................................................................. 19

7.6.2

Methods for producing consistent time series ............................................................................ 20

7.7

Quality assurance and quality control ............................................................................................... 21

7.7.1

Overview of quality issues ........................................................................................................ 21

7.7.2

Quality assurance and quality control methods .......................................................................... 21

References................................................................................................................................................ 23

Annex 7A.1

Worksheets .............................................................................................................................. 25

Annex 7A.2

Reporting tables ....................................................................................................................... 61

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

7.3

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

Equations
Equation 7.1

Algebraic combination of uncertainties – addition and subtraction ................................. 14

Equation 7.2

Algebraic combination of uncertainties – multiplication ................................................ 14

Equation 7.3

Monte Carlo analysis – general form of a variable ......................................................... 17

FiguresFigure 7.1

Example of recalculation of a time series. ..................................................................... 20

Figure 7.2

Example of validation of a model for quality control ..................................................... 21

Figure 7.3

Example of validation of remote sensing data for quality control ................................... 22

Tables

7.4

Table 7.1

Mapping between the categories and guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and thechanges to those introduced by the Wetlands Supplement................................................ 9

Table 7.2

Examples of wetlands and drained soils with published estimates of uncertainties ofparameters used in estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals .......................... 162013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

7 CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND REPORTING
7.1

INTRODUCTION

The 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands(Wetlands Supplement) contains updated and new methodological guidance for greenhouse gas emissions andremovals from drained inland and rewetted organic soils, specific human-induced changes in coastal wetlands
and inland wetland mineral soils, and Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment.
The supplementary methodological guidance introduces changes to the estimation and reporting of emissions
and removals according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC
Guidelines) in all land-use categories (Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements, and Other
Land), some sources of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from managed land in the Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Sector, and CH4 and N2O emissions from wastewater treatment(Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment) in the Waste Sector. The changes come from updated
methodologies for existing categories and supplemental methodologies for categories not covered by the 2006
IPCC Guidelines. The Wetlands Supplement maintains the approaches for estimation of emissions and removals
in Volume 4 (AFOLU) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The general guidance in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines is also applicable.
This chapter provides guidance on cross cutting issues for the methodologies provided in Chapters 2 to 6 of this
Wetlands Supplement by addressing the following:•

reporting and documentation•

uncertainty estimation•

key category analysis•

completeness•time series consistency•

quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA).

The chapter also summarises the good practice guidance on these cross-cutting issues found in Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines, to which inventory experts need to refer for detailed guidance. Cross-cutting issues
specific to the categories and methodologies included in Chapters 2 to 6 of the Wetlands Supplement are
addressed in the specific chapters. This chapter summarises and complements the category-specific information.

7.2

REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

7.2.1

Changes to reporting categories in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines

Chapter 1 of the Wetlands Supplement gives an overview of the purpose and scope of this supplement as well asa description of its contents, including specific guidance on how to use this supplement in the context of the2006 IPCC Guidelines.
This chapter complements Chapter 1 with details on the reporting aspects of the Wetlands Supplement. The
summaries of the methodologies of the Wetlands Supplement and the reporting of emissions and removals, as
addressed in Sections 7.2.1.1 to 7.2.1.5 in this chapter, are based on the Tier 1 methodologies in Chapters 2 to 6of the Wetlands Supplement.
The AFOLU and Waste Sector reporting tables given in Annex 8A.2, Chapter 8 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines are updated and complemented to incorporate the changes required by the application of the Wetlands
Supplement (see Annex 7A.2 in this chapter). The category names and numbering referred to in the following
sections are those presented in Annex 7A.2 in this chapter. 1
1

The Common Reporting Framework (CRF) tables used by Annex I Parties in reporting of greenhouse gas emissions andremovals under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are not identical to thereporting tables developed by the IPCC. Reporting tables used by the Parties to the UNFCCC are produced by the
UNFCCC through negotiations, although they usually build on the IPCC Guidelines and good practice guidance. The

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

7.5

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

7.2.1.1

D RAINED INLAND ORGANI C SOILS

Carbon dioxide (CO2)
The guidance in Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement for estimation of CO2 emissions from drained inland
organic soils implies changes for all land-use categories compared to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The Tier 1
methodology in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for drained organic soils is simply a multiplication of the relevant
areas with appropriate emission factors by land-use category and climate zone (boreal/temperate/tropical). The
emission factors in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for peat extraction in boreal/temperate climate zones also take into
account the nutrient status of the drained lands. The supplementary methodology in Chapter 2 uses the same
approach as in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and provides updated CO2 emission/removal factors according to landuse categories and climate zones. For some land-use categories, these are further disaggregated by the type ofvegetation, nutrient-status of the organic soils (rich vs. poor) and depth of drainage (drained, shallow drained anddeep drained). Nutrient status is, however, not taken into account in the default CO2 emission factors for peat
extraction. New guidance is provided for estimation of off-site CO2 emissions from water-borne dissolved
organic carbon (DOC), losses from drained organic soils, and soil CO2 emissions from fires on drained organicsoils. Most of these methodological changes can be implemented without changes in the reporting or backgroundtables in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. However, additional documentation would need to be provided in thenational inventory report (see Section 7.2.3 and Annex 7A.2 in this chapter). Also, Background Table 3.4(category 3C1) on burning has been modified to include emissions from the soil pool for organic soils (seeAnnex 7A.2 in this chapter).
Non-CO2
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines did not provide a methodology for the estimation of CH4 emissions associated withdrainage, whereas Chapter 2 provides a methodology to address CH4 emissions from the land surface of drainedorganic soils and drainage ditches. The emission factors for CH4 from the land surface are given by land-use
category and climate zone. These are further disaggregated by the type of vegetation, depth of drainage, andnutrient status of the soil. The emission factors for CH4 from drainage ditches are also given by land-use
category and climate zone and for grasslands by drainage depth (shallow or deep). A default CH4 emission factor
for drainage ditches is provided separately for peat extraction. The estimation of CH4 emissions from drainedorganic soils requires the area of the drained organic soils and the fraction occupied by ditches. Indicative default
values are provided for these fractions. These CH4 emissions would be reported in Background Table 3.9 under
new categories (3C8 CH4 from Drained Organic Soils and 3C9 CH4 from Drainage Ditches on Organic Soils)
under appropriate headings highlighting the land-use category and other relevant specifications. The category
3C8 (Other) in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines has been re-numbered to 3C14.
The methodology for direct N2O emissions from organic soils is the same as in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines but
the default emissions factors are updated and more disaggregated. In accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
the direct N2O emissions from organic soils should be reported as aggregated to N2O emissions from managed
soils. If data are available, the emissions can be provided by land-use category. The N2O emissions fromdrainage/management of organic soils are reported under category 3C4 (Direct N2O Emissions from Managed
Soils). An exception to this are direct N2O emissions on peat extraction lands, which are reported in category
3B4ai (Peat Extraction Remaining Peat Extraction2) or 3B4bi (Land Converted for Peat Extraction), depending
on if the peat extraction lands remain in the category or are converted to it.
Chapter 2 in the Wetlands Supplement provides guidance on estimating CO2, CH4 and CO emissions from soilorganic matter during fires on drained organic soils. N2O emissions from these fires are addressed at higher tierlevels. These emissions would be reported in the AFOLU category 3C1 (Burning) under relevant subcategories.
Activity data and emissions by carbon pools should be provided in AFOLU Background Table 3.4, which is
updated to include also emissions from soil burning (see Annex 7A.2 in this chapter).

7.2.1.2

R EWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

Guidance on CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions from rewetting of organic soils is not included in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. Chapter 3 of the Wetlands Supplement provides this guidance. Tier 1 methodologies are given for
UNFCCC CRF tables are currently being revised. A major difference in the UNFCCC CRF tables compared to the IPCC
reporting tables is that the IPCC AFOLU Sector will continue to be divided into the Agriculture sector and LULUCF sector
in UNFCCC reporting.
2

This category has been renamed (Peatlands Remaining Peatlands in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines) to take into account theguidance related to peatlands in this Wetlands Supplement. The renaming is taken into account in the updated Table 3
AFOLU Sectoral Table and relevant AFOLU background tables in Annex 7A.2 in this chapter.

7.6

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

CO2 emissions/removals from rewetted organic soils with moss and/or herbaceous vegetation, and also fordissolved organic carbon. Tier 1 guidance is also given for CH4 emissions from rewetted organic soils. N2Oemissions from rewetted organic soils are considered negligible and assumed to be zero under Tier 1. Fires onrewetted organic soils are not likely but, in case they occur, the methods given in Chapter 2 for fires on drainedorganic soils can be used to estimate the emissions from the soil. When rewetted lands contain perennial woody
vegetation, the guidance in Chapters 2, 4, and 5 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, should be used toestimate the emissions from the woody biomass and dead organic matter (DOM) pools.
The reporting of emissions/removals from rewetting depends on the land use after the rewetting. Rewetted
grassland could remain in the same land-use category, e.g. when agricultural land with organic soil is rewetted toform a grazing marsh. The rewetting could also involve a land-use change, e.g. when a forest with organic soil isrewetted and the tree coverage declines below the threshold of the national forest definition. It is good practice
to report emissions/removals from rewetting under relevant land-use categories (Table 3, Annex 8A.2, Chapter 8
in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Additional information on carbon stock changes on these lands
should be provided in Background Tables 3.2 and 3.3, which have been modified to allow reporting of removals
from organic soils. CH4 should be included in Background Table 3.9 (Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions notincluded elsewhere), under category 3C10 (CH4 from Rewetting of Organic Soils). When N2O emissions fromrewetting of organic soils are reported using higher-tier methods, these would be included under category 3C14
(Other).

7.2.1.3

C OASTAL WETLANDS

Guidance on CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions from managed coastal wetlands is not included in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines but provided in Chapter 4 of this Wetlands Supplement. This guidance covers emissions/removals
from mineral and organic soils vegetated by vascular plants that are covered or saturated for all or part of theyear by tidal freshwater or salt water (>0.5 ppt). The guidance addresses CO2 emissions/removals from specificactivities in mangroves, seagrass meadows, and tidal marshes. These activities include forest management,
extraction (including excavation, aquaculture and salt production), drainage, and rewetting in coastal wetlands.
New methods are presented for estimation of changes in soil carbon (Tier 1 level) whereas methods for biomass
and dead organic matter follow those of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Methods are also provided for CH4
emissions from rewetting of mangroves and tidal marshes and N2O emissions from aquaculture.
Coastal wetlands can occur in any of the six IPCC land-use categories but also in coastal areas that are not partof the total land area of the country. For example, a mangrove wetland with trees may be classified as Forest
Land, a tidal marsh used for grazing may be classified as Grassland, and a seagrass meadow used for aquaculture
may be classified as Settlements. Emissions/removals from coastal wetlands that are not part of the total landarea (e.g. seagrass meadows) should be reported separately and the associated areas excluded from the total landarea and from the land-use matrix3. For example, forest management activities in mangroves classified as Forest
Land may need to be split between areas included in the total land area and not included in the total land area. In
reporting the emissions/removals from mangrove forest management activities, emissions/removals from bothareas would be reported under Forest Land, but only the land areas of the mangroves included in the total landarea would be included in the total Forest Land areas and reported in the land area matrix. The classifications ofcoastal wetlands are country-specific, but in all cases appropriate subcategories should be used in the reporting toreflect the specific land use and management as well as to indicate whether the emissions come from areas
included or excluded from the total land area of the country.
The emissions/removals from coastal wetlands would be reported under relevant land-use categories andsubcategories of the AFOLU Sectoral Table 3. Two new subcategories 3B4aiii Other Wetlands Remaining Other
Wetlands and 3B4biii Land Converted to Other Wetlands have been added to this table to allow for complete
reporting. Additional information on C stock changes on these lands should be provided in Background Tables
3.2 and 3.3. CH4 and N2O emissions from coastal wetlands would be included in Background Table 3.9, undercategory 3C11 (CH4 Emissions from Rewetting of Mangroves and Tidal Marshes) to category 3C12 (N2O
Emissions from Aquaculture), and specified by land-use category. For information to be included in theinventory report, see Section 7.2.2 below.

3

Documentation on consistent reporting of land areas for the six land-use categories includes the provision of a land-use
matrix with data on lands remaining in the categories and conversions between them. Unmanaged land areas are also
included in the matrix. The sum of the areas should match the total land area. For this reason, areas that are not part of thetotal land area of a country should not be included in the total areas of the land-use categories or the land-use matrix.

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

7.7

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

7.2.1.4

I NLAND WETLAND MINERAL SOILSIn Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, general guidance for estimating CO2 emissions/removals from soils,
including wet mineral soils, is provided in Section 2.3.3 and complemented with land-use category-specificguidance in relevant sections of Chapters 3 to 6. Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement complements andupdates this guidance with new default values for reference soil carbon stock values for wetland mineral soils
under all climate regions and carbon stock change factors for land use for long-term cultivation of cropland withinland wetland mineral soils (IWMS). New default carbon stock change factors are provided for rewetting on
Cropland with IWMS. In addition, Chapter 5 provides data on CH4 emissions from IWMS under any land-use
category that has undergone rewetting, and from mineral soils that have been inundated for the purpose of
wetland creation. The chapter does not include guidance on emissions/removals from rice cultivation. That iscovered in Section 5.5, Chapter 5 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
IWMS can occur in any of the six IPCC land-use categories. For example, a riverine wetland with trees may beclassified as Forest Land, while a riverine wetland without trees may be classified as Wetlands. The precise
details of this classification are country-specific, so it is not possible to say exactly how IWMS may be classified.
Appropriate subcategories should be used in the reporting to reflect the specific land use and management as
specified by a country.
The total emissions/removals from IWMS should be reported under relevant land-use categories andsubcategories of the AFOLU Sector in reporting Table 3 in Volume 1, Annex 8A.2. Additional information on
carbon stock changes on these lands should be provided in Background Tables 3.2 and 3.3. CH4 emissions frominland wetland mineral soils should be included in Background Table 3.9, under category 3C13 (CH4 Emissions
from Rewetted and Created Wetlands on Inland Wetland Mineral Soils). For information to be included in theinventory report, see Section 5.4 in Chapter 5 in this supplement and Section 7.2.2 below.

7.2.1.5

C ONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Supplementary guidance on CH4 and N2O emissions from wastewater treatment and discharge is provided in
Chapter 6 on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
are human-made wetlands and engineered systems that apply various technologies that use natural wetland
processes, wetland hydrology, soils, microbes, and plants to assist in treating wastewater. In addition toConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, methodologies in Chapter 6 cover natural wetland systems thathave been modified for wastewater treatment (semi-natural treatment wetlands). Methodologies are based on theload of nitrogen and organic carbon into the systems. The CH4 emissions are calculated based on biological orchemical oxygen demand data and emission factors related to the flows in these Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment (free water surface, vertical subsurface flow, and horizontal subsurface flow or hybrid
systems). The N2O emissions are calculated based on the amount of nitrogen in the wastewater.
CH4 and N2O emission from Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment are reported under category 4D
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge. The emissions should be divided into categories 4D1 (Domestic
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge) and 4D2 (Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Discharge) according tosource of wastewater treated.
The areas of Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment would be reported as part of areas underSettlements, Wetlands, or other land-use categories, as appropriate. If the establishment of the ConstructedWetlands for Wastewater treatment involves a land-use category conversion, the area changes should be reported
under appropriate land-use categories and the notation key ‘IE’ should be used for the CH4 and N2O emissions
under the category to which the land is converted, as these emissions are reported in the Waste sector. Anychanges in carbon stocks due to the land-use conversion, e.g. due to cutting of trees or removal of othervegetation, should also be reported under the category to which the land is converted. Double-counting of CH4
and N2O emissions from the land areas should be avoided. The areas of Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment are often small, and, if thresholds for minimum areas for reporting are not exceeded, specificreporting in the AFOLU sector is not required.
No changes to the reporting tables and background tables in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are made for the
inclusion of the emissions from Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Section 7.2.2 below addresses
the information that should be included in the inventory report.

7.8

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

7.2.2

Mapping the changes to categories in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines

Table 7.1 below shows how the supplementary guidance and new categories introduced in the Wetlands
Supplement are linked to the guidance and categories in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This summarises thedescriptions given in the above sections on the methodological changes introduced in Chapters 2 to 6 in this
Wetlands Supplement.

TABLE 7.1
MAPPING BETWEEN THE CATEGORIES AND GUIDANCE IN THE 2006 IPCC GUIDELINES AND THE CHANGES TO THOSEINTRODUCED BY THE WETLANDS SUPPLEMENT.
Source ofemissions/sink forremovals

2006 IPCC Guidelines
Category

Wetlands Supplement

Guidance byCategory

Guidance byland-usecategoryclimatezone
nutrient
status forpeat
extraction
lands

3B1 to 3B6
Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland, Wetlands,
Settlements and Other Land•••

Category 3B4ai renamed as
Peat Extraction Remaining
Peat Extraction, respective
change to 3B4bi•

Drained inland organic soils
CO2

3B1 to 3B6
Forest Land,
Cropland,
Grassland,
Wetlands,
Settlements andOther Land
Category 3B4ai
Peatlands
Remaining
Peatlands•••

land-use category
climate zone
drainage class(drained, shallow,
deep)
nutrient status

New source: off-site CO2
emissions due to waterborne
carbon losses
CO2

Category 3C1
Emissions from
Biomass Burning

•

CH4

-

-

CH4

-

-

N2O

3C4 Direct N2Oemissions fromManaged Soils•

pool
excludingthe soilorganic
matterCategory 3C1 renamed to
Burning to take into accountnew guidance on CO2emissions from the soil poolfrom fires on drainedorganic soils•

pools (biomass,
dead organic
matter, soilorganic matter)

New category:
3C8 CH4 from Drained
Organic Soils•••

land-use category
climate zone
drainage class(drained, shallow,
deep)
nutrient status•

drainedorganic
soils

New category:
3C9 CH4 from Drainage
Ditches on Organic Soils•••

land-use category
climate zone
drainage class(drained, shallow,
deep)

3C4 Direct N2O emissions
from Managed Soils•••

land-use category
climate zone
drainage class(drained, shallow,
deep)
nutrient status•2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

7.9

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

Rewetted organic soils
CO2,

-

-

New sources/sinks under
3B1 to 3B6
Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland, Wetlands,
Settlements and OtherLand:
CO2 emissions/removals
from rewetted soils andCO2 emissions due todissolved organic carbon
export from rewettedorganic soils••

climate zone
nutrient status(boreal climatezone )

CH4--

New category:
3C10 CH4 from Rewettingof Organic Soils••

climate zone
nutrient status(boreal andtemperate climate
zone)

N2O

-

-

N2O emissions fromrewetted organic soils(only when higher-tiermethods available)•••

climate zone/region
vegetation typesalinity (whereapplicable/
available)
management
activity

To be reported under 3C14
(Other) (Non-CO2 GHG
emissions not included
elsewhere)
Coastal wetlands
CO2,

-

-

New sources/sinks under
3B1 to 3B6
Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland, Wetlands,
Settlements and Other
Land
from the following
activities:••

forest management inmangroves• extraction inmangroves, tidal
marshes and seagrassmeadows (including
excavation,aquaculture and salt
production)• rewetting,revegetation andcreation inmangroves, tidal
marshes and sea grassmeadows• soil drainage inmangroves and tidal
marches
New subcategories under
Wetlands need to becreated to cover all
potential reporting options:
3B4aiii (Other Wetlands
Remaining Other

7.10

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Wetlands), and3B4biii (Land Converted
to Other Wetlands)
NOTE: When activities
and emissions occur onareas that are not includedin the total land area ofthe country, the reporting
should be split into twoparts: areas included in
the total land area andareas not included in the
total land area. The landuse change matrix should
include only those areasthat are part of the total
land area.
CH4

-

-

New category:
3C11 CH4 Emissions fromRewetting of Mangroves
and Tidal Marshes••

wetland typesalinity

N2O

-

-

New category:
3C12 N2O Emissions from
Aquaculture•fish-produced

Updated default reference
soil organic carbon stocks(SOC) for inland wetland
mineral soils under 3B1 to
3B6Forest Land, Cropland,
Grassland, Wetlands,
Settlements and Other
Land

•
•

climate zone/region
management
activity

Inland wetland mineral soils (IWMS)
CO2

Guidance for
estimating C stockchanges in soils
including inlandmineral soil
wetlands under allland-use categories
3B1 to 3B6
Forest Land,
Cropland,
Grassland,
Wetlands,
Settlements andOther Land••land-usecategoryclimate zone

CO2

-

-

New stock change factors
for land use for long term
cultivation and rewettingof Cropland with IWMS••

climate zone
moisture regime

CH4

-

-

3C13 CH4 from Rewetted
and Created Wetlands on
Inland Wetland Mineral
Soils

•

climate zone

New treatment types
under
4D Wastewater Treatment
and Discharge•

wastewater type(domestic orindustrial)
BOD/COD load
treatment anddisposal typeincludingconstructedwetlands and seminatural treatment
wetlands
flow type

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
CH4,
N2O

4D Wastewater
Treatment andDischarge•••

wastewatertype(domestic orindustrial)
BOD/COD
load
treatment
and disposal
type

•
•

•

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

7.11

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

CO2

7.2.3

3B4 to 3B6
Wetlands,
Settlements andOther Land

No specificguidance but C
stock changes
from land-use
change coveredby the general
methodologies

3B4 to 3B6
Wetlands, Settlements andOther Land

No specific guidance
but C stock changes
from land-use change
covered by the general
methodologies in the2006 IPCC Guidelines

Documentation

Chapter 8 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides guidance on reporting complete, consistent, andtransparent national greenhouse gas inventories. Category-specific guidance on documentation relevant to the
supplementary guidance provided in this Wetlands Supplement is provided in Chapters 2 to 6.
Reporting in accordance with the Wetlands Supplement involves combining guidance from both this Wetlands
Supplement and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The estimation of emissions and removals requires, in some cases, acombination of methodologies which, if care is not taken, can lead to double-counting or omission of emissions
or removals. The reporting of emissions and removals from specific activities, e.g. rewetting and drainage, isdisaggregated among land-use categories and specific or generic categories for reporting of non-CO2 emissions.
National circumstances will also significantly affect reporting. In some countries, the categories will have asignificant impact on total national emissions, but in others they will be insignificant.
It is good practice to provide the following information specific to the guidance in this Wetlands Supplement in
the national inventory report:•

Methods for identifying activities and land areas;•

Classification of activities and land areas;•

Indication if emissions/removals are associated with areas that are not included in the total land areas.

•

Disaggregated activity data and emission factors/parameters used by climate regime (temperature,
precipitation), nutrient status, ecosystem type and activity/system, as relevant, and the level at which theemissions/removals are estimated.

•

Information on how completeness has been assessed and double-counting avoided, i.e. in the following
cases:••

If the stock change method is used for a specific category/activity for estimation of CO2
emissions/removals from soils and the default emission factors are used for dissolved organic carbon,
the latter emissions may be included in the stock change estimate.

•

Combining a country-specific method to estimate emissions/removals from belowground biomass, litter,or understory (vegetation such as mosses) with default emission factors for drainage and rewetting,which integrate all carbon fluxes from the soil and the above- and belowground vegetation components
other than trees, could double-count the respective emissions/removals.

•

Documentation for Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment should show that total organics inwastewater includes but does not double-count the part of organics treated in these systems.

•

Documentation on country-specific methods taking into account the impact of grazing on rewetted soils
in the estimation of N2O emissions from these lands should show that the nitrogen input is not
calculated also under category 3A2 (Manure Management). Livestock emissions (CH4 from entericfermentation and N2O from manure management) are, by default, not included under the land-use
categories.

When country-specific emission/removal factors or other parameters are used, documentation and referencesthat justify their use should be provided. The documentation should show that the country-specificemission/removal factors or other parameters result in an improvement in the accuracy of the estimates.

7.2.4

Reporting tables

AFOLU sectoral reporting and background tables given in Annex 8A.2, Chapter 8 in Volume 1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines are applicable, with minor changes, for reporting of emissions/removals for methodologies inthis Wetlands Supplement. AFOLU Sectoral Table 3 and Background Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.9, included

7.12

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reportingin Annex 8A.2, Chapter 8 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, have been updated to cover the newcategories introduced in this Wetlands Supplement (see Annex 7A.2 in this chapter).
Guidance on reporting, including a description of the changes made to the background tables, is presented abovein Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 by chapter of this Wetlands Supplement.

7.2.5

Worksheets

Annex 7A.1 also provides worksheets for each subcategory for which guidance is given in the Wetlands
Supplement. The worksheets can be used to estimate emissions based on Tier 1 methods and appropriate
emission/stock change factors and activity data.

7.3

UNCERTAINTIES

7.3.1

Overview of uncertainty analysis

Uncertainty is an expression of the degree to which the value of a variable is unknown (IPCC, 2007). In
greenhouse gas inventories, uncertainty derives from quantifiable errors and variation in methods and data.
For greenhouse gas inventories, quantification of uncertainty is important because it allows inventory agencies toascertain if estimated changes in greenhouse gas emissions and removals over two or more years are larger thanthe uncertainty of possible estimates for an individual year. In wetlands and drained soils, the magnitude ofcarbon stocks is often much larger than annual emissions or removals, so large uncertainties in carbon stock
estimates may make it difficult to determine if estimated annual emissions or removals are real or a result of
uncertainty. Uncertainty analysis can indicate areas for future improvement of inventory methods that can reduce
the uncertainties.
In greenhouse gas inventories, major quantifiable sources of uncertainty include:•

field measurement errors•

remote sensing inaccuracies•

geographic and land cover map inaccuracies•

missing or incomplete data in time series•

misreporting or misclassification•

data bias or unrepresentative sampling•

random sampling error•

spatial variation•

spatial or temporal autocorrelation, when not properly considered•

model inaccuracies

Uncertainty analysis generally proceeds through these steps:•

Identification of primary sources of uncertainty.

•

Estimation of uncertainties of individual variables.

•

Combination of individual variable uncertainties into total uncertainty estimates of emissions or removals
for a land-use category for a geographic area.

This section summarises scientific methods for the two approaches of uncertainty analysis set forth in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines. This section aims to summarise material from Chapter 3 in Volume 1 and Chapter 7 inVolume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, summarise new methods for the categories and subcategories describedin Chapters 2 to 6 of this Wetlands Supplement, and assess methods across the wetlands and drained soil
subcategories. To the extent possible, it provides published examples. Inventory compilers should consult thedetailed information in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and this Wetlands Supplement.

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

7.13

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

7.3.2

Methods for quantifying uncertainty

The measure of uncertainty for national greenhouse gas inventories is the 95% confidence interval (CI). It isgood practice to report the 95% CI for individual variables, including activity data, emissions factors, biomass
densities, other parameters, and total greenhouse gas emissions or removals from any key category or land-use
category for a geographic area.
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines set forth two approaches for quantifying uncertainty. Approach 1 is a basic approachthat uses algebraic equations to combine individual variable uncertainties. Approach 2 is an advanced approachthat uses Monte Carlo analysis.
Approach 1 - Use the measures of uncertainty for individual variables given in the default tables in this
Wetlands Supplement and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. To combine individual variable uncertainties into total
estimates of the uncertainty of emissions or removals for any key category or land-use category for a geographic
area, use algebraic uncertainty combination methods (Mandel, 1984), identified in Chapter 3 in Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Use Equation 7.1 to calculate the uncertainty of a set of added variables:
EQUATION 7.1
ALGEBRAIC COMBINATION OF UNCERTAINTIES – ADDITION AND SUBTRACTION

Where:
Utotal =uncertainty (95% CI) of the sum of the variables

Ui =uncertainty (95% CI) of a variable

xi = value of a variable.
If the sum emissions and removals 4 in the denominator approaches zero, Equation 7.1 may give very highuncertainty values and not reflect the true value of underlying uncertainties of the individual emissions or
removals estimates. In a time series, changes in the value given by Equation 7.1 may not necessarily reflect realchanges in uncertainties of individual variables. In such cases, it may be better to use absolute uncertainty valuesof removals in the denominator. These absolute values can be combined with absolute values of the rest of theinventory to give overall inventory uncertainty.
Use Equation 7.2 to calculate the uncertainty of a set of multiplied variables:
EQUATION 7.2
ALGEBRAIC COMBINATION OF UNCERTAINTIES – MULTIPLICATION

Where:
Utotal =uncertainty (95% CI) of the product of a set of variables

Ui =uncertainty (95% CI) of a variable

Refer to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for detailed steps of algebraic uncertainty combination, including calculationof uncertainties of temporal trends.
This Wetlands Supplement presents guidance to take into consideration the sources of uncertainty, either in
activity data or emissions factors that are important specifically for wetlands and drained soils. The definitions ofsubcategories for wetlands and drained soils, and delineation of their surface areas can, by themselves, besources of uncertainty. While the 2006 IPCC Guidelines generally stratify land-use categories by ecological zone
(Chapter 3 in Volume 4) or climate zone, this Wetlands Supplement stratifies wetlands and drained soils into
subcategories based on their characteristics and human activities. The following list summarises particularsources of uncertainty for the subcategories and new tables that provide inventory compilers with default
uncertainty values.

4

Emissions are positive and removals negative values in greenhouse gas inventories.

7.14

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting•

Drained inland organic soils – Particular uncertainties include the high spatial variability of soil organiccarbon, variation of surface areas and emissions factors by drainage class, which requires estimates of thedepth of the water table, the fraction of land area occupied by drainage ditches, which is the key parameterfor estimating CH4 emissions, and high spatial and temporal variability of N2O emissions, which cangenerate large standard errors relative to mean fluxes. Particular sources of uncertainty for estimates of fireemissions include variability of fire behavior among vegetation types, variation of the fraction of fuelcombusted among ecosystems, fires, years, and land management practices, partitioning of smoke among
CO2, CO, and other gases, and estimates of burned area and fuels.
 Table 2.1 - Tier 1 CO2 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use categories
 Table 2.2 - Default DOC emission factors for drained organic soils
 Table 2.3 - Tier 1 CH4 emission/removal factors for drained organic soils (EFCH4_land) in all land-use
categories
 Table 2.4 - Default CH4 emission factors for drainage ditches Table 2.5 - Tier 1 Direct N2O emission/removal factors for drained organic soils in all land-use
categories
 Table 2.6 - Organic soil fuel consumption values
 Table 2.7 - Emission factors (g kg-1 dry matter burnt) for organic soil fires•

Rewetted organic soils – The principal uncertainty is the high spatial variability of soil organic carbon.
 Table 3.1 - Default emission factors (EFCO2) and associated uncertainty, for CO2-C from rewettedorganic soils (all values in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1)
 Table 3.2 - Default DOC emission factors (EFDOC_REWETTED in tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr-1) for rewettedorganic soils
 Table 3.3 - Default emission factors for CH4 from rewetted organic soils (all values in kg CH4-C ha-1
yr-1)

•

Coastal wetlands – Particular uncertainties include variation of aboveground biomass by mangrove or
seagrass species, forest age, tide height, soil fertility, salinity of flood waters, and flood frequency and interannual variation of vegetation production.
 Table 4.2 - Carbon fraction of above-ground biomass (tonnes C (tonnes d.m.)-1) in mangroves Table 4.3 - Above-ground biomass in mangroves (tonnes d.m. ha-1)
 Table 4.4 - Above-ground biomass growth in mangroves (tonnes d.m. ha-1 yr-1)
 Table 4.5 - Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R) in mangroves Table 4.6 - Average density (D; tonnes m-3) of mangrove wood Table 4.7 - Tier 1 default values for litter and dead wood carbon stocks in mangroves Table 4.8 - Summary of Tier 1 estimation of initial changes in carbon pools for extraction activities
 Table 4.9 - Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R) for tidal marshes
 Table 4.10 - Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass (R) for seagrass meadows Table 4.11 - Soil carbon stocks for mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows for extraction
activities
 Table 4.12 - Annual emission factors associated with rewetting (EFRE) on aggregated organic andmineral soils (tonnes C ha-1 yr-1) at initiation of vegetation reestablishment
 Table 4.13 - Annual emission factors associated with drainage (EFDR) on aggregated organic andmineral soils (tonnes C ha-1 yr-1)
 Table 4.14 - Emission factors for CH4 (EFREWET) Tier 1 estimation of rewetted land previously
vegetated by tidal marshes and mangroves Table 4.15 - Emission factor (EFF) for N2O emission from aquaculture use in mangroves, tidal marshes
and seagrass meadows2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

7.15

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting•

Inland wet mineral soils – Some emissions are a function of time under management.
 Table 5.2 - Default reference soil organic carbon stocks (SOCREF) for wetland mineral soils under native
vegetation (0-30 cm depth) Table 5.3 - Relative stock change factors for land use (FLU) for long-term cultivation on cropland with
IWMS (over 20 years) and rewetting of cropland with IWMS (over 20 years and 40 years)
 Table 5.4 - Default emission factors for CH4 from managed lands with IWMS where water table levelhas been raised•

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment – Major sources of uncertainty include estimation of
the quantity of treated wastewater, fraction of organics converted anaerobically to CH4 during wastewatercollection, amount of industrial organic wastewater from small or medium industries discharged into
constructed wetlands, and differences in gas exchange by different plant species.
 Table 6.2 - Influent total organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN) values, relevant CH4-C andN2O-N emissions, and share (%) of CH4-C and N2O-N in the initial loading of TOC and TN inconstructed wetlands Table 6.5 - Default uncertainty ranges for domestic and industrial wastewater Table 6.7 - Nitrous oxide methodology default uncertainties

It is good practice to use uncertainty estimates reported by or derived from the same data sources used for theemissions and removals estimates. For Tier 1 estimates, use the uncertainties given in the IPCC default tables.
For Tier 2, the data sources of the country- or ecosystem-specific parameters would provide the most appropriate
uncertainty estimates. In the absence of country- or ecosystem-specific uncertainty estimates, it is possible to use
published uncertainty estimates for similar ecosystems or circumstances, such as listed in Table 7.2 below. Thesepublished uncertainty estimates can also provide useful data to check country- or ecosystem-specific uncertainty
estimates.
TABLE 7.2
EXAMPLES OF WETLANDS AND DRAINED SOILS WITH PUBLISHED ESTIMATES OF UNCERTAINTIES OF PARAMETERS USEDIN ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

Continent

AfricaAsia

North America

South America

Global7.16

Country

Wetland or drained soil type

Reference

Botswana

Okavango Delta

Mladenov et al., 2005

Madagascar

estuary

Ralison et al., 2008

Senegalestuary area

Sakho et al., 2011

China

constructed wetland

Chen et al., 2011

Indo-Pacificmangroves

Donato et al., 2011

Indonesia

peat swamps and oil palms

Murdiyarso et al., 2010

Canadarestored wetlands

Badiou et al., 2011

Costa Rica

tropical inland wetlands

Bernal and Mitsch. 2008

USA

streams and rivers

Butman and Raymond, 2011

Argentina

river marsh

Vicari et al., 2011

BrazilPantanal

Schöngart et al., 2011

Peru

Amazonian peatland

Lähteenoja et al., 2012

Globalcoastal ecosystems

Mcleod et al., 2011

Globalfreshwater wetlands

Kayranli et al., 2010

Globalfreshwater wetlands methane

Bastviken et al., 2011

Globalmangroves

Breithaupt et al., 2012

Globalrestored wetlands

Moreno-Mateos et al., 2012

Globalseagrass

Fourqurean et al., 2012

Globaltropical peatlands

Page et al., 2011

Globalwetlands carbon and methane

Mitsch et al., 20102013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Approach 2 – For an individual variable, calculate the 95% CI from the probability density function (PDF) of
measurements of the variable. Derive the PDF from a random sample. Capture the principal forms of spatial andtemporal variation in the sample or calculate different PDFs for the principal spatial and temporal strata. Section
3.2.2.4, Chapter 3 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provides methods to develop PDFs.
To combine individual variable uncertainties into total estimates of emissions or removals for a land-use
category or a geographic area, use the Monte Carlo method (Metropolis and Ulam, 1949), set forth by the 2006
IPCC Guidelines as Approach 2. The Monte Carlo method is a statistical technique that quantifies theuncertainty of a variable based on a large number of randomized realisations of the value of the variable basedon its mean value and the standard error of the mean (for a PDF that follows a normal distribution) or otherappropriate measure of error (for other types of PDFs).
For example, the width of a ditch is an essential variable in estimating CH4 emissions from drained organic soils(Equation 2.6 in Chapter 2 of this supplement). In a typical field survey, a person might measure the width of aditch once and record the measurement. If the measurement were immediately repeated, the result may beslightly different due to the exact placement of the measuring device, judgment of the level of water, which
defines the width, possible errors in transcribing or transmitting the value, and other factors. Repeating themeasurement 100 or 1000 times would generate a PDF that might typically take the form of a normal
distribution. The 95% CI of the distribution is a measure of the uncertainty of the ditch width measurement.
Monte Carlo analysis consists of running a calculation for a statistically significant number of replications,typically 100 to 10 000, producing a probability density function of the result, and calculating the 95% CI of the
PDF. For any equation, the Monte Carlo form of a variable (Equation 7.3 below) can replace each of thevariables in the equation. The large number of realisations effectively combines the uncertainties of individual
variables.
EQUATION 7.3
MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS – GENERAL FORM OF A VARIABLE

x i = mean x + (randomi × SE x )Where:
xi =value of realisation i of a variable,i=statistically significant number of realisations, typically 100 – 10 000

meanx =

mean value of a variablerandomi = random number for realisation i, from -1 to 1, taken from a set of random numbers that form aprobability distribution function specific to the variable
SEx =standard error of the mean value of the variable

Refer to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for detailed steps of Monte Carlo analysis, including selection of an
appropriate PDF for a variable and its random numbers. Inventory compilers and scientists have quantified
uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories in a range of cases, including the national inventories of Austria(Winiwarter and Muik, 2010), Finland (Monni et al., 2007), and the Netherlands (Ramírez et al., 2008) and highbiomass ecosystems in California, USA (e.g. Gonzalez et al., 2010) and Canada (e.g. Kurz et al., 2008).
Ways to reduce uncertainty in both Approach 1 and Approach 2 include:•

Organic soils – Spatially disaggregated CO2 flux measurements can provide data to develop local emission
factors, correcting for carbon losses through leaching of dissolved organic carbon or runoff. Quantificationof impacts of land use and management on emissions can improve emissions estimates. Examples include
organic matter additions to agricultural land that can increase substrate supply for methane production inditches, short-term pulses of ditch CH4 emission associated with land-use change, and nutrient-enriched soils
that are a legacy of past land use.

•

Rewetted peatlands – CO2 and CH4 emissions are often a function of present vegetation composition andprevious land use history. So, stratification of an area by these properties can improve emissions estimates.
Determination of spatial variation of peat type and depth, vegetation composition, soil temperature, meanwater table depth, the provision by vegetation of substrates for CH4 production, and transport by vegetationof CH4 from saturated soil to the atmosphere can improve emissions estimates.

•

Coastal wetlands – More detailed stratification of land by drainage and other management systems canimprove emissions estimates. Quantification of the effects of coastal grassland management, including
grazing, fire, liming, and fertilization, can improve emissions estimates.

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

7.17

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting•

Inland mineral soil wetlands – Chapter 5 in the Wetlands Supplement does not identify uncertainty
reduction methods.

•

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment – Provide separate estimates for domestic andindustrial wastewater by type of constructed wetlands (surface flow (SF), horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF),
and vertical subsurface flow (VSSF)).

7.4

IMPACT ON KEY CATEGORIES

7.4.1

Overview of key category analysis

A key category is a category that is prioritized within the national inventory system because its estimate has asignificant influence on a country’s total inventory of greenhouse gases in terms of the absolute level, the trend,or the uncertainty in emissions and removals. Whenever the term key category is used, it includes both sourceand sink categories.
Methodological choice (choice of tier) for individual source and sink categories is important in managing overall
inventory uncertainty. Generally, inventory uncertainty is lower when higher-tier methods are used to estimate
emissions and removals. However, higher-tier methods generally require extensive resources for data collection,
so it may not be feasible to use these methods for every category. It is therefore good practice to identify thosecategories that have the greatest contribution to the total magnitude of inventory emissions, removals, and/or
uncertainty, to make the most efficient use of available resources. By identifying the key categories in thenational inventory, inventory compilers can prioritize their efforts and improve the overall estimates. The
purpose, general rules, and approaches for the key category analysis of the whole greenhouse gas inventory arepresented in Chapter 4 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
According to Section 4.2 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the general rules for performing the key
category analysis are:•

The analysis should be performed at the level of IPCC categories or subcategories for which IPCC methods
and/or decision trees are provided.

•

Each greenhouse gas emitted from each category should be considered separately, unless there are specificmethodological reasons for treating gases collectively.

•

Emissions and removals from a category should also be considered separately, where possible and relevant.

Table 4.1 in Section 4.2 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines gives a recommended level at which the key
category analysis should be performed. Countries may, however, choose to perform the quantitative analysis at amore disaggregated level than suggested in the table.
Key category analyses are performed using two approaches. Approach 1 is based on level and trend assessments.
In the level assessment under Approach 1, categories of the inventory are listed in the order of absolute values of
their contribution to the sum of the absolute value of emissions and removals, and the largest categories
contributing to 95% of this sum are considered key categories. The trend assessment under Approach 1 analyses
the contribution of a category to the trend and if the trend of the category is significantly different from that of
the inventory. The categories contributing most to 95% of the trend are considered key categories. Section 4.3.1
in Chapter 4 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines presents the details on the key category analysis.
Approach 2 is based on similar level and trend assessments, but it also takes into account uncertainties of thecategories included in the analysis (for details, see Section 4.3.2 in Chapter 4 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines).
Countries are encouraged to undertake key category analysis using Approaches 1 and 2, because Approach 2 canprovide additional insight, e.g. on the order in which to tackle categories identified in Approach 1.
Countries are also encouraged to include qualitative criteria in the key category analysis (see Section 4.3.3 in
Chapter 4 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). If quantitative key category analysis has not been carriedout due to lack of completeness in the inventory, it is good practice to use qualitative criteria to identify key
categories.

7.18

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

7.4.2

Key category analysis including the categories
affected by the Wetlands Supplement

According to Table 4.1, Chapter 4 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the appropriate aggregation level
for land use CO2 emissions (carbon stock changes) distinguishes the emissions or removals for lands remaining
and lands converted to each of the six land-use categories. Thus, twelve categories need to be distinguished. Thisapproach is considered appropriate, as the CO2 emissions/removals from the land-use categories are generally
estimated using the same or similar generic methodologies and also using the same activity data (area data).
The Wetlands Supplement introduces new subcategories and more detailed guidance for some categories in the
AFOLU Sector. Also, the Wastewater Treatment category in the Waste Sector is complemented with anadditional treatment system (constructed wetlands). Despite these changes, inventory compilers should continue
to perform the key category analysis at the level suggested in Table 4.1, Chapter 4 in Volume 1 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines. In addition, inventory compilers should determine which pools and subcategories are
significant. The significance of the categories and subcategories affected by the Wetlands Supplement should beassessed using the general rule that a subcategory is significant if it accounts for 25-30% of its key category (seedecision trees in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 in Chapter 1 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).
In the quantitative key category analysis, when emissions/removals from a specific activity, such as conversionof forest to other land uses, are estimated using the same methodology, but spread out among different land-use
change categories, inventory compilers should identify and sum up the emission/removal estimates for thisactivity and compare its magnitude with the smallest category identified as key. If this sum is larger than thesmallest category identified as key, the activity in question should be considered key. Countries should assess
whether this rule would be applicable to their circumstance for categories addressed in this Wetlands Supplement.

7.5

COMPLETENESS

Complete greenhouse gas inventories include estimates of emissions and removals from the sources and sinks forwhich methodological guidance is provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the Wetlands Supplement unlessthe specific sources and sinks do not occur on the national territory. The decision tree in Figure 1.1 and Table 1.3
in Chapter 1 of this report provide guidance on the links between guidance in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and theWetlands Supplement to help countries in ensuring complete coverage of all relevant categories in the inventory.
A country may consider that a disproportionate amount of effort would be required to collect data for a category
or a gas from a specific category that would be insignificant in terms of the overall level and trend in nationalemissions. The Wetlands Supplement addresses sources and sinks for which the significance varies considerably
by country. For instance, some wetland and drained soil types occur only in some regions of the world. The
amount of organic soils may be very small in some countries and tidal effects on emissions would be applicable
only to coastal countries. In circumstances where the supplementary guidance is not applicable to a country or
emissions/removals are not reported due to their insignificance, they should use the notation keys ‘NO’ (notoccurring) and ‘NE’ (not estimated) respectively. For details on the use of the notation keys, the inventory
compilers should refer to Section 8.2.5 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It is good practice to provide
justification for each emission estimate for which the notation key ‘NE’ is used.

7.6

TIME SERIES CONSISTENCY

7.6.1

Overview of time series issues

Greenhouse gas inventory methods should be consistent for an entire time series so that each year in the timeseries can be compared with other years. This provides countries with information to properly assess temporal
trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals and the effectiveness of emissions reduction measures. Issues
that will affect time series consistency include:•changes and refinements to scientific methods due to research advances•

addition of new categories•

data gaps•

correction of errors

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

7.19

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

In a consistent time series, changes in emissions or removals over time are due to real phenomena in the fieldrather than any influence of the above set of circumstances.
This Wetlands Supplement includes substantial changes to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines methods for soil organic
matter and refines the subcategories within all land-use categories. This will make necessary the recalculation of
results from previous years to produce a consistent time series.
This section summarises material from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, including Chapter 5 in Volume 1 and Chapter
7 in Volume 4. It also adds recent scientific information described in Chapters 2-6 of this Wetlands Supplement.

7.6.2

Methods for producing consistent time seriesThis section provides guidance for producing consistent time series of emissions and removals for the categories
and subcategories addressed in this Wetlands Supplement. It presents the information by the tiers that inventory
compilers already use to estimate emissions and removals.
All tiers - Recalculate an entire data series when changing from the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2003 Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, and2006 IPCC Guidelines to the Wetlands Supplement, when methods are refined due to scientific advances, newdata become available, QC finds errors in previous estimates, or a land classification changes. For data gaps, it isgood practice to clearly report where an inventory presents measured or monitored results and where it presents
model output.
Tier 1 – Use the activity data for years available in the default sources presented in the Wetlands Supplement andthe 2006 IPCC Guidelines or national data sources, where available, and fill gaps using appropriate methods in
Section 5.3, Chapter 5 in Volume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Tiers 2 and 3 - To fill data gaps, examine available historical sources, administrative records, aerial photographs,
or remote sensing and use appropriate methods in Section 5.3, Chapter 5 in Volume 1 the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
Alternatively, interpolate using a function that models empirical trends or underlying processes. Identify years
where the inventory presents measured or monitored results and where it presents model output. Some examples
of producing consistent time series include field validation of model dead wood time series in the Netherlands
national greenhouse gas inventory (van der Maas et al., 2011; Figure 7.1), data gap filling of CO2 fluxes from
Everglades National Park, USA (Barr et al., 2010), and filling of night-time gaps in ecosystem respiration in
Lake Victoria wetlands, Uganda (Saunders et al., 2012). The case of the Netherlands is an example that
illustrates recalculation of a time series to improve consistency. When field measurements of dead wood showedthat modelled estimates were not accurate, the inventory agency revised the parameters in its dead wood modeland recalculated the entire time series (van der Maas et al., 2011; Figure 7.1). Refer to Section 5.3, Chapter 5 inVolume 1 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for detailed steps of filling historical gaps by splicing and for the use of
surrogate parameters.
Figure 7.1

Example of recalculation of a time series.

The 2011 national inventory report (NIR) for the Netherlands (van der Maas et al., 2011) provided a more accurate time series of the
carbon stock in dead wood than previous inventories. Measured values of dead wood stocks in the Netherlands national forest
inventory (black dots) showed that national greenhouse gas inventories prior to 2011 (purple upper line) overestimated the build-upof the carbon stock. Inventory compilers found that their model underestimated the removal of dead wood from forests. Adjustmentof that parameter generated a model time series (green lower line) that met the measured values.

7.20

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

7.7

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITYCONTROL

7.7.1

Overview of quality issues

Quality assurance and quality control are procedures to improve the accuracy, transparency, consistency,
comparability, and completeness of inventories. Effectively implemented quality procedures can reduce
uncertainties of greenhouse gas inventories. Quality control (QC) is a system of routine activities to assess,
improve or maintain the quality of the inventory as it is being compiled. Quality assurance (QA) is a plannedsystem of review procedures conducted by personnel not directly involved in the inventory and performed on acompleted inventory. This section summarises material from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, including Volume 1,
Chapter 6 and Volume 4, Chapter 7. It also adds recent scientific information described in Chapters 2-6 of this
Wetlands Supplement.

7.7.2

Quality assurance and quality control methods

Provide routine and consistent checks to ensure data integrity, correctness, and completeness. Identify andaddress errors and omissions. Document and archive inventory material and record all QC activities. Checklabelling, transcription, and other clerical issues related to data entry (See complete list in Table 6.1, Volume 1of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). Double-check outlying values against data sources. Check final results against
previous years and published values. Compare inventories with results from similar ecosystems in othercountries. Conduct an area-balance for land-use category areas and, when applicable, a mass-balance forgreenhouse gas emissions and removals. Develop automated data control procedures. It is good practice toprioritize key categories for more extensive QA and QC.
Where default values are used, ensure that they reflect the country’s conditions because inappropriate default
values increase uncertainty.
Where higher tiers are used, check estimates against local sources for activity data, emissions factors, and othervariables. Check scientific literature for any new scientific information.
Computer models can be validated against field measurements and resulting differences should be included in
the calculation of uncertainty (Section 7.2.1). The validation measure can be a correlation of predicted andmeasured values (Figure 7.2; Miehle et al., 2006), fractional agreement of modelled and observed data (Figure
7.3; Chadwick, 2011), or other variable. Separate the data set used for calibration of a model from the data set
used for validation of the model. When more than one model is available for a particular parameter, intercomparison of model output can provide indications of the robustness of individual models. Comparison of Tier
3 models with estimates using Tier 1 and Tier 2 methods can serve that same purpose. IPCC (2011) provides
numerous specific examples of model development, calibration, and validation.
Figure 7.2

Example of validation of a model for quality control

Values of aboveground biomass derived from field measurements of Eucalyptus globulus in Australia (x-axis) provide data tovalidate the accuracy of output from the Forest-Denitrification decomposition (DNDC) model (y-axis) (Miehle et al., 2006). The
correlation coefficient (r) and significance probability (not shown) are validation measures of the model. More observed values and awider range of carbon densities would improve the validation.

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

7.21

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

Figure 7.3

Example of validation of remote sensing data for quality control

The map shows wetlands cover in part of Florida, USA, derived from an Ikonos satellite image (Chadwick, 2011). The table is anerror matrix that shows the fraction of pixels (%) where the Ikonos-derived wetlands cover class (columns) matches the class directly
observed in the field (rows). The overall accuracy (83%) is the validation measure. The column ‘omission’ gives the fraction ofobserved pixels that the Ikonos cover classification missed. The row ‘commission’ gives the fraction of Ikonos-derived wetlands coverpixels that the classification incorrectly identified.

7.22

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

References
Badiou, P., McDougal, R., Pennock, D. & Clark., B. (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration
potential in restored wetlands of the Canadian prairie pothole region. Wetlands Ecology and Management 19:
237-256.
Barr, J.G., Engel, V., Fuentes, J.D., Zieman, J.C., O’Halloran, T.L., Smith, T.J. & Anderson, G.H. (2010)
Controls on mangrove forest-atmosphere carbon dioxide exchanges in western Everglades National Park.
Journal of Geophysical Research 115: G02020. doi:10.1029/2009JG001186.
Bastviken, D., Tranvik, L.J., Downing, J.A., Crill, P.M. & Enrich-Prast, A. (2011) Freshwater methane
emissions offset the continental carbon sink. Science 331: 50.
Bernal, B. & Mitsch , W.J. (2008) A comparison of soil carbon pools and profiles in wetlands in Costa Rica andOhio. Ecological Engineering 34: 311-323.
Breithaupt, J.L., Smoak, J.M., Smith III, T.J., Sanders, C.J. & Hoare, A. (2012) Organic carbon burial rates inmangrove sediments: Strengthening the global budget. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 26: GB3011.
doi:10.1029/2012GB004375.
Butman, D. & Raymond, P.A. (2011) Significant efflux of carbon dioxide from streams and rivers in the UnitedStates. Nature Geoscience 4: 839-842.
Chadwick, J. (2011) Integrated LiDAR and IKONOS multispectral imagery for mapping mangrove distribution
and physical properties. International Journal of Remote Sensing 32: 6765-6781.
Chen, G.Q., Shao, L., Chen, Z.M., Li, Z., Zhang, B., Chen, H. & Wu, Z. (2011) Low-carbon assessment forecological wastewater treatment by a constructed wetland in Beijing. Ecological Engineering 37: 622-628.
Donato, D.C., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M. & Kanninen, M. (2011) Mangroves
among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience 4: 293-297.
Fourqurean, J.W., Duarte, C.M., Kennedy, H., Marbà, N., Holmer, M., Mateo, M.A., Apostolaki, E.T., Kendrick,G.A., Krause-Jensen, D., McGlathery, K.J. & Serrano, O. (2012) Seagrass ecosystems as a globallysignificant carbon stock. Nature Geoscience 5: 505–509.
Gonzalez, P., Asner, G.P., Battles, J.J., Lefsky, M.A., Waring, K.M. & Palace, M. (2010) Forest carbon densities
and uncertainties from Lidar, QuickBird, and field measurements in California. Remote Sensing ofEnvironment 114: 1561–1575.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1997) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Houghton, J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Lim, B., Tréanton, K.,
Mamaty, I., Bonduki, Y., Griggs, D.J. and Callander, B.A. (Eds). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2003) Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry. Penman, J., Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., Buendia, L., Miwa, K.,
Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. and Wagner, F. (Eds). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
IPCC/IGES, Hayama, Japan.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia
L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (Eds). Published: IGES, Japan.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2011) Use of Models and Facility-Level Data inGreenhouse Gas Inventories. Report of IPCC Expert Meeting on Use of Models and Measurements inGreenhouse Gas Inventories, 9-11 August 2010, Sydney, Australia. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Hayama, Japan.
Kayranli, B., Scholz, M., Mustafa, A. & Hedmark, A. (2010) Carbon storage and fluxes within freshwater
wetlands: A critical review. Wetlands 30: 111-124.
Kurz, W.A., Dymond, C.C., Stinson, G., Rampley, G.J., Neilson, E.T., Carroll, A.L., Ebata, T. & Safranyik, L.
(2008) Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452: 987-990.
Lähteenoja, O., Reátegui, Y.R., Räsänen, M., Torres, D.D.C., Oinonen, M. & Page, S. (2012) The large
Amazonian peatland carbon sink in the subsiding Pastaza-Marañón foreland basin, Peru. Global Change
Biology 18: 164-178.

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

7.23

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting

Mandel, J. (1984) The statistical analysis of experimental data. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, USA.
Mcleod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E., Schlesinger, W.H.
& Silliman, B.R. (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role ofvegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 552-560.
Metropolis, N. & Ulam, S. (1949) The Monte Carlo method. Journal of the American Statistical Association 44:
335-341.
Miehle, P., Livesley, S.J., Feikema, P.M., Li, C. & Arndt, S.K. (2006) Assessing productivity and carbon
sequestration capacity of Eucalyptus globulus plantations using the process model Forest-DNDC: Calibrationand validation. Ecological Modelling 192: 83-94.
Mitsch, W.J., Nahlik, A., Wolski, P., Bernal, B., Zhang, L. & Ramberg, L. (2010) Tropical wetlands: Seasonalhydrologic pulsing, carbon sequestration, and methane emissions. Wetlands Ecology and Management 18:
573-586.
Mladenov, N., McKnight, D.M., Wolski, P. & Ramberg, L. (2005) Effects of annual flooding on dissolved
organic carbon dynamics within a pristine wetland, the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Wetlands 25: 622-638.
Monni, S., Peltoniemi, M., Palosuo, T., Lehtonen, A., Mäkipää, R. & Savolainen, I. (2007) Uncertainty of forest
carbon stock changes – Implications to the total uncertainty of GHG inventory of Finland. Climatic Change
81: 391-413.
Moreno-Mateos, D., Power, M.E., Comín, F.A. & Yockteng, R. (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored
wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biology 10(1): e1001247. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247.
Murdiyarso, D., Hergoualc'h, K. & Verchot., L.V. (2010) Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
in tropical peatlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 19 655-19 660.
Page, S.E., Rieley, J.O. & Banks, C.J. (2011) Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon
pool. Global Change Biology, 17: 798-818.
Ralison, O.H., Borges, A.V., Dehairs, F., Middelburg, J.J. & Bouillon, S. (2008) Carbon biogeochemistry of the
Betsiboka estuary (north-western Madagascar). Organic Geochemistry 39: 1649-1658.
Ramírez, A., de Keizer, C., Van der Sluijs, J.P., Olivier, J. & Brandes, L. (2008) Monte Carlo analysis of
uncertainties in the Netherlands greenhouse gas emission inventory for 1990–2004. Atmospheric
Environment 42: 8263-8272.
Sakho, I., Mesnage, V., Deloffre, J., Lafite, R., Niang, I. & Faye, G. (2011) The influence of natural andanthropogenic factors on mangrove dynamics over 60 years: The Somone Estuary, Senegal. Estuarine,
Coastal, and Shelf Science 94: 93-101.
Saunders, M.J., Kansiime, F. & Jones, M.B. (2012) Agricultural encroachment: Implications for carbon
sequestration in tropical African wetlands. Global Change Biology 18: 1312–1321.
Schöngart, J., Arieira, J., Fortes, C.F., de Arruda, E.C. & da Cunha, C.N. (2011) Age-related and stand-wise
estimates of carbon stocks and sequestration in the aboveground coarse wood biomass of wetland forests inthe northern Pantanal, Brazil. Biogeosciences 8: 3407-3421.
van der Maas, C.W.M., Coenen, P.W.H.G., Zijlema, P.J., Baas, K., van den Berghe, G., te Biesebeek, J.D.,
Brandt, A.T., Geilenkirchen, G., van der Hoek, K.W., te Molder, R., Dröge, R., Peek, C.J., Vonk, J. & van
den Wyngaert, I. (2011) Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Netherlands 1990-2009. National Inventory
Report 2011. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Vicari, R., Kandus, P., Pratolongo, P. & Burghi, M. (2011) Carbon budget alteration due to landcover-landusechange in wetlands: the case of afforestation in the Lower Delta of the Parana River marshes (Argentina).
Water and Environment Journal 25: 378-386.
Winiwarter, W. & Muik, B. (2010) Statistical dependence in input data of national greenhouse gas inventories:
Effects on the overall inventory uncertainty. Climatic Change 103: 19-36.

7.24

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

ANNEX 7A.1

WORKSHEETSThis annex provides worksheets for use in estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals based on Tier 1
methods given in the Wetlands Supplement. Most of the worksheets included in this annex are new ones that are
not included in Annex 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. However, the following 6 worksheets updateor replace the existing worksheets in Annex 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
•

Worksheet for Land Remaining in a Land-use Category or Land Converted to a New Land-use Category:
Annual On-site Carbon Emissions and Removals from Drained Inland Organic Soils (Page 7.26)
This sheet replaces the existing worksheets for Annual Change in Carbon Stocks in Organic Soils for the
six land-use categories (e.g. existing worksheets on pages A1.23 and A1.27, Annex 1, Volume 4) in the2006 IPCC Guidelines.

•

Worksheet for Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils (Page 7.29)
This sheet updates the existing worksheet for Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils on page A1.58,
Annex 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

•

Worksheet for Cropland Remaining Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils (Page 7.44)
This sheet updates the existing worksheet for Annual Change in Carbon Stocks in Mineral Soils for
Cropland Remaining Cropland on page A1.22, Annex 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

•

Worksheet for Land (non-Cropland) remaining in a Land-use Category: Annual change in carbon stocks inmineral soils (Page 7.45)
This sheet updates the existing worksheets for Annual Change in Carbon Stocks in Mineral Soils for landremaining in the same land use category for land use category other than Cropland (e.g. existing
worksheet on page A1.28, Annex 1, Volume 4) in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

•

Worksheet for Land Converted to a Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils (Pages 7.467.47)
This sheet updates the existing worksheet on Annual Change in Carbon Stocks in Mineral Soils for Land
Converted to Cropland on page A1.26, Annex 1, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

•

Worksheet for Land Converted to a New Land-use Category (non-Cropland): Annual change in carbon
stocks in mineral soils (Page 7.48)
This sheet updates the existing worksheets for Annual Change in Carbon Stocks in Mineral Soils forland converted to a new land use category other than Cropland (e.g. existing worksheet on page A1.32,
Annex 1, Volume 4) in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

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

7.25

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

CHAPTER 2—DR AINED INLAND ORGAN IC SOILS

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Land-use category

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Land Remaining in a Land-use Category OR Land Converted to a New Land-use
Category1: Annual on-site carbon emissions and removals from drained Inland
organic soils[To be specified by the inventory compiler]2
2 of 3 (earlier was 2 of 2)
Equation 2.2(2006 IPCC
Equation 2.3 (Wetlands Supplement)
Guidelines)
Land area ofEmission factors
Annual on-site CO2-C
drained inland
for drained inlandemissions/removals fromorganic soils in aorganic soils, bydrained inland organic
land-use category
climate domain c,soils
in climate domain
nutrient status n,c, nutrient status n, and drainage classand drainage classddSubcategories forreporting year(ha)

Initial land use3

Land use during
reporting yearA

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

Table 2.1 of the
Wetlands
Supplement

CO2-Csoil-onsite = A * EFEF

CO2-Csoil-onsite

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
1

Sub-totals of emissions for each land pre-conversion land-use category will have to be calculated for conversion categories.
2
This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when thisworksheet is used to calculate emissions to be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
3
For conversion categories, if data by initial land use are not available, use only "non-LU" in this column.

7.26

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Land Remaining in a Land-use Category OR Land Converted to a New Land-use Category: Annual off-site emissions
from drained inland organic soils[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
3 of 3Equation 2.2 (2006 IPCC
Guidelines)

Land-use category

Initialland use

Land useduringreportingyear

Equation 2.5 (Wetlands Supplement)
Land area of drained inland
organic soils in a land-use
category in climate zone cand nutrient status nEmission factors for annual
CO2 emissions due to DOC
export from drained inland
organic soils, by climatezone c and nutrient status n(ha)(tonnes C ha yr )Subcategories for reporting
year

-1

-1

Annual off-site CO2-C
emissions from drained inland
organic soils-1(tonnes C yr )Table 2.2 of the Wetlands
Supplement
AEF

CO2-CDOC = A * EF

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet isused to calculate emissions to be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.

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

7.27

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Land Remaining in a Land-use Category OR Land Converted to a New Land-use Category1: Annual CH4 emissions from drained inland organicsoils[To be specified by the inventory compiler]2
1 of 1Equation 2.2(2006 IPCC
Guidelines)

Land-use category
Subcategories
for reportingyear

Initial3
land use

Equation 2.6 (Wetlands Supplement)
Land area of drained
inland organic soils ina land-use category
in climate zone c,nutrient status n andpeatland type p

Fraction of the total
area of drained
inland organic soil
which is occupied
4
by ditches

Emission factors for
direct CH4 emissions fromdrained organic soils, by
climate zone c andnutrient status nEmission factors for CH4
emissions from drainage
ditches, by climate zone cand peatland type pAnnual CH4-C loss from drained
inland organic soils(ha)(dimensionless)(tonnes CH4 ha-1 yr-1)(tonnes CH4 ha-1 yr-1)(tonnes CH4 yr-1)

Table 2.3 of the Wetlands
Supplement

Table 2.4 of the Wetlands
Supplement

EFCH4_land

EFCH4_ditch

Land useduringreportingyear
A

Fracditch

CH4-Corganic = A * [(1Fracditch)*EFCH4_land +Fracditch*EFCH4_ditch]

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
1

Sub-totals of emissions for each land pre-conversion land-use category will have to be calculated for conversion categories.
2
This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to bereported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
3
For conversion categories, if data by initial land use are not available, use only "non-LU" in this column.
4
Table 2.4, Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement contains indicative values of Frac ditch

7.28

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorAgriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

Category

Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils

Category code
Sheet

3C4
2 of 2Equation

Equation 11.1 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines and Equation 2.7 of the Wetlands Supplement
Annual area ofmanaged/drainedorganic soils

Emission factor for
N2O emissions fromdrained/managed
organic soils

Annual direct N2O-N
emissions produced
from managed organicsoils

Amount of urine
and dung N
deposited bygrazing animals
on pasture, range
and paddock(kg N2O-N

1,2Anthropogenic N input type

(ha)

FOS

-1

-1

Emission factor for
N2O emissions fromurine and dung N
deposited on
pasture, range andpaddock by grazing
animals

Annual direct N2Oemissions from urine anddung inputs to grazed
soils[kg N2O-N-1

ha yr )
Table 11.1 (2006
IPCC Guidelines)
and Table 2.5(Wetlands
Supplement)(kg N2O-N yr )N2O-NOS = FOS * EF2

EF2

N2 O-NOS-1(kg N yr )

FPRP

-1

Annual direct N2Oemissions from urine anddung inputs to grazed
soils(kg N2O-N-1-1(kg N input) ](kg N2O-N yr )yr )Table 11.1

N2O-NPRP = FPRP * EF3PRP

N2ODirect-N = N2O-NN input +N2O-NOS + N2O-NPRP

EF3PRPN2 O-NPRPN2 ODirect-N

CG, BorCG, Temp
CG, Trop
Managedorganic soils

F, Bor, NR
F, Bor, NP
F, Temp, NR
F, Temp, NP
F, Trop

Urine and dung
inputs to grazed
soils

CPP
SO

Total
The area must be disaggregated by Cropland and Grassland (CG), Forest (F), Temperate (Temp), Tropical (Trop), Nutrient Rich (NR), and Nutrient Poor (NP) categories, respectively, see Equation 11.1 inVolume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
1

2

The amount must be disaggregated by CPP and SO, which refer to Cattle, Poultry and Pigs, and Sheep and Other animals, respectively. See Equation 11.1 in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

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

7.29

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Categorycode
Sheet
Equation

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land UseEmissions from Burning of Drained Inland Organic Soils in a Land-use Category (Land Remaining in a Land-use Category OR Land Converted to a
New Land-use Category)[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
1 of 1Equation
2.2 (2006
IPCC
Guidelines)

Land-use category

Initial
land
2
use

Land
use
duringreportingyear

Subcategories
for reporting
3
year

Equation 2.8 (Wetlands Supplement)
Area burnt

Mass of fuel available
4for combustion(ha)(tonnes ha )-1

Combustion factor

4

Emission factor foreach GHG

CH4 emissions fromfire

CO emissions fromfire

(tonnes CO2)

(tonnes CH4)

(tonnes CO)

Lfire-CO2 =Lfire-CH4 =[g GHG(-)-1(kg dm burnt) ]A

CO2 emissions fromfire

Table 2.6 of the
Wetlands
Supplement

Table 2.6 of the
Wetlands
Supplement

Table 2.7 of the
Wetlands Supplement

A * MB * Cf * Gef * 10

A * MB * Cf * Gef * 10

Lfire-CO = A * MB * Cf
-3
* Gef * 10

MB

Cf

Gef

Lfire-CO2

Lfire-CH4

Lfire-CO

-3

-3

CO2
(a)

CH4
CO
CO2

(b)

CH4
CO
CO2

Total

CH4

CO
This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to bereported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
2
For conversion categories, similar tables should be completed separately for each initial land use, and subtotals must be added up. If data by initial land use are not available, use only "non-LU" in thiscolumn.
13

For each subcategory, use separate lines for each non-CO2 greenhouse gas.
Where data for MB and Cf are not available, a default value for the amount of fuel actually burnt (MB * Cf) can be used (Table 2.6 of Wetlands Supplement). In this case, MB takes the value taken from thetable, whereas Cf must be 1.
4

7.30

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

CHAPTER 3—REWETTED ORGANIC SOILS

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Annual carbon emissions or removals in rewetted organic soils[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
1 of 2 : CO2-C

Equation
Area of rewettedorganic soils by
nutrient status andclimate zone

Land-use category

Subcategories forreporting year
Initial land use(ha)Land useduringreporting year

A

Equation 3.3(Wetlands
Supplement)
Annual CO2-C
emissions or
removals by
rewetted organic
soils

Equation 3.4 (Wetlands Supplement)

Equation 3.5 (Wetlands Supplement)

Emission/removal
factor for on-site
CO2-C by nutrient
status and climatezone

On-site CO2-C
emissions or
removals in
rewetted organic
soils

Emission factor for
DOC(tonnes CO2-C ha-1
yr-1)

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

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

Table 3. 1

= A * EFCO2

Table 3. 2

=A*
EFDOC_REWETTED= CO2-Ccomposite +CO2-CDOC

EFCO2

CO2-Ccomposite

EFDOC_REWETTED

CO2-CDOC

CO2-Crewetted org soil

Off-site CO2-C
emissions from DOC
in rewetted organic
soils

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to be reported in
the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.

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

7.31

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Annual carbon emissions or removals in rewetted organic soils[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
2 of 2 : CH4

Equation
Area of rewettedorganic soils by
nutrient status andclimate zone

Land-use category
Subcategories forreporting year(ha)
Initial land use

Land use during
reporting year
A

Equation 3.8 (Wetlands Supplement)
Emission factor for
On-site CH4-C
On-site CH4
CH4-C by nutrient
emissions oremissions or
status and climate
removals inremovals inzone
rewetted organic
rewetted organic
soils
soils
(kg CH4-C ha-1 yr-1)(tonnes CH4-C yr-1)(tonnes CH4)

Table 3. 3

= A * EFCH4 / 1000

= CH4-Csoil * 16/12

EFCH4

CH4-Csoil

CH4 rewetted org soil

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to
calculate emissions to be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.

7.32

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

CHAPTER 4—COASTAL WETLANDS

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Coastal wetland with woody perennial biomass or Forest Land[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
1 of 5Equation 2.9(2006 IPCC
Guidelines)
Area

Equation

Initial land
useLand useduringreportingyear

Equation 2.9 (2006 IPCC Guidelines)

Average annual
abovegroundbiomass growth

Ratio ofbelowgroundbiomass toabovegroundbiomass

Average annual
biomass growth
above- andbelowground

Carbon fraction ofdry matter(tonnes dm(tonnes dm[tonnes C

ha yr )

[tonnes bg dm-1(tonne ag dm) ]-1

ha yr )

(tonne dm)-1]

National statistics
or international
data sources

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

GTOTAL = GW *(1+R)

Table 4.2

ΔCG = A * GTOTAL *
CF

A

GW

R

GTOTALCF∆CG

Land-use category

Subcategories
for reportingyear

Equation 2.10 (2006 IPCC Guidelines)

(ha)

-1

-1

-1

Annual increase inbiomass carbon
stocks due tobiomass growth(tonnes C yr-1)

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to
be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.

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

7.33

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Coastal wetland with woody perennial biomass or Forest Land: Loss of carbon from wood removals[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
2 of 5Equation

Equation 2.12 (2006 IPCC Guidelines) + Equation 4.1 (Wetlands Supplement)
Annual wood
Biomass expansion
Ratio of
Carbon fraction ofAnnual carbon loss
removalfactor and wood
belowground
dry matter
due to biomass
density forbiomass toremovalsconversion ofabovegroundremovals inbiomass
merchantable
volume to total
biomass removals(including bark)Land-use category

Subcategories forreporting year

Initial land use

Land use during
reporting year

BEF * wooddensity = [tonnesof biomass
removals[tonnes bg dm[tonnes C(m 3 of removals) –1](tonne ag dm)-1](tonne dm)-1]

National statistics
or international
data sources

Table 3A.1.10(2003 GPG) andTable 4.6

Table 4.5

Table 4.2

Lwood-removals = H *BCEFR * (1+R) *
CF

H

BCEF

R

CF

Lwood-removals

3-1(m yr )

-1

(tonnes C yr )

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to
be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.

7.34

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Equation

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Coastal wetland with woody perennial biomass or Forest Land: Loss of carbon from fuelwood removals[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
3 of 5Equation 2.2(2006 IPCC
Guidelines)

Equation 2.13 (2006 IPCC Guidelines) + Equation 4.1 (Wetlands Supplement)
Annual volume offuelwood removalof whole trees

Land-use category

Subcategories
for reportingyear

Ratio ofbelowgroundbiomass toabovegroundbiomass

Annual volume
of fuelwood
removal as tree
parts

Basic wooddensity(m 3 yr-1)

tonnes m -3

Carbon fractionof dry matter

BEF * wooddensity = [tonnesof biomass
removals[tonnes bg dm(m 3 of removals) –1](tonne ag dm)1]

FAO or otherstatistics

Table 3A.1.10(2003 GPG) andTable 4.6

Table 4.5

FAO or otherstatistics

Table 4.6

Table 4.2

FGtrees

BCEF

R

FGpart

D

CF

3

-1

(m yr )
Initial landuse

Biomass expansion
factor and wooddensity forconversion ofremovals inmerchantable
volume to total
biomass removals(including bark)Land useduringreportingyear

Annual carbon loss
due to fuelwood
removal[tonnes C(tonnes C yr-1)(tonne dm)-1]
Lfuelwood = [FGtrees *BCEFR * (1+R) +FGpart * D] * CF

Lfuelwood

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to bereported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.

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

7.35

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Coastal wetland with woody perennial biomass or Forest Land: Loss of carbon from disturbance[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
4 of 5Equation

Equation 2.14 (2006 IPCC Guidelines)
Area affectedby disturbances

Averageabovegroundbiomass ofareas affected(ha)(tonnes dm ha )Land-use category

Initial land
useLand useduringreportingyear

Subcategories
for reporting
year

-1

Ratio ofbelowgroundbiomass toabovegroundbiomass

Carbon fractionof dry matter

Annual otherlosses of carbon[tonnes bg dm[tonnes C(tonnes C-1-1(tonne ag dm) ](tonne dm) ]yr-1)

Equation 2.11
(2006 IPCC
Guidelines)
Annual decreasein carbon stocks
due to biomass
loss-1(tonnes C yr )∆CL=Lwood-

National
statistics orinternational
data sources

Table 4.3

AdisturbanceBW

Table 4.5

Table 4.2

Ldisturbances = A * BW
* (1+R) * CF * fd

removals+ Lfuelwood+ Ldisturbances

R

CF

Ldisturbances

∆CL

(a)
(b)
(c)
Total
Note: fd = fraction of biomass lost in disturbance; a stand-replacing disturbance will kill all (fd = 1) biomass while an insect disturbance may only remove a portion (e.g. fd = 0.3) of
the average biomass C density.
1
This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to
calculate emissions to be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.

7.36

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Initial change in biomass carbon stocks due to extraction activities (excavation, construction of aquaculture ponds, construction of salt
production ponds)[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
5 of 5Equation

Subcategories
for reportingyear(vegetation
type)

Activity

Area converted(ha)(tonnes dm ha-1)(tonnes dm ha-1)

tonnes C (tonnes dm)-1

Gg C yr-1

default value is zero(0) or national
statistics and Table
4.5 (R)

Table 4.3 and Table
4.5 (R) or national
statistics

Table 4.2 or national
statistics∆CB-CONVERSION = (BAFTER * (1+R) BBEFORE * (1+R)) * CF * ACONVERTED *-3
10

BAFTER * (1+R)

BBEFORE * (1+R)

CF∆CB-CONVERSIONACONVERTEDMangrove
Excavation

Construction of
aquaculture ponds

Construction of salt
production ponds

Equation 4.4 (Wetlands Supplement)
Biomass C stock
Carbon fraction
before converstion

Biomass C stock afterconversion

2

Initial change in carbon stocks inbiomass

03

Tidal Marsh
Seagrass
Meadow3
Mangrove0

Tidal Marsh
Seagrass
Meadow3
Mangrove30Tidal Marsh3
Seagrass
3
Meadow

0

0
0

0
0

0

Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to
be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code. Inventory compilers may choose “3C14” if this activity takes place outside the national
total area.
2
Report zero if activity or vegetation type does not occur.
3
Tier 2 and referring to Tables 4.9 and 4.10 to for R value.

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

7.37

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Initial change in DOM carbon stocks due to extraction activities (excavation, construction of aquaculture
ponds, construction of salt production ponds)[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
1 of 1Equation

Equation 4.5 (Wetlands Supplement)
Area converted

DOMAFTERDOMBEFORE

Initial change in carbon
stocks in DOM(ha)(tonnes C ha-1 )(tonnes C ha-1 )Gg C yr-1

default value is zero(0)

Table 4.7 or national
statistics∆CDOM-CONVERSION =(DOMAFTER - DOMBEFORE)-3* ACONVERTED * 10

DOMAFTERDOMBEFORE∆CDOM-CONVERSION

2Subcategories
for reportingyear(vegetation
type)

Activity

ACONVERTED
Excavation
Construction of
aquaculture ponds
Construction ofsalt production
ponds

Mangrove0

Mangrove0

Mangrove

0

Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when thisworksheet is used to calculate emissions to be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
Inventory compilers may choose “3C14” if this activity takes place outside the national total area.
2
Report zero if activity or vegetation type does not occur.

7.38

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
CH4 emissions from rewetting of mangroves and tidal marshes

Category code

3C11

Sheet

1 of 1Equation 4.9 (Wetlands Supplement)
Area of land of
Emission factor for
Annual CH4
rewetted soils
rewetted soils
emissions fromrewetted soils
Subcategories forreporting year

(ha)

AREWET(kg CH4 ha-1 yr-1)
Table 4.14 (organicand mineral soils)(kg CH4 yr-1)
CH4SO-REWET =(AREWET *EFREWET)EFREWET

CH4SO-REWET

Tidal freshwater
marsh
Tidal salt marsh
and mangrove1
Total
1

Apply same EF for tidal brackish marsh

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

7.39

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
N2O emissions from aquaculture

Category code

3C12

Sheet

1 of 1
Amount of fish
production (F)(kg fish yr-1)

FF

Equation 4.10 (Wetlands Supplement)
Emission factor for
Annual N2O
N2O emissions fromemissions fromfish produced (F) inaquaculture use
aquaculture use[kg N2O-N (kg fish)-1]
Table 4.15

(kg N2O-N yr-1)
N2O-NAQ = F * EF

EFF

N2OAQ

Total

7.40

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Initial change in soil carbon stocks due to extraction actvities (excavation, construction of aquaculture ponds, construction of salt production
ponds)[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
1 of 3Equation

Equation 4.6 (Wetlands Supplement)
Area converted

SOAFTER

SOBEFORE

Initial change in carbon stocks in
soil

(ha)

(tonnes C ha-1 )(tonnes C ha-1 )Gg C yr-1

default value is zero (0)Table 4.11 or national statistics∆CSO-CONVERSION = (SOAFTER SOBEFORE) * ACONVERTED * 10-3

SOAFTER

SOBEFORE∆CSO-CONVERSION

2Subcategories
for reportingyear(vegetation
type)

Activity

ACONVERTED

Excavation

Construction of
aquaculture ponds

Construction of salt
production ponds

MangroveTidal Marsh
Seagrass
Meadow
MangroveTidal Marsh
Seagrass
Meadow
MangroveTidal Marsh
Seagrass
Meadow

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to
be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code. Inventory compilers may choose “3C14” if this activity takes place outside the national
total area.
2
Report zero if activity or vegetation type does not occur.

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

7.41

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
CO2-C emissions from rewetting, revegetation and creation[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
2 of 3Equation
Area of land in2
rewettingLand-use category

Subcategories forreporting year
(vegetation type)
Initial land use(ha)Land use during
reporting year

Equation 4.7 (Wetlands Supplement)
Emission factors
Area of land infor CO2-C inrewetting,rewettingrevegetation and2creation(tonnes C ha-1 yr-1)(ha)default value iszero or national
data
ARE_1

EFRE_1

ARE_2

Emission factors
for CO2-C inrewetting,revegetation andcreation-1-1

CO2-C emissions
from rewetting,revegetation andcreation-1(tonnes C ha yr )Gg C yr

Table 4.12 or
national data

CO2-C-SO-RE =(ARE_1 * EFRE_1+ ARE_2 * EFRE_2)-3* 10

EFRE_2

CO2-C-SO-RE

MangroveTidal marsh

Seagrass meadow
Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to
be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code. Inventory compilers may choose “3C14” if this activity takes place outside the national
total area.
2
Depending on how the activity is applied, either rewetting or rewetting, revegetation and creation data can be applied, providing national circumstances and country's available data.

7.42

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
CO2-C emissions from drainage in coastal wetlands[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
3 of 3Equation

Equation 4.8 (Wetlands Supplement)
Area of land in
Emission factors
drainage
for CO2-C indrainageLand-use category

Initial land use

Land use during
reporting year

Subcategories forreporting year
(vegetation type)

(ha)

ADR

CO2-C emissions fromdrainage-1-1(tonnes C ha yr )Gg C yr-1

Table 4.13 or
national data

CO2-C-SO-DR = (ADR *-3
EFDR) * 10

EFDR

CO2-C-SO-DR

Tidal marsh andmangrove
Total
1This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when
this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to be reported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as
category code. Inventory compilers may choose “3C14” if this activity takes place outside the national total area.

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

7.43

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

CHAPTER 5—INLAN D WETLAND MINERAL SOILS
SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Land-usecategory

Initial
land
use

Land
use
duringreportingyear

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Cropland Remaining Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils
1[To be specified by the inventory compiler]
1 of 4Equation 2.2(2006 IPCC
Equation 2.25, Formulation A in Box 2.1 of Section 2.3.3.1 (2006 IPCC Guidelines)
Guidelines)
Area in
Area at
Reference carbon Reference carbon
Time dependence ofStock change factor
Stock
the lastthestock in the laststock at thestock change factors
for land-use systemchangeyear ofbeginning
year of an
beginning of an(D) or number of years
or sub-system
factor foranof aninventory period
inventory period
over a single inventory
manageme
inventory inventory
time period (T)nt regime
periodperiodSub(ha)(ha)(tonnes C ha-1)(tonnes C ha-1)
(yr)
(-)
(-)
categories
Table 2.3 of 2006
Table 5.5 of 2006 IPCC
Table 2.3 of 2006
for reporting
Guidelines for nonIPCC Guidelines
IPCC Guidelines
year
Table 5.5 of
IWMS; Table 5.5 offor non-IWMS;
for non-IWMS;(default is 20 yr; if T>D2006 IPCC Guidelines 2006 IPCC
Table 5.2 ofTable 5.2 ofthen use the value of T)
Guidelines
and Table 5.3 ofWetlands
Wetlands
Wetlands Supplement
Supplement for
Supplement for
2, 4
2, 4
3,4
for IWMS
IWMS
IWMS
A(0)

CLnon-

CLnon-IWMS

IWMS

CLIWMS

CLIWMS(a)(b)(c)
Subtotal
(a)
(b)
(c)
Subtotal

A(0-T)

SOCref(0)SOCref(T-0)

D
20
20
20

FLU

FMG

Stock
changefactor for
input oforganic
matter(-)

Annualchange incarbonstocks inmineral soils(tonnes C yr-1)∆CMineral as in
Table 5.5 ofEquation 2.25
2006 IPCC(2006 IPCC
Guidelines
Guidelines)FI∆CMineral

20
20
20

Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to be reported in the
category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
2
Table 5.2, Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement contains the revised default reference SOC stocks (SOCREF) for Inland Wetland Mineral Soils.
3
4

Table 5.3, Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement contains the new values of stock change factors for land-use (FLU) for Inland Wetland Mineral Soils.
IWMS = Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

7.44

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Land (non-Cropland) remaining in a Land-use Category: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
2 of 4Equation
2.2 (2006
IPCC
Guidelines)

Equation 2.25, Formulation A in Box 2.1 of Section 2.3.3.1
Area in thelast year of
an inventory
periodArea at the
beginning of
an inventory
period(ha)(ha)

Land-use category

Subcategories
for reportingyear

Initial land use

Land useduringreporting
year

A(0)

A(0-T)

Reference
carbon stockin the last yearof an inventory
periodReference
carbon stockat thebeginning of
an inventory
period-1-1(tonnes C ha ) (tonnes C ha )Timedependence ofstock change
factors (D) or
number ofyears over a
singleinventory time
period (T)Stockchangefactor forland-usesystem or
sub-system

Stock change
factor for
management
regimeStock change
factor for
input oforganic
matterAnnualchange incarbonstocks inmineral soils

(yr)

(-)

(-)

(-)

(tonnes C yr )Table 5.5

Table 5.5

Table 5.5

∆CMineral as inEquation
2.25

FLU

FMG

FI

∆CMineral

Table 2.3 of2006 IPCC
Guidelines for
non-IWMS;
Table 5.2 ofWetlands
Supplement
2, 3
for IWMS

Table 2.3

(default is 20
yr; if T>D thenuse the value
of T)

SOCref(0)SOCref(T-0)

D

(a)

20

(b)

20

(c)

20

-1

Total
1

This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to be reported in the
category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
2

Table 5.2, Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement contains the revised default reference SOC stocks (SOCREF) for Inland Wetland Mineral Soils.

3

IWMS = Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

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

7.45

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet
Equation

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Land Converted to a Cropland: Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
3 of 4
Eq. 2.2(2006 IPCC
Guidelines)
Area forland-usechange byclimate andsoil
combination

Land-use category

Initial2
land use

Land useduringreportingyear

Equation 2.25, Formulation B in Box 2.1 of Section 2.3.3.1 (2006 IPCC Guidelines)

Subcategories
of uniqueclimate, soil,
land-usechange andmanagement
combinations

(ha)

A(0)
FL

CL

Reference
carbon stock
for theclimate/soil
combinationTime
dependence ofstock change
factors (D) or
number ofyears over a
singleinventory time
period (T)Stockchangefactor forland-usesystem in
the last yearof aninventory
time period

Stock change
factor for
management
regime in lastyear of an
inventory period

Stock change
factor for C input inthe last year of theinventory period

Stock change
factor for landuse system atthe beginningof theinventory time
periodStock change
factor for
management
regime at the
beginning of
the inventory
time periodStockchangefactor for C
input at the
beginning of
the inventory
time period

(-)

(-)

(-)

(-)

(-)

(tonnes C-1
ha )Table 2.3;
Chap 2, Sec.
2.3.3.1 of2006 IPCC
Guidelines &Table 5.2 ofWetlands
Supplement
3, 5
for IWMS

(yr)

(-)

(default is 20
yr; if T>D thenuse the valueof T)

Table 5.5 of2006 IPCC
Guidelines& Table 5.3of Wetlands
Supplement
4,5
for IWMS

SOCrefD

FLU(0)

(a)

20

(b)

20

(a)

20

(b)

20

(a)

20

(b)

20

Annualchange incarbonstocks inmineralsoils(tonnes C-1
yr )∆CMineral

Table 5.5 of2006 IPCC
Guidelines
FMG(0)

Table 5.5 of 2006
IPCC Guidelines

Table 5.10 of2006 IPCC
Guidelines

Table 5.10 of2006 IPCC
Guidelines

Table 5.10 of2006 IPCC
Guidelines

as in
Equation
2.25 (2006
IPCC
Guidelines)

FI(0)FLU(0-T)

FMG(0-T)

FI(0-T)∆CMineral

Sub-totalGLCLSub-total

WL

CL

7.46

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Sub-total
SL

CL

(a)

20

(b)

20

(a)

20

(b)

20

Sub-totalOL

CLSub-total

Total
This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to be reported in the
category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
1

2

If data by initial land use are not available, use only "non-CL" in this column.

3

Table 5.2, Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement contains the revised default reference SOC stocks (SOCREF) for Inland Wetland Mineral Soils.

4

Table 5.3, Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement contains new values of default stock change factors for land-use (FLU) for Inland Wetland Mineral Soils.

5

IWMS = Inland Wetland Mineral Soils

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

7.47

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category code
Sheet

Equation

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Land Converted to a New Land-use Category (non-Cropland): Annual change in carbon stocks in mineral soils[To be specified by the inventory compiler]1
4 of 4Equation 2.2(2006 IPCC
Guidelines)

Land-use category

Initialland
2use

Land useduringreportingyear

Subcategories
of uniqueclimate, soil,
land-usechange andmanagement
combinations

Equation 2.25, Formulation B in Box 2.1 of Section 2.3.3.1 (2006 IPCC Guidelines)
Area forland-usechange byclimateand soilcombination

Reference carbon
stock for the climate
and soil combination(ha)(tonnes C ha )

A(0)

-1

Time
dependence ofstock change
factors (D) or
number of years
over a single
inventory time
period (T)(yr)

Stock change
factor forland-usesystem in thelast year of an
inventory time
periodStock change
factor for
management
regime in lastyear of an
inventory period

(-)

(-)

Stock
changefactor for C
input in thelast year oftheinventory
period(-)

Stock change
factor for landuse system atthe beginningof inventory
time period(-)

Table 2.3; Chap. 2, Sec.
2.3.3.1 of 2006 IPCC
Guidelines & Table 5.2
of Chapter 5 of the
Wetlands Supplement
3, 6
for IWMS(default is 20 yr;
if T>D then use
the value of T)

Table XX of
in Volume 4of 2006
IPCC
Guidelines

Table 6.2

Table 6.2

Table 5.5 andTable 5.3 ofthe Wetlands
4
Supplement(Cropland); 1
for other uses

SOCrefD

FLU(0)

FMG(0)FI(0)FLU(0-T)

5

(a)

20

(b)

20

(c)

20

Stock
changefactor for
management
regime at the
beginning of
the inventory
time period
(-)

Stock
changefactor for C
input at the
beginningof theinventory
time period(-)

Annual change
in carbon
stocks inmineral soils

Table 5.5
(Cropland); 1
for otheruses

Table 5.5
(Cropland);
1 for otheruses∆CMineral as inEquation 2.25

FMG(0-T)

FI(0-T)∆CMineral-1(tonnes C yr )Sub-total
Total
This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to be reported in the
category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
1

2

If data by initial land use are not available, use only "non-GL" in this column.

3

Table 5.2, Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement contains the revised default reference SOC stocks (SOCREF) for Inland Wetland Mineral Soils.

4

Table 5.3, Chapter 5 of the Wetlands Supplement contains new values of default stock change factors for land-use (FLU) for Inland Wetland Mineral Soils.

5

Relevant tables from the land-use category chapters in Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

6

IWMS = Inland wetland mineral soils

7.48

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorAgriculture Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)

Category

Annual CH4 emissions from restored and created wetlands on managed lands with IWMS1,2

Category code
Sheet

[To be specified by the inventory compiler]3
1 of 1Equation

Initial land use

Eq. 2.2 (2006 IPCC Guidelines)

Land use during
reporting year

Subcategories for reporting year4

Equation 5.1 (Wetlands Supplement)
Area of managed lands with IWMS
Emission factor from managed lands
with IWMS where water level has
been raised in climate region
(ha)

-1

-1

(kg CH4 ha yr )Table 5.4 (Wetlands Supplement)
AIWMS

EFCH4-IWMS

(a)
(b)
(c)

Total
1

IWMS = Inland wetland mineral soils
2This worksheet is to be used for CH4 emissions from managed lands with IWMS other than rice cultivation areas. For CH4 emissions from rice cultivation please use the worksheets for the category
3C7 (Rice Cultivation) in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
3
This worksheet can be used for any category under 3B. Inventory compilers should specify an appropriate category code here. For example, when this worksheet is used to calculate emissions to bereported in the category Forest Land Remaining Forest Land, “3B1a” should be entered as category code.
4
Can be stratified according to climate domains for Tier 1 methods.

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

7.49

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

CHAPTER 6—CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SectorCategory
Category Code
Sheet

Waste
Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
4D1
1 of 3 Estimation of Organically Degradable Material in Domestic Wastewater Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 1A
B
C
D
Population whose
Degradable organic
Correction factor for
Organically degradable material
wastewater treated incomponent
industrial BOD discharged inin wastewater
constructed wetlands
sewersType of constructed wetland

(Pj)

(BOD)

cap

-1

(I) 2

(TOW j)-1 1(kg BOD yr-1)(kg BOD cap yr )D=AxBxC
Surface Flow
Vertical Subsurface Flow
Horizontal Subsurface Flow
Hybrid typeSemi-natural Treatment Wetlands
Total
1

-1

g BOD cap day x 0.001 x 365 = kg BOD cap yr

2

Correction factor for additional industrial BOD discharged into sewers, (for collected the default is 1.25, for uncollected the default is 1.00) (see page 6.14).

7.50

-1

-1

-1

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category Code
Sheet

Waste
Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
4D1
2 of 3 Estimation of CH4 Emission Factor for Domestic Wastewater Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 2Type of constructed wetland

A
Maximum methane producing
capacity

B
Methane correction factor

C
Emission factor(Bo)(MCFj)(EFj)-1(kg CH4 kg BOD )-1(kg CH4 kg BOD )C=AxB

Surface Flow
Vertical Subsurface Flow
Horizontal Subsurface Flow
Hybrid typeSemi-natural Treatment Wetlands
Note: MCF for hybrid type can be estimated as area-weighted average of the MCFs of the constructed wetland types in hybrid system

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

7.51

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category Code
Sheet

Type of constructed wetlands

Waste
Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
4D1
3 of 3 Estimation of CH4 Emissions from Domestic Wastewater Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 3A
B
C
Emission factor
Organically degradable material in
Methane emissions
wastewater(EFj)(TOW j)
-1

(CH4)
-1

-1

(kg CH4 kg BOD )(kg BOD yr )(kg CH4 yr )Sheet 2 of 3

Sheet 1 of 3

C=A x B

Surface Flow
Vertical Subsurface Flow
Horizontal Subsurface Flow
Hybrid typeSemi-natural Treatment Wetlands
Total

7.52

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Sector Waste
Category Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
Category Code 4D2
Sheet 1 of 3 Total Organic Degradable Material in Industrial Wastewater Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 1
Industrial Sector

A
Yearly flow rate of industrial
wastewater treated by constructedwetland(W i,j)3-1(m yr )B

C

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Total organic degradable material in industrial
wastewater treated in constructed wetland(CODi)(TOW i,j)-3-1(kg COD m )(kg COD yr )C=A x B

Industrial sector 1
Industrial sector 2
Industrial sector 3

add as needed
Total
Note: Emissions from collected runoff from agricultural land and landfill leachate treated in constructed wetlands should be reported in this worksheet2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

7.53

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category Code
Sheet

Type of constructed wetland

Waste
Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
4D2
2 of 3 Estimation of CH4 Emission Factor for Industrial Wastewater Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 2A
B
C
Maximum methane producing capacity
Methane correction factor
Emission factor(Bo)-1(kg CH4 kg COD )(MCFj)(EFj)(-)(kg CH4 kg COD-1)
C=AxB

Surface Flow
Vertical Subsurface Flow
Horizontal Subsurface Flow
Hybrid typeSemi-natural Treatment Wetlands
Note: MCF for hybrid type can be estimated as area-weighted average of the MCFs of the constructed wetland types in hybrid system

7.54

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category Code
Sheet

Industrial Sector

Waste
Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
4D2
3 of 3 Estimation of CH4 Emissions from Industrial Wastewater Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 3A
B
C
Emission Factor
Organically degradable material in
Methane emissions
wastewater(EFj)*(kg CH4 kg COD-1)
Sheet 2 of 3

(TOW i,j)(kg COD yr-1)
Sheet 1 of 3

(CH4)
(kg CH4 yr-1)
C=A x B

Industrial sector 1
Industrial sector 2
Industrial sector 3
add as needed
Total*If more than one type of CW is used in an industrial sector the EF would be TOWi,j-weighted average of EFs of the CWs used.

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

7.55

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category Code
Sheet

Type of constructed wetlands

Waste
Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
4D1
1 of 2 Estimation of Nitrogen in Effluent Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP1
A
B
C
D
Population whose Per capita protein Fraction of nitrogen Fraction of nonwastewater
consumption
in protein
consumedtreated inproteinconstructedwetlands(Pj)(people)(Protein)(kg/person yr-1)(FNPR)(kg N kg protein-1)(FNON-CON)(-)

E
Fraction ofindustrial andcommercial codischarged
proteinF
Total nitrogen in
effluent(FIND-COM)(-)(N)(kg N yr-1)
F=Ax Bx Cx DxESurface Flow
Vertical Subsurface Flow
Horizontal Subsurface Flow
Hybrid typeSemi-natural Treatment Wetlands
Total

7.56

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category Code
Sheet

Waste
Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
4D1
2 of 2 Estimation of N2O Emissions from Domestic Wastewater Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 2A
B
C

D

Type of constructed wetlands
Total nitrogen in effluent

Emission Factor

Conversion factor

Total N2O emissions

(Nj)

(EFj)

44/28

(kg N2O yr )-1

(kg N yr )-1

-1

(kg N2O-N kg N )Sheet 1 of 2

D= A x B x C

Surface Flow
Vertical Subsurface Flow
Horizontal Subsurface Flow
Hybrid typeSemi-natural Treatment Wetlands
Total
Note: EF for hybrid type can be estimated as area-weighted average of the EFs of the constructed wetland types in hybrid system

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

7.57

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Sector Waste
Category Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
Category Code 4D2
Sheet 1 of 2 Estimation of N in Effluent Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 1
Industrial Sector

A
Total nitrogen concentration inindustrial wastewater treated byconstructed wetlands

B
Yearly flow rate of industrial
wastewater treated by constructedwetlandC
Total nitrogen effluent(Ni,j)*(TNi)(W i,j)*(kg N yr-1)(kg N m-3)

(m3 yr-1)

C=A x B

Industrial sector 1
Industrial sector 2
Industrial sector 3

add as needed
Total
Note: Indirect N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff from agricultural land are considered in Chapter 11, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and the amount of nitrogen in collected runoff fromagricultural land treated in constructed wetlands must be subtracted to avoid double counting*If more than one type of CW is used in an industrial sector, W ij and Ni,j are sum of the Wi,j and Ni,j of the CWs used, respectively.

7.58

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

SectorCategory
Category Code
Sheet

Industrial sector

Waste
Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
4D2
2 of 2 Estimation of N2O Emissions from Industrial Wastewater Treated in Constructed Wetlands
STEP 2A
B
C

D

Total nitrogen in effluent

Emission Factor

Conversion factor

Total N2O emissions(Ni,j)(EFj)*

44/28(kg N2O/year)-1(kg N yr )-1

(kg N2O-N kg N )Sheet 1 of 2

D= A x B x C

Industrial sector 1
Industrial sector 2
Industrial sector 3
add as needed
Total
Note: EF for hybrid type can be estimated as area-weighted average of the EFs of the constructed wetland types in hybrid system*If more than one type of CW is used in an industrial sector the EF would be Ni,j-weighted average of EFs of CWs used2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

7.59

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

7.60

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

ANNEX 7A.2

REPORTING TABLES
The Wetlands Supplement has only minor impacts on the Reporting Tables in Annex 8A.2 of Volume 1 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines. This annex includes the reporting tables, namely the Sectoral AFOLU Table 3 andBackground Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.9, which have been updated to take into account the methodologicalguidance in the Wetlands Supplement. The changes are explained in Section 7.2.1.

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

7.61

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3 AFOLU Sectoral Table (1 of 2)
Net CO2emissions/removalsCategories

Emissions
CH4

N2 O

NOx

CO

NMVOCs(Gg)
3 AFOLU
3A Livestock
3A1
Enteric Fermentation
3A1a Cattle
3A1ai Dairy Cows
3A1aii Other Cattle
3A1b
3A1c
3A1d

Buffalo
Sheep
Goats

3A1e
3A1f
3A1g

CamelsHorsesMules and Asses

3A1h
3A1j

Swine
Other (please specify)

3A2
Manure Management
3A2a Cattle
3A2ai Dairy Cows

(1)

3A2aii Other Cattle
3A2b Buffalo
3A2c Sheep
3A2d
3A2e

Goats
Camels

3A2f
3A2g
3A2h

HorsesMules and Asses
Swine

3A2i Poultry
3A2j Other (please specify)(2)
3B Land
3B1
3B1a

Forest Land
Forest Land Remaining Forest Land

3B1b Land Converted to Forest Land
3B1bi Cropland Converted to Forest Land
3B1bii Grassland Converted to Forest Land
3B1biii Wetlands Converted to Forest Land
3B1biv Settlements Converted to Forest Land
3B1bv Other Land Converted to Forest Land
3B2
3B2a

CroplandCropland Remaining Cropland3B2b Land Converted to Cropland3B2bi Forest Land Converted to Cropland3B2bii Grassland Converted to Cropland3B2biii Wetlands Converted to Cropland3B2biv Settlements Converted to Cropland3B2bv Other Land Converted to Cropland
3B3
3B3a

Grassland
Grassland Remaining Grassland

3B3b Land Converted to Grassland
3B3bi Forest Land Converted to Grassland
3B3bii Cropland Converted to Grassland
3B3biii Wetlands Converted to Grassland
3B3biv Settlements Converted to Grassland
3B3bv Other Land Converted to Grassland

7.62

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3 AFOLU Sectoral Table (2 of 2)
Net CO2emissions/removalsCategories

Emissions
CH4

N2 O

NOx

CO

NMVOCs(Gg)
3B4

Wetlands

3B4a
3B4ai

Wetlands Remaining Wetlands
Peat Extraction remaining Peat Extraction

3B4aii Flooded Land Remaining Flooded Land
3B4aiii Other Wetlands Remaining Other Wetlands
3B4b Land Converted to Wetlands
3B4bi Land Converted for Peat Extraction
3B4bii Land Converted to Flooded Land
3B4biii Land Converted to Other Wetlands
3B5
3B5a

3B5 Settlements
Settlements Remaining Settlements

3B5b Land Converted to Settlements
3B5bi Forest Land Converted to Settlements
3B5bii Cropland Converted to Settlements
3B5biii Grassland Converted to Settlements
3B5biv Wetlands Converted to Settlements
3B5bv Other Land Converted to Settlements
3B6
3B6a

3B6 Other Land
Other Land Remaining Other Land

3B6b Land Converted to Other Land
3B6bi Forest Land Converted to Other Land
3B6bii Cropland Converted to Other Land
3B6biii Grassland Converted to Other Land
3B6biv Wetlands Converted to Other Land
3B6bv Settlements Converted to Other Land
3C Aggregate Sources and Non-CO2 Emissions(3)
Sources on Land
3C1
Burning
3C1a
3C1b
3C1c

Burning in Forest Land
Burning in Cropland
Burnings in Grassland

3C1d
3C2
3C3

Burnings in All Other Land
LimingUrea Fertilization

3C4
3C5

Direct N2O Emissions from Managed Soils
Indirect N2O Emissions from Managed Soils
Indirect N2O Emissions from Manure
Management
Rice Cultivations

3C6
3C7

(4)

3C8
3C9
3C10

CH4 from Drained Organic Soils
CH4 from Drainage Ditches on Organic Soils
CH4 from Rewetting of Organic Soils
CH4 Emissions from Rewetting of
3C11
Mangroves and Tidal Marshes
3C12 N2 O Emissions from Aquaculture
CH4 Emissions from Rewetted and Created
3C13
Wetlands on Inland Wetland Mineral Soils
3C14 Other (please specify)
3D Other
3D1
Harvested Wood Products
3D2

Other (please specify)(1) Indirect N2O emissions are not included here (see category 3C6).
(2) Net CO2 emissions/removals from land may include emissions from coastal wetlands that are not part of the total land areaof the reporting country.
(3) If CO2 emissions from Biomass Burning are not already included in Table 3.2 (Carbon stock changes background table),they should be reported here.
(4) Countries may report by land categories if they have the information.

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

7.63

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting* Cells to report emissions of NO x, CO, and NMVOC have not been shaded although the physical potential for emissions islacking for some categories.

Documentation box:

7.64

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3.2 AFOLU Background Table: 3B Carbon stock changes, emissions, and removals in AFOLU (1 of 2)
Surface Area

Net carbon stock change and CO2 emissions/removals
Biomass

Categories

Mineral Organic
(1)
soils
soils

Total

Carbonemitted as
InDecrease CH4 andcreaseCO from
(2)
fires

(ha)

Dead organic matterNet
carbonstockchangeCarbonNet carbon emitted asstock
CH4 andchangeCO from(2)fires(Gg C)

Net
carbonstockchange

Soils
Net
Net
carboncarbonemissionsstockchange in /removals
mineral in organic
(3)
soils
soils

Net CO2emissions(Gg CO2)(4)

3B Land
3B1
Forest Land
3B1a
3B1b
3B1bi

Forest Land Remaining Forest Land
Land Converted to Forest Land
Cropland Converted to Forest Land

3B1bii Grassland Converted to Forest Land
3B1biii Wetlands Converted to Forest Land
3B1biv Settlements Converted to Forest Land
3B1bv Other Land Converted to Forest Land
3B2
Cropland
3B2a
3B2b
3B2bi

Cropland Remaining CroplandLand Converted to Cropland
Forest Land Converted to Cropland3B2bii Grassland Converted to Cropland3B2biii Wetlands Converted to Cropland3B2biv Settlements Converted to Cropland3B2bv Other Land Converted to Cropland
3B3
Grassland
3B3a
3B3b
3B3bi

Grassland Remaining Grassland
Land Converted to Grassland
Forest Land Converted to Grassland

3B3bii Cropland Converted to Grassland
3B3biii Wetlands Converted to Grassland
3B3biv Settlements Converted to Grassland
3B3bv Other Land Converted to Grassland

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

7.65

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3.2 AFOLU Background Table: 3B Carbon stock changes, emissions, and removals in AFOLU (2 of 2)
Surface Area

Net carbon stock change and CO2 emissions/removals
Biomass

Mineral Organic
(1)
soils
soils

Categories

Total

Carbonemitted as
InDecrease CH4 andcreaseCO from
(2)
fires

(ha)

Dead organic matterNet
carbonstockchangeCarbonNet carbon emitted asstock
CH4 andchangeCO from(2)fires(Gg C)

Net
carbonstockchange

Soils
Net
Net
Net CO2
carboncarbonemissions emissionsstockchange in /removals
mineral in organic
(3)
soils
soils
(Gg CO2)

(5)

3B4
3B5

Wetlands
Settlements

3B5a
3B5b
3B5bi

Settlements Remaining Settlements
Land Converted to Settlements
Forest Land Converted to Settlements

3B5bii Cropland Converted to Settlements
3B5biii Grassland Converted to Settlements
3B5biv Wetlands Converted to Settlements
3B5bv Other Land Converted to Settlements
3B6
Other Land
3B6a
3B6b
3B6bi

Other Land Remaining Other Land
Land Converted to Other Land
Forest Land Converted to Other Land

3B6bii Cropland Converted to Other Land
3B6biii Grassland Converted to Other Land
3B6biv Wetlands Converted to Other Land
3B6bv Settlements Converted to Other Land
(1) Areas of organic soils include drained, rewetted, and restored organic soils as well as coastal wetlands with organic soils. Details of the subdivision and related emission/removal factors should begiven in the national inventory report.
(2) Where the carbon contained in the emissions of CH4 and CO is significant part of the sectoral emissions, this should be copied from the corresponding columns in the Sectoral Background Table 3.4.
This amount of carbon emitted as CH4 and CO is then subtracted from carbon stock change to avoid double counting (see Volume 4, Section 2.2.3).
(3) The net loss/gain from all types of organic soils should be reported here (see also footnote 1).
(4) Net carbon stock change and CO2 emissions/removals from land may include emissions from coastal wetlands that are not part of the total land area of the reporting country. Land areas should bespecified as included or not included in the total land area. The sum of the land areas for the six land-use categories included only those areas which are part of the total land area of the country.
(5) CO2 Emissions from Wetlands are reported in a separate background table (Table 3.3) that includes all gases emitted from Wetlands.

Documentation box:

7.66

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3.3 AFOLU Background Table: Emissions in Wetlands (3B4)
Activity data
Categories

Area
(ha)

Net emissions/removals
CO2

Emissions
CH4
(Gg)

N2 O

3B4 Wetlands
3B4a
3B4ai

Wetlands Remaining Wetlands
Peat Extraction remaining Peat Extraction

3B4aii Flooded Land Remaining Flooded Land1
3B4aiii Other Wetlands Remaining Other Wetlands
3B4b Land Converted to Wetlands
3B4bi Land Converted for Peat Extraction
3B4bii Land Converted to Flooded Land(1)
3B4biii Land Converted to Other Wetlands(1) Detailed information on Other Wetlands should be included in the national inventory report.

Documentation box:

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

7.67

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3.4 AFOLU Background Table: Burning (3C1) (1 of 2)
Activity data
Categories

CO2

(1)

Descrip(2)
tion

Unit
(ha or kg
d.m.)Information item:
Carbon emitted as(5)
CH4 and CO

Emissions

Value

Biomass

(3)

DOM

(4)

CO
SOM

(6)

Biomass

DOM

CH4
SOM
(Gg)

(6)

Biomass

(4)

DOM

SOM

(6)

NOx

N2 O

BiomassDOM(Gg C)

3C1 Burning
Burning in Forest Land
Controlled Burning
Wildfires
Burning in Cropland
Burning in Cropland Remaining
CroplandControlled Burning
Wildfires
Burning in Forest Land Converted to
CroplandControlled Burning
Wildfires
Burning in Non Forest Land
Converted to CroplandControlled Burning
Wildfires
Burning in Grassland
Burning in Grassland Remaining
Grassland
Controlled Burning
Wildfires
Burning in Forest Land Converted to
Grassland
Controlled Burning
Wildfires

7.68

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3.4 AFOLU Background Table: Burning (3C1) (2 of 2)
Activity data
Categories

CO2

(1)

Descrip(2)
tion

Unit

Information item:
Carbon emitted as(5)
CH4 and CO

Emissions

Value

Biomass

(3)

DOM

(4)

CO
SOM

(6)

Biomass(ha or kg
d.m.)

DOM

CH4
SOM

(6)

Biomass

(4)

DOM

(Gg)

SOM

(6)

NOx

N2 O

BiomassDOM(Gg C)

Burning in Non Forest Land
Converted to Grassland
Controlled Burning
Wildfires
Burning in All Other Land
Burning in Other Land Remaining All
Other Land
Controlled Burning
Wildfires
Burning in Forest Land Converted to
All Other Land
Controlled Burning
Wildfires
Burning in Non Forest Land
Converted to All Other Land
Controlled Burning
Wildfires(1) Parties should report both Controlled/Prescribed Burning and Wildfires emissions, where appropriate, in a separate manner.
(2) For each land type data should be selected between area burned or biomass/soil carbon burned. Units for area will be hectares (ha) and, for biomass/soil carbon burned, kilograms dry
matter (kg d.m.).
(3) If CO2 emissions from burning are not already included in Table 3.2 and 3.3 (Carbon stock changes background table), they should be reported here. Carbon stock changes associated withburning should not also be reported in Table 3.2 and 3.3 to avoid double-counting.
(4) CO2, CH4 and CO emissions from biomass burning, DOM and SOM are reported separately.
(5) Where the carbon contained in the emissions of CH4 and CO is a significant part of the sectoral emissions, this should be transferred to the corresponding columns in the Sectoral
Background Table 3.2. This amount of carbon emitted as CH4 and CO is then subtracted from carbon stock change to avoid double-counting. The conversion factors to convert CH4 and CO
to C (as input to Table 3.2) are 12/16 for CH4 and 12/28 for CO. (see Volume 4, Section 2.2.3).
(6) Emissions from soil organic matter are occurring when organic soils and peatlands are burned but are not relevant for mineral soils.

Documentation box:

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

7.69

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3.7 AFOLU Background Table: Direct N2O emissions from Managed Soils (3C4)Categories(1)

Activity data

Emissions

Total amount of nitrogen applied

N2 O

-1

(Gg N yr )(Gg)

3C4 Direct N2 O Emissions from Managed Soils
Inorganic N fertilizer application
Forest Land
Cropland
Grassland
Wetlands
Settlements
Other Land
Organic N applied as fertilizer (manure and sewage sludge)
Forest Land
Cropland
Grassland
Wetlands
Settlements
Other Land
Urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and paddock by grazing(2)
animals
N in crop residues

(3)

Area
(ha)
N mineralization/immobilization associated with loss/gain of soil organic matter
resulting from change of land use or management of mineral soils
Drainage/management of organic soils (i.e. Histosols)(1) Countries will report at the aggregation level if their activity data allows them within each category. If country has disaggregated data by land use, reporting is
also possible using this table.
(2) Only for Grassland.
(3) Only for Cropland.

7.70

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

Chapter 7: Cross-Cutting Issues and Reporting

Table 3.9 AFOLU Background Table: Non-CO2 GHG emissions not included elsewhere (3C7 to 3C14)
Categories

Activity data(ha)Emissions
CH4

N2 O
(Gg)

(1)

3C7 Rice Cultivations(2)
3C8 CH4 from Drained Organic Soils(2)
3C9 CH4 from Drainage Ditches on Organic Soils(2)

3C10 CH4 from Rewetting of Organic Soils
3C11 CH4 Emissions from Rewetting of Mangroves and(2)
Tidal Marshes(2)
3C12 N2O Emissions from Aquaculture
3C13 CH4 Emissions from Rewetted and Created(2)
Wetlands on Inland Wetland Mineral Soils
3C14 Other (please specify)(1) If a country wishes to report direct N2O emissions from N fertilizer application to rice field, it should be reported here. Otherwise, in Table 3.7.
(2) Use appropriate subcategories highlighting e.g. land-use category and/or other relevant specifications.

Documentation box:

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

7.71

Glossary

GLOSSARY
Aerenchymous species
Plant species with a tissue consisting of thin-walled cells and large intercellular spaces that allow for plantinternal circulation of air, enhancing gas exchange between the root layer and the atmosphere. Aerenchymous
plants are widespread in wetlands.

Aquic
Condition pertaining to soil layers that are virtually free of dissolved oxygen and have a reducing environment
because of saturation with ground water or capillary water (adapted from Table 2.3, Chapter 2, Volume 4 of the2006 IPCC Guidelines).

Aquaculture
Organised production of aquatic animals and plants (e.g. fish, crustaceans, and seaweeds) in marine or
freshwater environments. The most important aquacultural practices in coastal wetlands are fish farming andshrimp ponds.

Autotrophic respiration
Release of carbon dioxide by living plants from internal metabolism (growth and maintenance).

Blanket bog
A bog type (see bog) that covers the underlying undulating landscape like a blanket.

Bog
Peatland only fed by precipitation and consequently generally nutrient-poor and acidic (see also fen).

Brackish/saline water
Water that generally contains 0.5 or more parts per thousand (ppt) of dissolved salts.

Brackish/saline wetland
A wetland inundated or saturated by brackish/saline water for all or part of the year.

CO 2 or CH 4 or N 2 O Flux
Rate of flow of dissolved or gaseous CO2 or CH4 or N2O across a given surface or area and over a certain
amount of time.

Chamber
Gas-tight enclosure used for measuring greenhouse gas fluxes.

Coastal wetland
Wetland at or near the coast that is influenced by brackish/saline water and/or astronomical tides.

Constructed wetland for wastewater treatment
Wetland designed and constructed to use natural processes to help treat wastewater.

Created wetland
Previously dry land converted to a wetland by raising the water table in inland wetlands or removing
obstructions to hydrologic flow and/or raising or lowering the soil elevation to appropriate tidal elevation incoastal wetlands.

Dam
A barrier constructed to obstruct the flow of water.

Denitrification
Reduction of nitrate or nitrite to molecular nitrogen.

Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
Sum of all inorganic carbon species in solution (e.g. carbonate, bicarbonate, carbonic acid, carbon dioxide).

Dissolv ed Organic Carbon (DOC)
Organic carbon remaining in solution after filtering the sample, typically using a 0.45 micrometer filter.

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

G.1

Glossary

Ditch
A long, narrow excavation made in the ground by digging, as for draining or irrigating land.

Drainage/drained
Artificial lowering of the soil water table. In this supplement, ‘drainage’ is used to describe the act of changing a
wet soil into a dry soil. A drained soil is a soil that formerly has been a wet soil but as a result of humanintervention is tending to become a dry soil, to which the 2006 IPCC Guidelines would apply.

Drainage class
A collection of water table depths sharing a common characteristic. (e.g. the class ‘shallow-drained’ ischaracterized by having a mean annual water table depth of less than 30 cm below the surface, whereas the class‘deep-drained’ has a mean annual water table depth of 30 cm and deeper below the surface; Chapter 2, this
supplement). The mean annual water table is the water table averaged over a period of several years.

Eddy covariance
Micrometeorological method that uses differences in concentration associated with turbulence in the air toquantify net vertical gas exchange.

Eutrophic
Nutrient-rich (see also oligotrophic).

Extraction
In this supplement, to remove soil (and associated biomass, dead wood and litter).

Fen
Peatland that in addition to precipitation water, also receives water that has been in contact with mineral soil orbedrock (see also bog).

Fish cages or pens
Types of enclosures at the water surface or fixed to the seabed that maintain a free exchange of water and fineparticles and used to cultivate aquatic organisms for human consumption.

Fish pond
In this supplement, a general term covering ponds constructed in brackish or saline water, designed to retain andculture fish for commercial production (aquaculture).

Flooded LandIn this supplement, Flooded Land is defined as: water bodies where human activities have caused changes in theamount of surface area covered by water, typically through water level regulation. Examples of Flooded Land
include reservoirs for the production of hydroelectricity, irrigation, and navigation. Regulated lakes and rivers
that do not have substantial changes in water area in comparison with the pre-flooded ecosystem are notconsidered as Flooded Lands. Some rice paddies are cultivated through flooding of land, but because of theunique characteristics of rice cultivation, rice paddies are addressed in Chapter 5 (Cropland) of the Guidelines(Chapter 7.3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

Flooding
Overflowing of water on land normally dry.

Floodplain
Land adjacent to a stream or river that experiences flooding during periods of high discharge.

Freshwater
Water that contains < 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) of various dissolved salts.

Freshwater wetland
A wetland inundated or saturated by freshwater for all or part of the year.

Heterotrophic respiration
The total of physical and chemical processes in an organism by which oxygen is conveyed to tissues and cells,
and the oxidation products CO2 and water, are given off.

Horizontal subsurface flow ( HSSF)
A type of constructed wetland with horizontal subsurface flow.

G.2

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

GlossaryHydroperiod
Inundation frequency, differentiated into permanent and intermittent.

Immobilization
With respect to nitrogen, the process by which inorganic N, as ammonium (NH4) and nitrate (NO3) is assimilated
by microorganisms.

Impoundment
Body of water formed by containment.

Inundated/inundation
Covered by water; see also Flooded Land.

Mangrove
A coastal wetland that has trees able to live in areas that are tidally flooded by brackish/saline water.

Marsh
A wetland, typically treeless, periodically inundated and characterized by grasses, sedges, cattails, and rushes.

Methanogen
Microorganism that produces methane during the decomposition of organic matter.

Methanotroph
Microorganism that utilizes methane for metabolism.

Mineral soil
Every soil that does not meet the definition of organic soil (see Annex 3A.5, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006
IPCC Guidelines).

Mineralization
The process of converting organic compounds to inorganic compounds.

Minerotrophic(Of peatland): supplied with nutrients from other sources (groundwater, flood water) than the atmosphere (seealso ombrotrophic).

Nitrification
The microbial oxidation of NHx to NO3.

Ombrotrophic
Only supplied with nutrients by the atmosphere (see also minerotrophic) and consequently often acidic and low
in nutrients.

Oligotrophic
Poor to extremely poor in nutrients (see also eutrophic).

Organic soil
In line with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Annex 3A.5, Chapter 3, Volume 4), soil that satisfies the requirements 1
and 2, or 1 and 3 below:
1) Thickness of organic horizon greater than or equal to 10 cm. A horizon of less than 20 cm must have 12
percent or more organic carbon when mixed to a depth of 20 cm;
2) Soils that are never saturated with water for more than a few days must contain more than 20 percent
organic carbon by weight (i.e. about 35 percent organic matter); and3) Soils are subject to water saturation episodes and have either:a)

At least 12 percent organic carbon by weight (i.e. about 20 percent organic matter) if the soil has noclay; orb) At least 18 percent organic carbon by weight (i.e. about 30 percent organic matter) if the soil has 60%
or more clay; orc)

An intermediate proportional amount of organic carbon for intermediate amounts of clay.

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

G.3

Glossary

Except for the 10 cm criterion mentioned under 1), the 2006 IPCC Guidelines do not define a minimum
thickness for the organic horizon to allow for country-specific definitions of organic soil.

Paludiculture
Agriculture and forestry on wet (undrained, rewetted) organic soil.

Particulate Organic Carbon (POC)
Organic carbon that is larger than 0.45 micrometer in size (see also Dissolved Organic Carbon).

Peat 1
Soft, porous or compressed, sedentary deposit of which a substantial portion is partly decomposed plant material
with high water content in the natural state (up to about 90 percent). Countries may define peat according to theirnational circumstances.

Peat compaction
Volume reduction of peat in the aerated zone above the water table, resulting in increased bulk density.

Peat consolidation
Volume reduction of peat in the saturated zone below the water table owing to increased loading (downward
pressure) from the drained top peat (by loss of buoyancy) on the peat below. See also peat compaction.

Peat decomposition
The process by which peat is broken down into simpler forms of matter. In mineralisation, decomposition
proceeds to the mineral components, including CO2 and H2O.

Peat subsidence
The loss in peat elevation resulting from peat compaction, peat comsolidation and peat oxidation.

Prairie
An extensive area of flat or rolling, predominantly treeless grassland; often considered to be part of thetemperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands biome.

Refractory carbon
Soil carbon that does not get broken down and released as dissolved or gaseous CO2 (predominantly by
microorganisms) within the time scale of the inventory.

Rehabilitation
The re-establishment, on formerly drained sites, of some but not necessarily all the hydrological, biogeochemicaland ecological processes and functions that characterized pre-drainage conditions.

Restoration
The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. In case ofdrained former wetlands, restoration always has to include ‘rewetting’.

Rewetted soil
A soil that formerly has been drained but as a result of human intervention has once more become a wet soil.

Rewetting
The deliberate action of changing a drained soil into a wet soil, e.g. by blocking drainage ditches, disablingpumping facilities or breaching obstructions.

RiparianOf, inhabiting, or situated on the bank of a river.

Saline inland wetland
Wetland that accumulates salts in its soil typically as a result of semi-arid to arid conditions.

Salt production
The production of salt by evaporating brackish or saline tidal water.

Seagrass meadow
1

Consistent with the definition of peat found in the Energy sector of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume 2, Chapter 1, Table
1.1)

G.4

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

Glossary

Coastal wetland vegetated by seagrass species (rooted, flowering plants), permanently or tidally covered bybrackish/saline water.

Sediment
Deposit of inorganic or organic material that has been carried and deposited by wind, water, or ice.

Semi-natural treatment wetland
Natural wetland that has been modified for wastewater treatment, e.g. by increasing the volume reserved (i.e. bydams) and constructing channels for targeting the influent and effluent.

Surface flow ( SF)A type of constructed wetland with surface flow.

Swamp
Wetlands dominated by trees or woody species.

Tidal freshwater wetland
Wetland inundated or saturated for all or part of the year by tidal freshwater. The upper boundary is recognized
as the landward extent of tidal inundation.

Tidal marsh
Marsh inundated or saturated for all or part of the year by tidal freshwater or brackish/saline water. The upperboundary is recognized as the landward extent of tidal inundation.

Total organic carbon ( TOC)
All carbon in organic matter.

Vertical subsurface flow ( VSSF)
A type of constructed wetland with vertical subsurface flow.

Wastewater treatment plant
A facility designed to receive wastewater and to remove materials that damage water quality and threaten publichealth and safety when discharged into receiving streams or bodies of water.

Waterborne carbon
DIC, DOC or POC contained in or conveyed by water.

Wetland
In this supplement, the term ‘wetland’ is used to refer to land with a wet soil. For the IPCC land-use category
Wetlands, see below.

Wetlands
This guidance uses the term ‘Wetlands’ (with capital ‘W’ and plural) when referring to the IPCC land-use
category Wetlands. The terms ‘wetland’ or ‘wetlands’ (except in titles with lowercase ‘w’ and singular or plural)
are used to refer to land with wet soil (see above).

Wetland mineral soil
A mineral soil that is classified as an ‘aquic soil’ or a ‘gleysol’ according to the default mineral soil classificationin Annex 3A.5, Figures 3A.5.3 and 3A.5.4, Chapter 3, Volume 4 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.

Wet soil
A soil that is inundated or saturated by water for all or part of the year to the extent that biota, adapted toanaerobic conditions, particularly soil microbes and rooted plants, control the quality and quantity of the net
annual greenhouse gas emissions and removals.

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

G.5

List of Contributors

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORSAUTHORS, REVIEW EDITORSAND REVIEWERS

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

LoC.1

List of Contributors

Authors and Review Editors1
Overview
Lead Authors
Dominique Blain
Rizaldi Boer
Simon Eggleston
Sergio Gonzalez
Taka Hiraishi
William Irving
Thelma Krug
Alex Vladimir Krusche
Emmanuel Jonathan
Mpeta
Jim Penman
Riitta Pipatti
Robert Sturgiss
Kiyoto Tanabe
Sirintornthep Towprayoon
Review Editors
Steen Gyldenkærne
Erda Lin

Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada
Centre for Climate Risk and Opportunity Management inSoutheast Asia and Pacific (CCROM SEAP) - IPB
Global Forest Observation Initiative
c/o Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Climate Change Division, OAR, US Environmental
Protection Agency
INPE – Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais
University of Sao Paulo – CENA
Tanzania Meteorological Agency

CanadaIndonesia
IPCC TFI TSU
Chile
Japan
USA
BrazilBrazilTanzania

Environment Institute, University College London
Statistics Finland
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Technical Support Unit,
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories(TFI TSU)
Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, Centerof Excellence of Energy Technology and Environment, King
Mongkut's University of Technology, Thonburi

UK
Finland
Australia
IPCC TFI TSU

Aarhus University
Agro-environment and Sustainable Development Institute,
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences

Denmark
China

Thailand

Chapter 1: Introduction
Coordinating Lead Authors
Tom Wirth
US Environmental Protection Agency
Chengyi Zhang
National Climate Center, China Meteorological
Administration
Lead Authors
Gusti Zakaria Anshari

USA
China

Indonesia

Leif K.I. Klemedtsson
Tuija Elina Lapvetelainen
Christoph Muller
Phillip O'Brien
Mitsuru Osaki

Centre for Wetlands People and Biodiversity (CWPB),
Universitas Tanjungpura (UNTAN)
University of Limerick
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Climate Change
Policy and Technology
Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Greifswald
University
Oregon State University / Center for International Forest
Research
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg
Statistics Finland
Justus-Liebig-University Giessen
Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland
Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University

Contributing Authors
Tonya Del Sontro
Mark Flugge
Stephen Ogle

Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics
ICF International
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State

Switzerland
USA
USA

Kenneth Byrne
Elke Hodson
Hans Joosten
J. Boone Kauffman

1

Ireland
Switzerland / USA
EC / WI / FAO
IUCN / UNESCO
SwedenFinlandGermany
IrelandJapan

The names shown in the third column are of the entities that nominated the experts, unless requested otherwise by the experts themselves.

LoC.2

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

List of Contributors

Riitta Pipatti
Rachel Steele
Victoria Thompson
Kiyoto Tanabe
Review Editors
Fatih Evrendilek
Steen Gyldenkærne

University
Statistics Finland
ICF International
ICF International
Technical Support Unit,
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)
Abant Izzet Baysal University
Aarhus University

Finland
USA
USA
IPCC TFI TSU
TurkeyDenmark

Chapter 2: Drained Inland Organic Soils
Coordinating Lead Authors
Matthias Drösler
HSWT - Weihenstephan University of Applied Sciences
Annette Freibauer
Thünen-Institute of Climate-Smart Agriculture
Genxing Pan
Nanjing Agricultural University
Louis V. Verchot
CIFOR
Lead Authors
Fahmuddin Agus
Indonesian Soil Research Institute (ISRI, IAARD)
Jukka P. Alm
Finnish Forest Research Institute
Richard A. Bourbonniere Environment Canada
John Couwenberg
University of Greifswald
Christopher David Evans Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Kristell Hergoualc'h
CIFOR
Jyrki Jauhiainen
Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki
Susan Elizabeth Page
Department of Geography, University of Leicester
Supiandi Sabiham
Faculty of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB)
Changke Wang
National Climate Center, China Meteorological
Administration
Contributing Authors
Laura Borgeau-Chavez
Nancy H.F. French
Aljosja Hooijer
Narasimhan Larkin
Robert Mickler
Kari Minkkinen
Andrey Sirin
Nalin Srivastava

Germany
Germany
China
USA
Indonesia
Finland
CanadaEC / WI / Germany/ Netherlands
UK
FranceFinlandUK
Indonesia
China

USA
USA
Netherlands
USA
USA
Finland
Russian Federation
IPCC TFI TSUTara Strand
Kevin Tansey

Michigan Technological University
Michigan Technological University
Deltares
U.S. Forest Service
Alion Science and Technology
University of Helsinki
Institute of Forest Science Russian Academy of Sciences
Technical Support Unit,
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)
New Zealand Forest Crown Research Institute
University of Leicester

Review Editors
David PareIman Rusmana
Bernard Siska

Canadian Forest Service - Natural Resources Canada
Bogor Agricultural University
Slovak University of Agriculture

CanadaIndonesia
Slovakia

USA / New Zealand
UK

Chapter 3: Rewetted Organic Soils
Coordinating Lead Authors
Dominique Blain
Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada
Daniel Murdiyarso
CIFOR
Lead Authors
John Couwenberg
Osamu Nagata
Andrey Sirin
Maria Strack

University of Greifswald
NARO Hokkaido Agricultural Research Center(NARO/HARC)
Institute of Forest Science Russian Academy of Sciences
University of Calgary

CanadaCIFOR
EC / WI / Germany/ Netherlands
Japan
Russian Federation
Canada2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

LoC.3

List of Contributors

Eeva-Stiina Tuittila
David Wilson
Florence Renou-Wilson

University of Eastern Finland
Earthy Matters Environmental Consultants
University College Dublin

Contributing Authors
Christopher David Evans Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Maya Fukuda
Technical Support Unit,
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)
Faizal Parish
Review Editors
Jens Leifeld
Agroscope Research Station Reckenholz - Tanikon ART
Maria Jose Sanz Sanchez Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Finland
Ireland
Ireland
UK
IPCC TFI TSU
Malaysia
Switzerland
FAO

Chapter 4: Coastal Wetlands
Coordinating Lead Authors
Daniel Michael Alongi
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Ansarul Karim
National Task Force on Climate Change Negotiation
Hilary Anne Kennedy
Bangor University

Australia
Bangladesh
UK

Lead Authors
Guangcheng Chen

Third Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic
Administration, P. R. China
McGill University
ESA PWA
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research InstituteResearch Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy ofForestry
Tsinghua University

China

Technical Support Unit,
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)

IPCC TFI TSUConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research – BAS

Spain
Bulgaria

Gail L. Chmura
Stephen Crooks
James G. Kairo
Baowen Liao
George Guanghui Lin
Contributing Authors
Tiffany G. Troxler
Review Editors
Nuria Marba Bordalba
Georgi Karl Hiebaum

Canada
USA
Kenya
China
China

Chapter 5: Inland Wetland Mineral Soils
Coordinating Lead Authors
Alex V. Krusche
University of Sao Paulo – CENA
Kimberly P. Wickland
United States Geological Survey

BrazilUSA

Lead Authors
Rodney A. Chimner

School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science,
Michigan Technological University
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences
USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station
Istanbul University

USA

Colorado State University
Technical Support Unit,
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)

USA
IPCC TFI TSUFederal University of Sao Carlos
L'Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

BrazilCanadaAyaka W. Kishimoto- Mo
Randall K. Kolka
Yusuf Serengil
Contributing Authors
Stephen Ogle
Nalin Srivastava
Review Editors
Irineu Junior Bianchini
Michelle Garneau

LoC.4

Japan
USA
Turkey2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

List of Contributors

Chapter 6: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
Coordinating Lead Authors
Yoshitaka Ebie
National Institute for Environmental Studies
Japan
Sirintornthep Towprayoon
Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, Center
Thailandof Excellence of Energy Technology and Environment, King
Mongkut's University of Technology, Thonburi
Lead Authors
Chart Chiemchaisri
Ülo Mander
Sandra Furlan Nogueira

Kasetsart University
Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA)

Thailand
Estonia
BrazilContributing Authors
Baasansuren Jamsranjav Technical Support Unit,
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)

IPCC TFI TSU

Review Editors
Christopher Gordon
Detelina Rumyanova
Petrova

Ghana
Bulgaria

Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies (IESS)Executive Environment Agency

Chapter 7: Cross-cutting Issues and Reporting
Coordinating Lead Authors
Pantaleo Munishi
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Department of Forest
Biology
Riitta Pipatti
Statistics Finland
Lead Authors
Patrick Gonzalez
Papa Mawade Wade
Contributing Authors
Kiyoto Tanabe
Review Editors
Werner Leo Kutsch
Erda Lin

Tanzania
Finland

U.S. National Park Service
Wetlands International Africa

USA
SenegalTechnical Support Unit,
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI)

IPCC TFI TSU

Johann Heinrich von Thunen InstituteAgro-environment and Sustainable Development Institute,
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences

Germany
China

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

LoC.5

List of Contributors

Reviewers
All expert reviewers listed below submitted their review comments for the Expert Review of the First Order
Draft and/or for the Government and Expert Review of the Second Order Draft. Affiliations of expert reviewers
presented in the list are as provided by them at the time of registration.
Argentina
Ana Faggi
Hector Ginzo

Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales
Instituto del Clima, Academia Argentina de Ciencia del Ambiente

Australia
Catherine Ellen Lovelock
Zoe Ryan
Neil Saintilan

The University of Queensland
Fauna & Flora International
Office of Environment and Heritage

Austria
Klaus Radunsky

Umweltbundesamt Wien

Belgium
James Ogilvie

EPAGMA

Benin
Bamikole Jacques Kouazounde
Guendehou G.H. Sabin

University of Abomey Calavi
Benin Centre for Scientific and Technical Research

Bolivia
Emilio Garcia-Apaza
BrazilMarco Aurélio dos Santos
Ivan Bergier
Irineu Bianchini JuniorViviane FernandezJean Pierre Ometto
Newton Paciornik
Giselle Parno Guimarães
Jose Ricardo da Rocha Campos
Elizabeth Sikar

Instituto de Investigaciones Agronómicas, Ambientales y del Cambio
Climático “IIAACC”, Faculty of Agronomy - San Andres Major University
Energy Planning Program/COPPE/UFRJ
Embrapa PantanalFederal University of São Carlos
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
National Institute for Space Research
RedeClima / Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia e Inovação
Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz
Construmaq São Carlos

Cameroon
Denis Jean Sonwa

CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research)

CanadaAngela Bedard-Haughn
Ana Blondel
Stéphanie Boudreau
Shari Hayne
Nicole J.Fenton
James Douglas MacDonald
Rock Ouimet
Maria Strack

University of Saskatchewan
Environment Canada
Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association (CSPMA)
Environment Canada
Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Environment Canada
Le Ministère des Resources Naturelles et de la Faune du Québec
University of Calgary

China
Zucong Cai
Jianhua Cao
Guangcheng Chen
Weixin Ding
Du RuiQingxian Gao
Amos Tiereyangn Kabo-bah
Fadong Li
Junsheng Li
Qian Li
Xianguo Lu
Chun Ma
Zhanyun Ma
Xianmin Meng

LoC.6

School of Geographical Sciences, Nanjing Normal University
Institute of Karst Geology, the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences
Third Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic Administration
Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Graduate University, Chinese Academy of Science
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences (CRAES)
Green WaterHut
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese
Academy of Sciences
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences (CRAES)LAGEO, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Northeast Institute of Geography & Agroecology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences
The College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai Unversity
Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences
Institute for Peat and Mire Research, Northeast Normal University

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

List of Contributors

Chiyuan Miao
Zhijian Mu
Xubin Pan
Bing Qiao
Changchun Song
Aijun Wang
Baodong Wang
Changyong Wang
Changke Wang
Chunfeng Wang
Hanjie Wang
Xiaowen Wang
Xia Hui Wang
Shaohong Wu
Yonghong Xie
Xiaofeng Xu
Siyuan Ye
Guangyu Zhang
Guobin Zhang
Xiaochun Zhang
Xiuyu Zhang
Xunhua Zheng
Colombia
Natalia Gutierrez Beltrán
Maria Cecilia Cardona Ruiz
Diego Alejandro Navarrete
Encinales
Diana Lugo
Javier Otero Garcia
Reinaldo Sanchez Lopez
Adriana Patricia Yepes Quintero

College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal
University
College of Resources and Environment, Southwest University
Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection andQuarantine
China Waterborne Transport Research InstituteNortheast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences
Third Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic Administration of China
The First Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic Administration
Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Environmental
Protection of the People’s Republic of China
National Climate Center
State Forestry Administration
Guojie Senior Professors Science and Technology Consultation and Development Academy
Chinese Academy of Forestry
Environmental Science Academic Society of China
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese
Academy of Sciences
Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, the Chinese Academy of Sciences
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Qingdao Institute of Marine Geology, China Geological Survey
Tianjin Research Institute for Water Transport Engineering, Ministry ofTransport
Forestry Carbon Sequestration Accounting and Monitoring Center of theState Forestry Administration, P.R. China
Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of
Sciences
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences. MEP
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies - IDEAM
IDEAM
Carbon Decisions International
IDEAM
IDEAM
IDEAM
PrivateDenmarkThomas Friborg
Steen Gyldenkærne
Erik Kristensen
Ole-Kenneth Nielsen

University of Copenhagen
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Aarhus University
Syddansk Universitet
Aarhus University

Egypt
Ayman Batisha

Arab Sustainability Academy

Finland
Teija Hakalahti-Sirén
Jyrki Jauhiainen
Tuija Lapveteläinen
Annalea Lohila
Kari Mutka
Riitta Pipatti
Ilkka Savolainen
Tarja Tuomainen

Vapo Oy
University of Helsinki
Statistics Finland
Finnish Meteorological Institute
Biodiili Ltd (consultant)
Statistics Finland
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Finnish Forest InstituteGermany
John Couwenberg
Annette Freibauer
Stephan Glatzel
Mathias Herbst
Joachim Rock

University of Greifswald
Thuenen-Institute of Agricultural Climate Research
University of Rostock
Department of Bioclimatology, Göttingen University
Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Rural
Areas, Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of Forest Ecology and Forest
Inventory

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

LoC.7

List of Contributors

Gerald Schmilewski
Baerbel Tiemeyer

International Peat Society, Chair Commission II
Thünen Institute for Climate-Smart Agriculture

Hungary
Zoltan Somogyi

Hungarian Forest Research Institute

Iceland
Jón Guðmundsson

Agricultural University of Iceland

India
Tapan Kumar Adhya
Malini Nair
Chhemendra Sharma

Indian Nitrogen Group (ING-SCON)
Center for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science
Principal Scientist, National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi

Indonesia
Kristell Hergoualc'h
Mahmud Raimadoya
Louis Verchot

CIFOR
Bogor Agricultural University (IPB)
CIFOR

IrelandFlorence Renou-Wlison
David Wilson

University College Dublin
Earthy Matters Environmental Consultants

Italy
Sandro Federici
Marina Vitullo

Republic of San Marino
Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA)

Japan
Hiroko Akiyama
Yukio Haruyama
Ryusuke Hatano
Mitsuru Hirota
Shigehiro Ishizuka
Ayaka W. Mo Kishimoto
Yoshiyuki Kiyono
Takayuki Nakatsubo
Ake Rosenqvist
Atsushi Sato
Hiroyuki Ueda
Masato Yamada
Masato Yano

National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences
Remote Sensing Technology Center of Japan
Hokkaido University
University of Tsukuba
Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteNational Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute
Hiroshima University
Solo Earth Observation
Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co., Ltd.
Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co., Ltd.
National Institute for Environmental Studies
Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co., Ltd.

Korea, Republic ofRaehyun Kim

Korea Forest Research Institute

Malaysia
Faizal Parish
Elizabeth Philip
Mauritius
Prithiviraj Booneeady
Anand Sookun

Global Environment Centre
Forest Research Institute Malaysia/Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment
Mauritius Meteorological Services
Statistics Mauritius

MexicoTomas Hernandez-Tejeda

INIFAP-SAGARPA

Netherlands
Gert Jan van den Born
Aljosja Hooijer
Ko van Huissteden
Jan Vermaat

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Senior Researcher, Deltares
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University

New ZealandAndrea Brandon
Luitgard Schwendenmann

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment
The University of Auckland

NorwayCaroline Roelandt

University of Bergen

LoC.8

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

List of Contributors

PeruPeter Schlesinger

PSForestry

Philippines
Leandro Buendia

Project Coordinator, SEA GHG Project

Russian Federation
Romanovskaya Anna

Institute of Global Climate and Ecology

Spain
Government of Spain
Cristina Garcia-Diaz

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment

Sri Lanka
B.V.R. Punyawardena

Climatologist

SwedenOlof Andrén
Åsa Kasimir Klemedtsson
Lars Lundin
Mats Olsson

Consultant, former Professor at Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
University of Gothenburg
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU

Switzerland
Simon Eggleston
Jens Leifeld

Global Forest Observation Initiative
Agroscope

Tanzania
Gerald Jones Kamwenda

Tanzania Forest Service

ThailandSansanee Choowaew
Suwasa Kantawanichkul

Mahidol University
Chiang Mai University

TurkeyFatih Evrendilek

Abant Izzet Baysal University

United Kingdom
Rebekka Artz
Heiko Balzter
Sandra Brown
Simon Koenig
Richard Lucas
Harriet Orr
Susan Elizabeth Page
Jim Penman
Jack Rieley
Keith A Smith
Judith Stuart
Amanda Thomson
Mike Wiseman

James Hutton Institute
University of Leicester
Winrock International
Permian Global
Aberystwyth University
Environment Agency of England and Wales
University of Leicester
University College London
International Peat Society
School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
University of the Third Age (U3A) Climate Change Coordinator

USA
John F. Bratton
Lynette Brown
Christopher Bruce Craft
Carmen Burghelea
Daniel Childers
Robert Raymond ChristianMarlen D Eve
Stephen E. Davis, III
Stephen K. Hamilton
Jaclyn Hatala
Kristine N. Hopfensperger
Patrick HuntRandy Kolka
Charles Lane
Erik A. Lilleskov
H. Gyde Lund
Erika Podest
Katherine Segarra

NOAA-Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc.
Indiana University, Bloomington
University of Arizona
Arizona State University
East Carolina University
USDA Climate Change Program OfficeEverglades Foundation
Michigan State University
University of California, Berkeley
Northern Kentucky University
USDA-ARSUSDA Forest Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station
Forest Information Services
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
University of Georgia, Department of Marine Sciences

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

LoC.9

List of Contributors

Karamat R. Sistani
Newman J Smith
Mark Sperow
Michael J. Stenhouse
Victoria M. Thompson
Ralph Tiner
Tom Wirth
Christopher William Woodall
Kewei Yu
Dragos G. Zaharescu

USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLPWest Virginia University
INTERA Incorporated
ICF International
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Department of Agriculture
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Troy University
University of Arizona, Biosphere-2

Venezuela
Alicia Villamizar

Universidad Simón Bolívar. Departamento de Estudios Ambientales

IGO
European Commission
Raul Abad Viñas
Viorel Blujdea
Roland Heiderer
Roxana Petrescu

Joint Research Center
Joint Research Center
Joint Research Center
Joint Research Center

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Rocio Danica Condor Golec
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Fabian Wagner
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)
Wu Ning
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Kimberly Todd
Maxim Vergeichik
Wetlands International
Kelin Chen
Ritesh Kumar
Arina Schrier-Uijl
Marcel Silvius

LoC.102013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands