Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands 

Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation 

Peer-Review Report 
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands 


Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
 

Peer-Review Report
 

Transportation and Climate Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Prepared for EPA by
 

RTI International
 

EPA Contract No. EP-C-11-045
 

Work Assignment No. 2-13
 

NOTICE 

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 


positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data 


that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to 


facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of 


technical developments.
 

EPA-420-R-14-030 

December 2014 
CONTENTS 

Section Page 

1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1 

2 Overview....................................................................................................................... 2-1 

3 Summary of Peer-Review Responses ........................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Overarching Charge Question.............................................................................. 3-1 

3.2 Potential Adjustment of Emission Factor from Hooijer et al. (2012) .................. 3-3 

3.3 Directionality of Estimate .................................................................................... 3-5 

3.4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report .......................................... 3-8 

3.5 Additional Input ................................................................................................. 3-11 

4 References..................................................................................................................... 4-1 

Appendixes 

A Recommendation Requests ................................................................................. A-1
 

B Conflict of Interest Analysis and Bias Questionnaire ..........................................B-1
 

C Peer Reviewer Resumes.......................................................................................C-1
 

D Materials Provided to the Peer-Review Panel .................................................... D-1
 

E Peer-Review Responses .......................................................................................E-1
 

iii 
LIST OF TABLES
 

Number Page 

3-1. Summary of Peer-Review Response to Charge Question #3........................................ 3-6
 

iv
 
 

 

 

 

LIST OF ACRONYMS
 

C carbon 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

DIC dissolved inorganic carbon 

DOC dissolved organic carbon 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

g cm-3 grams per cubic centimeter 

GHG greenhouse gas 

ha-1 hectare 

ha-1 yr-1 hectare per year 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

kg kilogram 

Pg petagram 

POC particulate organic carbon 

RFS Renewable Fuel Standard 

Tg teragram 

v 
 

 

 

 

SECTION 1
 

INTRODUCTION
 

In January 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an 

analysis of the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with palm oil– 

based biodiesel and renewable diesel. The results of the analysis indicate that, when 

compared with the petroleum diesel baseline, palm oil–based biofuels reduce GHG 

emissions by 17% and 11%, respectively, and thus do not meet the statutory 20% GHG 

emissions reduction threshold for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program (EPA, 

2012). 

Based on EPA’s analysis, one of the major sources of GHG emissions was 

emissions resulting from drained organic peat soils preceding the development of new 

palm oil plantations. The EPA used a peat soil emission factor of 95 tonnes of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) per hectare of drained peat soil, based on Hooijer et al. (2012), to help 

estimate the total GHG emissions from the expansion of peat soil drainage. 

To ensure that the EPA has taken into account the best available information on 

this important emissions factor for the life-cycle GHG analysis of palm oil–based 

biofuels, the Agency asked RTI International to facilitate an independent peer review. 

The purpose of this review was to request additional scientific input about the Agency’s 

assessment of the average annual GHG emissions from tropical peatlands resulting from 

the development of the land for production of palm oil for use in EPA’s life-cycle GHG 

analysis of palm oil–based biofuels. RTI selected five peer reviewers who are experts in 

GHG emissions from peat soils to review the EPA’s application of the peat soil emissions 

factor and to provide feedback on the use of this factor. The following sections of this 

report summarize the peer-review process and the peer reviewers’ responses to five 

questions that seek to address the relevance and appropriateness of the emission factor. 

1-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION 2
 

OVERVIEW
 

In fall 2013, the EPA requested that RTI facilitate a peer review to be conducted 

of the peat soil emission factor that the Agency uses for life-cycle GHG assessment of 

palm oil biofuels for the RFS program. RTI, an independent contractor, supported the 

EPA by facilitating the peer review according to guidelines in the Agency’s Peer Review 

Handbook (EPA, 2006). 

The EPA requested recommendations for peer-review candidates from various 

organizations and agencies. Then, the EPA compiled the recommendations and submitted 

a list of 21 candidates to RTI. The Agency sought recommendations for qualified 

candidates from the following entities: 

■	 Office of the Ambassador of ■ National Wildlife Federation 

Indonesia 

■	 Clean Air Task Force ■ National Resources Defense Council 

■	 Embassy of Malaysia ■ Union of Concerned Scientists 

■	 International Council on Clean ■ World Wildlife Fund
 

Transportation
 

Copies of the recommendation requests are included in Appendix A of this 

report. 

Qualified candidates were those who have a doctoral degree in soil science or a 

related field and have published peer-reviewed journal articles about carbon cycling and 

tropical peat soils. Of the 21 recommended candidates, four were excluded from 

consideration because they were involved in the development of the Hooijer et al. (2012) 

publication on which EPA sought critical input, and there was considered to be an 

inherent conflict of interest in asking them to review the relevance and appropriateness of 

their own work. RTI also conducted a literature and online resources investigation for 

additional candidates and identified 10 more qualified candidates for consideration. 

Thus, a total of 27 qualified candidates were identified and contacted to determine 

their interest in and availability for the peer review. Of the 27 candidates contacted, 18 of 

them said they were available, so they completed a Conflicts of Interest (COI) Disclosure 

Form. The COI forms requested information on any and all real or perceived COI or bias, 

including funding sources, employment, public statements, and other areas of potential 

conflict in accordance with EPA’s Peer Review Handbook (EPA, 2006). A template of 

the COI form completed by the candidates is included in Appendix B. RTI staff 

2-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

supporting the peer review also underwent a COI investigation to corroborate the 

independence and a lack of bias across all components of the peer review. 

Per the instructions from the EPA, RTI set out to select four or five reviewers 

from the candidate pool based on all of the following criteria: 

■	 expertise, knowledge, and experience of each individual 

■	 adherence to the COI guidance in the EPA Peer Review Handbook 

■	 panel balance with respect to the expertise required to conduct the review and 

the diversity of relevant scientific and technical perspectives 

Based on the candidates’ availability and qualifications, the information provided 

in the completed COI Disclosure Forms, and an independent COI investigation conducted 

by RTI staff, RTI selected the following five candidates: 

■	 Scott Bridgham, Ph.D., Professor, University of Oregon 

■	 Kristell Hergoualc’h, Ph.D., Scientist, Center for International Forestry 

Research 

■	 Monique Leclerc, Ph.D., Regents Professor, University of Georgia 

■	 Supiandi Sabiham, Ph.D., Professor, Bogor Agricultural University 

■	 Arina Schrier, Ph.D., Owner, Climate and Environmental International 

Consultancy 

Three of the selected peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Bridgham, Hergoualc’h, and 

Leclerc) reported no COI on the disclosure form. Dr. Sabiham stated that although he 

does not have any actual or potential COI or bias impeding his ability to independently 

evaluate the peat soil emissions factor used by the EPA, he did note that government and 

palm oil industry funding has been provided to the university where he is employed to 

support ecological and sociological research on land-use changes from peat swamp forest 

to agricultural uses, from which Dr. Sabiham and his graduate students receive funding. 

Dr. Sabiham also noted his roles as President of the Indonesian Peat Society and as an 

independent expert developing scientific reviews for entities such as the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Indonesian Government, and the 

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Similarly, Dr. Schrier noted her roles as an 

independent expert developing scientific reviews for the IPCC, the International Council 

on Clean Transportation, and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. 

2-2
 
 

 

 

 

 

It is important to note that these five candidates were specifically selected to 

develop a balanced, independent panel with various backgrounds from academia, 

nongovernmental organizations, and private consulting. No more than one candidate was 

selected from the recommendations provided by a single EPA-contacted entity (one each 

from the Ambassador of Indonesia, the Embassy of Malaysia, and International Council 

on Clean Transportation, and two independently identified by RTI). 

The EPA reviewed and approved the list of candidates selected by RTI as 

appropriate choices from the candidate pool to form an independent and balanced panel. 

Copies of the selected candidate resumes are included in Appendix C of this report. 

RTI staff provided the peer reviewers with the EPA-developed Technical Work 

Product and Peer-Review Charge (both in Appendix D of this report), which guided the 

evaluations. RTI requested that the reviewers refrain from discussing the subject of the 

review with other parties during the review period. Although RTI was available to 

address any questions that reviewers had during the review, all peer reviewers were asked 

to respond to the charge independently and without consult from the other peer reviewers. 

The panel was not asked to reach a consensus. 

RTI staff members have summarized the panel’s responses below. The peer 

reviews from each panel member are included in Appendix E of this report. 

Three out of the five reviewers agreed that the emission factor used in EPA’s 

analysis of palm oil–based biofuels is an appropriate coefficient to use based on current 

scientific understanding, but emphasized that the emission factor should be reevaluated as 

meta-analyses of existing research are conducted and/or as additional research becomes 

available. Two reviewers stated that the EPA has likely overestimated the carbon 

emissions. One of those two reviewers recommended using the peat soil emission factors 

published by the IPCC (Drösler et al., 2013), while the other reviewer recommended 

using the peat soil emission factors published by Melling et al. (2007). 

2-3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION 3
 

SUMMARY OF PEER-REVIEW RESPONSES
 

All five peer reviewers examined the EPA–developed Technical Work Product 

and Peer Review Charge. This section of the report provides the charge questions (in 

italics) followed by summaries of the peer reviewers’ comments. Appendix E includes 

the full responses from each peer reviewer. 

3.1 Overarching Charge Question 

Given the three criteria outlined in the Technical Work Product and the estimates 

available in the literature, did the EPA choose the most appropriate value for the peat 

soil emission factor? If not, please provide a recommendation on the most appropriate 

peat soil emission factor to use in EPA’s analysis, with a detailed explanation. 

Three out of the five peer reviewers (Drs. Bridgham, Schrier, and Leclerc) stated 

that the peat soil emissions factor used by the EPA is the most appropriate emission 

factor based on current available literature. Both Drs. Schrier and Leclerc emphasized 

that the emission factor should be reevaluated as meta-analyses of existing research are 

conducted and/or as additional research becomes available. Reevaluating the emission 

factor will help reduce the uncertainty associated with any factors that have not been 

considered, have not been based on oil palm on peat measurements, or have been based 

on a small sample size (spatial, temporal, or numerical). Dr. Schrier discussed the 

uncertainties associated with the following: 

■	 short-term nature of the available literature 

■	 separation between CO2 and methane emissions related to the drainage of peat 

■	 assumptions required for the soil subsidence method, including bulk density 

and carbon fraction 

■	 initial pulse emissions versus base emissions rates 

■	 dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and ditch fluxes 

■	 fire emissions 

■	 water-table fluctuations and averages 

Dr. Leclerc recommended that the emissions factor be considered temporary and 

conditional because it likely underestimates emissions. Dr. Leclerc noted the following 

areas for further investigation: the role of root respiration and differences between peat 

3-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

swamp forests, oil palm, and acacia; non-CO2 GHG emissions; and acknowledgement 

and identification of heterogeneous peat depths through additional sample locations. Dr. 

Leclerc also mentioned these additional areas for further investigation: the effect of 

management practices, the occurrence of peat fires following the establishment of oilpalm plantations on peat land, and the duration of carbon monoxide and CO2 emissions 

with smoldering fires. 

Drs. Hergoualc’h and Sabiham disagreed with EPA’s emission factor choice. Dr. 

Hergoualc’h stated that EPA’s emission factor is not representative of Southeast Asia and 

recommended the emission factors published by the IPCC (Drösler et al., 2013): 

-1 • on-site CO2 emissions: 40 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year (ha ) -1 yr

-1

• off-site CO2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses: 3 tonnes of CO2 (ha ) -1 yr

• CO2 from prescribed fires: 264 tonnes of CO2 per hectare (ha-1) 

• CO2 from wildfires: 601 tonnes CO2 ha-1 

Dr. Hergoualc’h further noted that the initial pulse emissions following drainage 

are not directly included in EPA’s emissions factor, but rather indirectly added through 

the carbon loss estimate. 

Dr. Sabiham stated that the emissions factor is not an appropriate choice because 

of Hooijer et al.’s (2012) exclusion of root respiration and the assumptions regarding peat 

soil bulk density, peat organic carbon content, and groundwater table depth. Dr. Sabiham 

noted that these assumptions likely overestimate the emissions and, therefore, 

recommended an emissions factor consistent with the Melling et al. (2007) study, which 

includes root respiration and a shallower groundwater level. 

3-2
 
 

 

 

 

 

3.2 Potential Adjustment of Emission Factor from Hooijer et al. (2012) 

Some commenters have raised questions about particular values used in the Hooijer et al. 

(2012) study (e.g., organic carbon content, peat bulk density). Would you recommend 

that EPA use the overall approach and data published in Hooijer et al. (2012), but use a 

different value for the following: (a) organic carbon content, (b) peat bulk density, (c) the 

percentage of subsidence due to oxidation, or (d) another parameter (please specify)? 

Please explain your recommendation and provide supporting documentation. 

In response to the second charge question, the panel was fairly split. Two peer 

reviewers (i.e., Drs. Sabiham and Bridgham) agreed with the overall approach used by 

the EPA and presented by Hooijer et al. (2012). One peer reviewer (i.e., Dr. Hergoualc’h) 

did not agree with the overall approach. One peer reviewer (i.e., Dr. Leclerc) stated that 

there was not enough information available on the key components of the approach to 

determine its appropriateness. One peer reviewer (i.e., Dr. Schrier) suggested that a metaanalysis be performed that incorporates both the soil subsidence- and chamber-based 

research. Regarding the values used in the approach, two panel members (i.e., Drs. 

Schrier and Bridgham) agreed with EPA’s decision to use the Hooijer et al. (2012) 

values, and one panel member (Dr. Sabiham) disagreed. Two members (Drs. Hergoualc’h 

and Leclerc) asserted that not enough information was available to lessen the uncertainty 

regarding the values. 

Dr. Hergoualc’h recommended that the EPA not use the approach by Hooijer et 

al. (2012) because it is too sensitive to parameter values that require long-term 

monitoring and baseline information (e.g., organic carbon content, peat bulk density, the 

percentage of subsidence because of oxidation). Because no reference site information or 

long-term data are available, the approach must, therefore, be based on assumptions, 

which introduces high levels of uncertainty. 

Dr. Sabiham stated that a subsidence-based technique performs better than a 

closed-chamber measurement regarding the long-term effect of drainage on carbon stock 

depletion of peat. However, Dr. Sabiham questioned the values used by the EPA for 

organic carbon content, peat bulk density, and the percentage of subsidence because of 

oxidation. Therefore, Dr. Sabiham made the following recommendations for emission 

factor estimates developed for oil palm plantations on peat soil: 

■ The value of organic carbon content should not exceed 45% . 

3-3
 
 

 

 

■ The value of peat bulk density should range between 0.07 and 0.1 grams per 

cubic centimeter (g cm-3) at the start of drainage and between 0.18 and 

0.22 g cm-3 once subsidence has begun. 

■	 An oxidation/subsidence ratio of 44%, as supported by Couwenberg et al. 

(2010), should be used. 

Dr. Bridgham agreed with the overall approach and values used by Hooijer et al. 

(2012) but noted that the values used by the approach may be limited by the 

geographically limited study area. However, Dr. Bridgham stated that it is likely that this 

level of uncertainty leads to an underestimation of emissions because of higher bulk 

density and soil carbon measurements, which are observed in other literature. 

Dr. Schrier recommended that the EPA continue to use the current values 

published in Hooijer et al. (2012) because the carbon fraction and bulk density estimates 

are representative of the literature and because the study is the most robust investigation 

specifically designed to determine soil subsidence due to oxidation. However, Dr. Schrier 

recommended that the overall approach be amended to consider other studies through a 

meta-analysis of soil subsidence and chamber-based research. 

Dr. Leclerc stated that the effects of peat characteristics (including bulk density, 

organic carbon content, and depth) and other variables (e.g., management techniques) on 

GHG emissions must be assessed before selecting an approach. Therefore, once 

additional studies have been conducted and more data are available for analysis, the 

approach should be refined. Dr. Leclerc further asserted that the composition of peat 

varies regionally; therefore, this will create large variations in the values required for the 

subsidence technique. Thus, one emissions factor may not be sufficient. 

3-4
 
 

 

 

3.3 Directionality of Estimate 

The EPA recognizes that the Hooijer et al. (2012) study that forms the foundation 

of our estimate of peat soil emissions was conducted under specific circumstances. For 

example, it was conducted in a limited number of plantations on the island of Sumatra. 

For the reasons listed in the Technical Work Product, we believe this is the best available 

estimate of peat soil emissions, but we recognize that numerous factors could cause this 

estimate to be higher or lower than the average emission factor for peat soils drained for 

oil palm across Southeast Asia. Please discuss whether the emission factor value used by 

the EPA (95 tCO2e/ha/yr) is likely to overestimate or underestimate (and if so, by how 

much) or provide a plausible estimate of average GHG emissions from peat soil drainage 

for oil palm across Southeast Asia. In particular, please discuss whether the following 

factors are likely to make EPA’s emission factor an overestimate or an underestimate: 

a.	 Variation in the type of peat soil (e.g., mineral content, carbon content, depth, 

extent of degradation) 

b.	 Precipitation regime (e.g., annual rainfall, timing of rainfall) 

c.	 Differing water management practices at plantations 

d.	 Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia) 

e.	 The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the 

first 5 years after drainage 

f.	 Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions 

g.	 Omission of emissions due to fire (as discussed in the Technical Work 

Product, omission of this factor will cause EPA’s emission factor to 

underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments about how large this 

underestimation may be.) 

h.	 Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations. 

Overall, two peer reviewers (Drs. Sabiham and Hergoualc’h) responded that the 

previously mentioned factors are likely to overestimate the average GHG emissions from 

peat soil drainage under oil palm plantations. Two peer reviewers (Drs. Leclerc and 

Schrier) stated that the factors are likely to underestimate the average GHG emissions. 

One peer reviewer responded that the GHG emissions are likely to be fairly represented. 

Table 3-1 summarizes the panel members’ responses to each of the individual factors. 

3-5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3-1. Summary of Peer-Review Response to Charge Question #3 

Topic Areas Dr. Bridgham Dr. Hergoualc’h Dr. Leclerc Dr. Sabiham Dr. Schrier 

a. Variation in the type 

of peat soil 

This is a representative 

estimate. 

Additional research is 

needed. Peat properties and 

duration of consolidation 

will likely affect the carbon 

loss rate after conversion.a 

This likely underestimates 

the emissions from sapric 

peat more than for fibric and 

hemic, but more research is 

needed. 

Additional information is 

needed, but this is likely 

overestimated because of 

low organic carbon in high 

ash–content soils. 

This is a representative 

estimate or a slight 

overestimate because of 

spatial and temporal 

variability. 

b. Precipitation regime This is a representative 

estimate, as long as 

regional water table and 

drainage are consistent. 

There is no scientific 

evidence that rainfall 

patterns can influence peat 

carbon losses in converted 

tropical peatlands. 

This is expected to affect the 

emissions because it 

modifies the water content 

in the peat. Its importance 

has yet to be examined. 

This is likely 

overestimated because 

plantations can manage 

groundwater level. 

This is a representative 

estimate or a slight 

overestimate because of 

variations in climate. 

c. Differing water 

management practices 

at plantations 

This is a representative 

estimate because of the 

nitrogen fertilization 

effect. 

Differences in laboratory 

and field measurements 

suggest that additional 

research is needed. 

This is underestimated. CO2 

emissions rise when 

methane emissions fall and 

vice versa due to microbial 

populations. Thus, 

customary water table 

management should be 

revised to decrease the total 

GHGs and not just CO2. 

This is likely 

overestimated because 

optimum groundwater 

level is shallower than the 

Hooijer et al. (2012) 

estimate. 

This is a representative 

estimate or a slight 

overestimate. Maintaining 

water tables according to 

best management practices 

is generally not feasible 

with most current drainage 

systems. If drainage 

systems are optimized, 

then lower emissions are 

possible. 

d. Different types of 

plantations 

If drainage is similar, then 

this is a representative 

estimate. 

This is likely overestimated. More research is needed on 

root respiration, fertilizer 

applications, plantation age, 

and non-CO2 GHGs to 

This is likely 

overestimated. 

This is a representative 

estimate based on new 

research.b 

determine whether there are 

underestimates or 

overestimates. 

3-6

(continued) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3-2. Summary of Peer-Review Response to Charge Question #3 

Topic Areas Dr. Bridgham Dr. Hergoualc’h Dr. Leclerc Dr. Sabiham Dr. Schrier 

e. The approach during This is a representative This is likely an Additional research is This is likely an The recommendation was 

the first 5 years after estimate. overestimate because of the needed to accurately overestimate because of made that an annual 

drainage assumptions made on represent emissions. the peat bulk density, emission factor be used 

baseline conditions using organic carbon, and with a multiplier of 2.6 for 

acacia plantations with subsidence estimates used. the first 5 years to account 

different locations and for increased emissions 

management. initially. 

f. Omission of methane This is a slight This is an underestimate that This is an underestimate, This is a representative This is an underestimate, 

and nitrous oxide underestimate (relative to should include IPCC values. and it should be included. estimate. and it should include IPCC 

emissions CO2 emissions). values. 

g. Omission of emissions This is an underestimate, This is an underestimate that This is an underestimate, This is an underestimate, This is an underestimate, 

due to fire and it should be included. should include IPCC values. and it should be included. but regulations prohibit and it should include IPCC 

The literature ranges from The literature suggests burning, so future values. Fire frequency and 

86 to 387 teragrams of average CO2 emissions from estimates should omit fire intensity have increased 

carbon per year.c fires from 2000–2006 of 6.5 emissions. because of drainage of 

petagrams of carbon per 

year.d 

peat. 

h. Omission of This is an underestimate, The current scientific This is an underestimate, This is a representative This is an underestimate, 

incidentally drained and it should be included. knowledge on tropical and it should be quantified. estimate because but more research is 

peat swamps adjoining peatlands allows for regulations prohibit new needed before these 

the plantations integrating this impact in the plantations on peat soil and emissions can be 

emission factor. forests. considered. 

a Othman et al., 2011. 

b Husnain et al., 2012. 

c Couwenberg et al., 2010; Hooijer et al., 2012; van der Werf et al., 2008. 

d Murdiyarso et al., 2010. 

3-7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report 

The IPCC (2014) lists a Tier 1 emission factor of 40 tCO2/ha/yr for tropical drained oil 

palm plantations. This value does not include emissions for the first 6 years after 

drainage. However, studies have shown that a pulse of higher emissions occurs right 

after drainage. The IPCC report also gives a default DOC emission factor of 3 

tCO2/ha/yr. In addition, the IPCC gives guidance on quantifying emissions from fires. 

The report gives a default emission factor of 1,701 gCO2/(kilograms [kg]of dry matter 

burned) for tropical organic soil and a default dry matter consumption value of 155 t/ha 

for prescribed fires in the tropics. 

a.	 Would it be appropriate for the EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission 

factor of 40 tCO2/ha/yr, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number 

based on more detailed information? 

Two peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Hergoualc’h and Sabiham) stated that the IPCC 

Tier 1 emission factor is appropriate to use. Dr. Sabiham indicated it would be 

appropriate for the Agency to use values as high as 44 tonnes of CO2 ha-1 yr-1, which 

accounts for groundwater levels up to 60 centimeters below the soil surface. 

Three peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Bridgham, Leclerc, and Schrier) stated that the 

Hooijer et al. (2012) estimate is more scientifically justified. Dr. Bridgham further stated 

that the Hooijer et al. (2012) estimate is inherently clearer and more scientifically 

defensible because of the uncertainties associated with scaling up the chamber-based 

method and estimating litter inputs. Additionally, Drs. Leclerc and Schrier noted that the 

development of the IPCC emission factor is not based on more recent literature that 

indicates that the emission factor is closer to the Hooijer et al. (2012) estimate. 

b.	 Should the emission factor that the EPA uses include the emissions pulse that 

occurs in the first several years immediately following drainage? 

Two peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Bridgham and Leclerc) agreed that the EPA should 

include the emissions pulse. Dr. Bridgham stated that further data, in addition to the 

Hooijer et al. (2012) emissions pulse data, would be preferable for comparison. 

Dr. Sabiham stated that the EPA should exclude the emissions pulse because the 

analysis may have confused oil palm and acacia subsidence results. Similarly, Dr. 

Hergoualc’h stated that the pulse demonstrated in Hooijer et al. (2012) was observed in 

an acacia plantation and only demonstrates a pulse in subsidence, not emissions; 

therefore, the emissions pulse is not scientifically supported. Dr. Hergoualc’h also 

proposed that consolidation may be more important than currently estimated. 

3-8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Schrier stated that a multiplication factor for the first 5 years of drainage 

would increase the certainty and robustness of the emission factor more appropriately 

than including an emissions pulse. 

c.	 Should the EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission 

factor? If so, are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better 

estimates for EPA’s purpose? 

Three reviewers (i.e., Drs. Hergoualc’h, Leclerc, and Schrier) agreed that the EPA 

should include the IPCC fire emission and DOC factors. Dr. Hergoualc’h stated that the 

Agency could eventually merge the IPCC emission factors for DOC, but that the 

emission factors for prescribed fires and wildfires should be kept apart to acknowledge 

site-specific land-use history. Dr. Schrier also asserted that the EPA should include nonCO2 emissions. Dr. Leclerc stated that DOCs are a “hot spot” of GHGs and that 

advection from neighboring regions caused by land-use conversion should also be taken 

into account for robust emission factors to be determined. 

Dr. Bridgham stated that a fire emission factor should be included, but this will 

require more investigation to suggest an appropriate factor. Dr. Bridgham further stated 

that DOC fluxes may or may not need to be included separately, depending on the 

method used. If the subsidence method is used, then it is not necessary to include DOC 

fluxes because they are already accounted for in the loss of soil carbon and mass. If the 

soil respiration method is used, then it is necessary to include DOC fluxes (IPCC, 2006). 

Dr. Sabiham recommended that DOC and fire emission factors not be included in 

EPA’s approach because DOC fluxes are off site and relatively insignificant, and best 

management practices of oil palm plantation require zero burning. 

d.	 There are also erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and 

waterborne transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) 

derived from autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. 

The IPCC concluded that, at present, the science and available data are not 

sufficient to provide guidance on CO2 emissions or removals associated with 

these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you agree that the science on these factors is 

not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC and dissolved inorganic carbon 

in its peat soil emission factor? 

Three peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Hergoualc’h, Leclerc, and Schrier) agreed that the 

science is not sufficient yet and should be omitted from the emission factor until further 

information is available. 

3-9
 
 

 

 

 

Dr. Bridgham stated that it is not necessary to account for POC and dissolved 

inorganic carbon losses if a stock-based approach is used such as the subsidence method. 

Dr. Bridgham also iterated the reasons why a gain–loss approach of the IPCC is 

inappropriate for estimating the peat soil emission factor, such as the uncertainties 

associated with scaling up and estimating litter inputs and root respiration. 

Dr. Sabiham stated that there is no need to include POC loss in the overall 

emission factor for peat soil under oil palm plantation, but for different reasons. Dr. 

Sabiham noted that for drained peat soil under oil palm plantations that follow best 

management practices (e.g., zero burning method during land preparation, maintaining 

groundwater at a certain level to avoid drying of peat materials during dry season), POC 

should generally be a negligible component. 

In addition, Dr. Sabiham agreed that research on dissolved inorganic carbon is 

still not sufficient to warrant inclusion in the peat soil emission factor, although he noted 

that several research results (Dariah et al., 2013; Sabiham et al., 2014) indicate that the 

contribution of root respiration could be considered as the correction factor for closedchamber technique evaluations. 

3-10
 
 

 

 

3.5 Additional Input 

Please provide any additional scientific information that you believe the EPA should 

consider regarding the Agency’s assessment of the average annual GHG emissions from 

draining tropical peatlands for palm oil cultivation for use in EPA’s lifecycle GHG 

analysis of palm oil–based biofuels. 

Two peer reviewers (i.e., Dr. Bridgham and Leclerc) stated that they had no more 

information to provide outside of the responses and references previously provided. 

Dr. Schrier added that the meta-analysis of Carlson et al. (in preparation) should be 

considered as soon as it becomes available. 

Dr. Hergoualc’h stated that the literature review carried out by the EPA appeared 

to be incomplete. For example, a number of soil respiration studies and the soil carbon 

flux approach applied in Hergoualc’h and Verchot (2013) were not included in the 

analyses. Furthermore, Dr. Hergoualc’h stated that it was not clear whether the EPA 

firmly understands the approach for calculating an emission factor using peat carbon 

fluxes. 

Dr. Sabiham noted that Indonesian peat soils contain mostly fibric peat, in which 

subsidence occurs quickly after drainage, and this is particularly important to know when 

calculating carbon emissions for the first 5 years after drainage. Dr. Sabiham also noted 

that fibric peat reaches an irreversible drying condition rapidly, at which point carbon 

loss because of peat oxidation does not exist but is highly susceptible to fire. 

3-11
 
 

 

 

SECTION 4 

REFERENCES 

Couwenberg, J. and A. Hoosier. 2013. Towards robust subsidence based and soil carbon 

factors for peat soils in South-East Asia, with special reference to oil palm 

plantations. Mires and Peat 12:1–13. 

Couwenberg, J., R. Dommain, and H. Joosten. 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical 

peatlands in Southeast Asia. Global Change Biology 16(6):1715–1732. 

Dariah, A., S. Marwanto, and F. Agus. 2013. Root- and peat-based CO2 emission from oil 

palm plantations. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 

19(6):831–843. 

Drösler, M., L.V. Verchot, A. Freibauer, G. Pan, C.D. Evans, R.A. Bourbonniere, J.P. 

Alm, S. Page, F. Agus, K. Hergoualc’h, J. Couwenberg, J. Jauhiainen, S. 

Sabiham, C. Wang, N. Srivastava, L. Borgeau-Chavez, A. Hooijer, K. Minkkinen, 

N. French, T. Strand, A. Sirin, R. Mickler, K. Tansey, and N. Larkin. 2014. 

Drained inland organic soils. Chapter 2 in the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 

Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Edited by T. 

Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, B. Jamsranjav, M. Fukuda, and T. 

Troxler. IPCC: Switzerland. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. Technical Work Product for Peer 

Review: Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Palm Oil Cultivation. 

May 15, 2014. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Notice of Data Availability 

Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the RFS Program. 

January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4300. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Peer Review Handbook. Third 

Edition. EPA/100/B-06/002. Available at 

www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/peer_review_handbook_2012.pdf 

Hergoualc’h, K., and L.V. Verchot. 2013. Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use 

and land-use change in Southeast Asian peatlands. Mitigation and Adaptation 

Strategies for Global Change 19 (6):789-807. doi 10.1007/s11027-013-9511-x. 

Hooijer, A., S. Page, J. Jauhiainen, W.A. Lee, X.X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2012. 

Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053– 

1071. 

Husnain, H.F. Agus, P. Wigena, A. Maswar, Dariah, and S. Marwanto. 2012. Peat CO2 

emissions from several land-use types in Indonesia. To be submitted to Mitigation 

and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 

4-1
 
 

 

 

 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for Global Environmental 

Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 

IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Edited by 

T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, and 

T.G. Troxler. IPCC: Switzerland. 

Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S.E. Page. 2012. Carbon dioxide emissions from an acacia 

plantation on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9:617–630. 

Melling, L., R. Hatano, and K.J. Goh. 2007. Nitrous oxide emissions from three 

ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Science and Plant 

Nutrition 53:792–805. 

Murdiyarso, D., K. Hergoualc’h, and L.V. Verchot. 2010. Opportunities for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. PNAS 107:19655–19660. 

Othman, H., A.T. Mohammed, F.M. Darus, M.H. Harun, and M.P. Zambri. 2011. Best 

management practices for oil palm cultivation on peat: Ground water-table 

maintenance in relation to peat subsidence and estimation of CO2 emissions at 

Sessang, Sarawak. Journal of Oil Palm Research 23:1078–1086. 

Page, S.E., R. Morrison, C. Malins, A. Hooijer, J.O. Rieley, and J. Jauhiainen. 2011. 

Review of peat surface greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations in 

Southeast Asia. International Council on Clean Transportation. White Paper 

Number 15, Indirect Effects of Biofuel Production Series. 

Sabiham, S., S. Marwanto, T. Watanabe, S. Furukawa, U. Sudadi, and F. Agus. 2014. 

Estimating the relative contributions of root respiration and peat decomposition to 

the total CO2 Flux from peat soil at an oil palm plantation in Sumatra, Indonesia. 

Journal of Tropical Agriculture and Development. (In press). 

van der Werf, G.R., J.T. Randerson, G.J. Collatz, L. Giglio, P.S. Kasibhatla, A.F. 

Arellano, S.C. Olsen, and E.S. Kasischke. 2004. Continental-scale partitioning of 

fire emissions during the 1997 to 2001 El Nino/La Nina period. Science 303:73– 

76. 

4-2
 
APPENDIX A
 

RECOMMENDATION REQUESTS
 

A-1
 

























 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ANALYSIS AND BIAS QUESTIONNAIRE
 

Instructions 

The following questions have been developed to help identify any conflicts of 

interest and other concerns regarding each candidate reviewer’s ability to independently 

evaluate the peat soil emissions factor used by EPA for lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) 

assessment of palm oil biofuels for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program (hence 

referred to as the peat soil emissions factor). Please answer Yes, No or Unsure in 

response to each question to the best of your knowledge and belief. If you answer Yes or 

Unsure to any of the questions, please provide a detailed explanation on a separate sheet 

of paper. 

Answering Yes or Unsure to any of the questions will not result in 

disqualification. The responses to the questionnaire will only be used to help RTI 

International select a balanced, unbiased group of peer reviewers. Responses will not be 

publicly released without consent of the candidate and all information will be kept 

anonymous to EPA during the selection process. 

It is expected that the candidate make a reasonable effort to obtain the answers to 

each question. For example, if you are unsure whether you or a relevant associated party 

(e.g., spouse, dependent, significant other) has a relevant connection to the peer review 

subject, a reasonable effort such as calling or emailing to obtain the necessary 

information should be made. 

1.	 Have you had previous involvement with the development of the peat soil 

emissions factor under review? Yes/No/Unsure
 

2.	 Is there any connection between the palm oil industry and any of your and/or your 

spouse’s (or other relevant associated party’s): 

a.	 Compensated or non-compensated employment, including government 

service, during the past 24 months? Yes/No/Unsure 

b.	 Sources of research support and project funding, including from any 

government, during the past 24 months? Yes/No/Unsure 

c.	 Consulting activities during the past 24 months? Yes/No/Unsure 

d.	 Expert witness activity during the past 24 months? Yes/No/Unsure 

e.	 Financial holdings (excluding well-diversified mutual funds and holdings, 

with a value less than $15,000) Yes/No/Unsure 

B-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.	 To the best of your knowledge and belief, is there any direct or significant 

financial benefit that might be gained by you or your spouse (or other relevant 

associated party) as a result of the outcome of EPA’s decision on the eligibility of 

biofuel made from palm oil feedstock under the RFS? Yes/No/Unsure 

4.	 Have you made any public statements (written or oral) or taken positions that 

would indicate to an observer that you have taken a position on the peat soil 

emissions factor or a closely related topic under review? Yes/No/Unsure 

5.	 Have you served on previous advisory panels, committees or subcommittees that 

have addressed the peat soil emissions factor under review or addressed a closely 

related topic? Yes/No/Unsure 

6.	 Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice 

on the matter under review or any reason that your impartiality in the matter 

might be questioned? Yes/No/Unsure 

7.	 To the best of your knowledge and belief, is there any other information that 

might reasonably raise a question about whether you have an actual or potential 

personal conflict of interest or bias regarding the matter under review? 

Yes/No/Unsure 

Please sign below to certify that: 

1.	 You have fully and to the best of your ability completed this disclosure form, 

2.	 You will update your disclosure form promptly by contacting the RTI
 

International peer review facilitator if relevant circumstances change,
 

3.	 You are not currently arranging new professional relationships with, or obtaining 

new financial holdings in, an entity (related to the peer review subject) which is 

not yet reported, and 

4.	 The certification below, based on information you have provided, and your CV 

may be made public for review and comment. 

Signature ______________________________________ 

Date__________________________________________ 

(Print name)____________________________________ 

B-2
 
 

APPENDIX C
 

PEER REVIEWER RESUMES
 

C-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

updated as of 7/10/2014 

Curriculum Vitae—SCOTT D. BRIDGHAM 

ADDRESS 

Department of Biology 

1210 University of Oregon 

Eugene, Oregon 97403-1210 

(541) 346-1466; Fax: (541) 346-2364 

E-mail: bridgham@uoregon.edu 

Web pages: http://ie2.uoregon.edu/faculty_pages/Bridgham.php and 

https://sites.google.com/site/bridghamlab/ 

EDUCATION 

Ph.D. 1991, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies (now Nicholas School of the 

Environment), Duke University, Durham, NC 

Dissertation: Mechanisms Controlling Soil Carbon Cycling in North Carolina Peatlands 

Advisor: Curtis Richardson 

M.S. 1986, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, MN. 

Thesis: Effects of Low Levels of 2,2’-Dichlorobiphenyl on Daphnia pulicaria 

Advisor: Donald McNaught 

B.A. 1982, Zoology, University of Maine, Orono, with Highest Honors 

B.A. 1980, English with emphasis in creative writing, University of Maine, Orono, with Highest 

Honors 

RESEARCH INTERESTS 

Ecosystem ecology and biogeochemistry, climate change impacts on ecosystems, carbon and 

nutrient cycling, wetland ecology, trace gas production, plant community ecology, 

microbial and plant community structure/ecosystem function interactions, restoration 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 

Director, Environmental Science Institute, University of Oregon, 2012 – present. 

Acting Director, Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Oregon, summer 

2006. 

Professor, Department of Biology and Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, 

2008 - present. 

Associate Professor, Department of Biology and Environmental Studies Program, University of 

Oregon, 2003 – 2008. 

Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, 2001 – 

2002. 

Assistant Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, 1994 – 

2001. 

Research Associate, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota, Duluth, 

1992 – 1994. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 2 of 21 

Postdoctoral Research Associate, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of 

Minnesota, Duluth, 1991 – 1992. Advisors: Carol Johnston and John Pastor. 

Research Assistant, School of the Environment, Duke University, 1986 – 1991. 

Research and Teaching Assistant, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavioral Biology, 

University of Minnesota, 1983 – 1986. 

Field Research Technician, USDA Forest Service, Orono, ME, 1978 – 1979. 

HONORS AND AWARDS 

Milton Ellis Award for Academic Distinction in English – 1980, University of Maine
 

Eugene A. Jordan Memorial Scholarship for Outstanding Academic Achievement in Zoology –
 

1982, University of Maine 

National Science Foundation Grant for Improving Doctoral Dissertation Research, 1988 – 1991 

Department of Energy Global Change Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1991 – 1993 

National Science Foundation CAREER Award, 1996 – 2001 

Editorial Board of Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1994 – 1997 

Editorial Board of Wetlands, 1997 – 2000. 

Chair of the Division S-10, Wetland Soils, Soil Science Society of America, 2001 – 2002 

Editorial Board of Biogeochemistry, 2004 – 2008 

West Eugene Wetlands Appreciation Award, 2006 

Chair, Global Change Section of the Society of Wetland Scientists, 2012 

Fellow of the Society of Wetland Scientists, 2012 

Two papers chosen for 30-year Commemorative Issue of journal Wetlands 

(http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ecology/journal/13157?detailsPage=press) 

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Ecological Society of America 

Soil Science Society of America 

Society of Wetland Scientists 

GRANTS 

Controls over methane cycling in tropical wetlands. Research, Innovation, and Graduate 

Education Office, University of Oregon, $5,000 (matched by $2,000 from Gabon-Oregon 

Transnational Research Center), 5/2014-4/2015. (Principal Investigator) 

How do Temperature and Soil Organic Matter Inputs Mediate the Organic Molecular 

Composition of Soils? Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Department of Energy, 2013. EMSL to provide instrumentation and 

technical expertise. (Principal Investigator, with PhD student Lorien Reynolds) 

Understanding the Mechanisms Underlying Heterotrophic CO2 and CH4 Fluxes in a Peatland 

with Deep Soil Warming and Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, Department of Energy, 

$1,047,425, 8/2012 – 7/2015. (Principal Investigator, subcontracts to Chapman Univ. and 

Purdue Univ.) 

Dissertation Research: Microbial Community Structure and Ecosystem Function: Linking 

Methanogen Community Composition to Methane Production Rates in Wetland Soils, 

National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant to Steven A. 

McAllister and co-advisors. $14,967, 6/2012 – 5/2014. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 3 of 21 

University of Oregon College of Arts and Sciences Program Grant to assist in the establishment 

of an Environmental Sciences Institute. $5,000, 2011. (Principal Investigator) 

Climate Effects on Plant Range Distributions and Community Structure of Pacific Northwest 

Prairies, Department of Energy, $1,835,510, 1/2009 – 12/2013. (Principal Investigator) 

Collaborative Research: Why Does Methane Production Vary Dramatically Among Wetlands?, 

National Science Foundation, $890,000, 8/2008 – 10/2012. (Principal Investigator) 3 

Research for Experience for Undergraduates Supplements, $22,000. 

Collaborative Research: The Interactions of Climate Change, Land Management Policies and 

Forest Succession on Fire Hazard and Ecosystem Trajectories in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface, National Science Foundation, $1,133,152, 8/2008- 1/2013. (Co-Principal 

Investigator). 1 Research for Experience for Undergraduates Supplement, $15,850. 

Linking the FlamMap and Envision Simulation Models, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Forest Service, $45,000, 5/2009 – 4/2011. (Co-Principal Investigator). 

Beyond the Monod Equation: Developing a New Theory of Geomicrobial Kinetics, National 

Science Foundation, $300,000, 9/2008 – 8/2012. (Co-Principal Investigator) 

A Landscape-Level Approach to Fuels Management Through Ecological Restoration: 

Developing a Knowledge Base for Application to Historic Oak-Pine Savanna, Joint Fire 

Science Program, $393,110, 5/2004 – 7/2008. (Co-Principal Investigator) 

The Role of Salmon-Derived Nutrients in Managed U.S. Forests. USDA National Research 

Initiative Competitive Grants Program, $497,041, 1/2006 – 12/2008. (Collaborator, no 

money comes directly to Univ. of Oregon) 

The Effects of the Invasive Grasses Phalaris arundinacea and Zostera japonica on Ecosystem 

Processes in the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, Oregon, USA, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $60,000, 6/2004 – 5/2008. (Fellowship 

for graduate student, Lisa Turnbull) 

Plant and Soil Responses to Experimental Restoration Techniques in the West Eugene Wetlands, 

Environmental Protection Agency (through Lane Community Council of Governments), 

$78,762, 1/2004 – 9/2007. (Principal Investigator) 

Interactive Effects of Climate Change, Wetlands, and Dissolved Organic Matter on UV Damage 

to Aquatic Foodwebs, Environmental Protection Agency, $937,009, 7/2002 – 6/2006. 

(Principal Investigator, subcontracts to Univ. of Notre Dame and South Dakota State Univ.) 

Collaborative Research: Interactions Among Global Change Stressors In Northern Fens: 

Atmospheric CO2, Temperature, And Hydrology, National Science Foundation, $20,454, 

6/2003 – 6/2004. (Co-Principal Investigator) 

Hydro-Bio-Geochemical Controls on the Dissolved Organic Matter Content in UNDERC 

Wetlands, University of Notre Dame, $11,900, 4/2001 – 3/2002. (Co-Principal 

Investigator) 

Biocomplexity—Incubation Activity on Biocomplexity in Peatlands, National Science 

Foundation, $99,540, 9/2000 – 8/2004. (Principal Investigator) 

Retention of Soluble Organic Nutrients in Ecosystems During Primary Succession and Soil 

Development, National Science Foundation, $224,628, 10/1999 – 9/2003. (Co-Principal 

Investigator, subcontract from Univ. of Nevada-Reno) 

Effects of Climate Change and Plant Community Composition on Methane Cycling in Peatlands, 

National Science Foundation, $11,026, 7/1998 – 6/2002. (Co-Principal Investigator, 

subcontract from Univ. of Indiana) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 4 of 21 

Carbon and Energy Flow and Plant Community Response to Climate Change in Peatlands, 

National Science Foundation, $1,200,000, 8/1997 – 7/2003. Five Research for Experience 

for Undergraduates Supplements, $40,500. (Principal Investigator, subcontracts to Univ. of 

Minnesota and Univ. of Toledo) 

Multiple Environmental Gradients Structuring Peatland Communities, National Science 

Foundation CAREER award, $420,000, 9/1996 – 8/2003. 1 Research for Experience for 

Undergraduates Supplement, $6,000. (Principal Investigator) 

Environmental Stress in Ecosystems: Linking Ecology and Engineering, Graduate Research 

Training Program In Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation, $537,500, 

8/1995 – 7/2000. (Co-Principal Investigator with 11 others) 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Boreal Peatlands: A Mesocosm Approach, 

National Science Foundation, $800,000, 7/1993 – 12/1997. 4 Research for Experience for 

Undergraduates Supplements, $28,650. (Principal Investigator, subcontracts to Univ. of 

Minnesota and Michigan Technological Univ.) 

Constructed Wetlands for Treating Aquaculture Wastes, Minnesota Technology Inc./Iron Range 

Resources and Rehabilitation Board, $257,852, 9/1993 – 8/1995. (Co-Principal 

Investigator) 

Spatial Dynamics of Nutrient and Sediment Removal by Riverine Wetlands, USDA National 

Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, $200,000, 10/1992 – 9/1994. (CoPrincipal Investigator) 

U.S. Department of Energy Global Change Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship, $77,000, 

9/1991 – 9/1993. 

Mechanisms Controlling Decomposition Dynamics along a Phosphorus Availability Gradient in 

Freshwater Wetlands, National Science Foundation Grant for Improving Doctoral 

Dissertation Research, $10,000, 1988 – 1991. 

REVIEWER FOR JOURNALS 

Agricultural Systems; American Midland Naturalist; American Naturalist; Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Biogeochemistry; Canadian Journal of Botany; 

Climate Change; Earth-Science Reviews; Ecology; Ecological Applications; Ecological 

Engineering; Écoscience; Ecosystems; Environmental Pollution; Functional Ecology; Global 

Biogeochemical Cycles; Global Change Biology; Journal of Environmental Quality; Journal of 

Geophysical Research; Journal of Great Lakes Research; Landscape Ecology; Landscape 

Ecology; Nature; New Phytologist; Plant and Soil; Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, U.S.A.; Restoration Ecology; Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research; Soil Biology 

and Biochemistry; Soil Science; Soil Science Society of America Journal; Water, Air, and Soil 

Pollution; Wetlands; Wetlands Ecology and Management 

ASSOCIATE EDITOR FOR JOURNALS 

Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1994 – 1997.
 

Wetlands, 1997 – 2000.
 

Biogeochemistry, 2004 – 2008.
 

AD HOC REVIEWER FOR GRANTING AGENCIES 

Cottrell College Science Awards, Research Corporation for Science Advancement 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 5 of 21 

Department of Agriculture, National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program: 

Ecosystems, Soils and Soil Biology, Watershed Processes and Water Resources Programs 

Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 

Department of Energy – Terrestrial Carbon Processes Program, National Institute for Climatic 

Change Research Program 

Environmental Protection Agency – Wetland's Program 

Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom 

Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 

Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration – Ecosystem Dynamics and Biogeochemical 

Processes Program 

National Environment Research Council, United Kingdom 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada 

National Science Foundation – Atmospheric Chemistry, Ecosystems, Ecological Studies, 

Hydrologic Sciences, Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry, Office of Polar 

Programs, Arctic Natural Sciences and Visiting Professorship for Women Programs, 

Biocomplexity Program, International Program, Integrated Research Challenges in 

Environmental Biology, Frontiers in Integrative Biological Research, Marine Geology and 

Geophysics, Microbial Observatories, Geobiology and Low Temperature Geochemistry 

Netherlands Geosciences Foundation 

NSF/DOE/NASA/USDA Joint Program on Terrestrial Ecology and Global Change 

NSF/EPA Partnership for Environmental Research, Water and Watersheds 

USDA Forest Service – Southern Forest Experimental Station 

OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AND ACTIVITIES 

Wetlands Ecologist Search Committee member, Environmental Research Laboratory – Duluth, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. 

National Science Foundation Workshop on Soil-Warming Experiments in Global Change 

Research, Woods Hole, MA, Sept. 27-28, 1991, participant. 

National Institute of Health Summer Minority High School Student Research Apprentice 

Program, sponsored students in 1992 – 1993. 

Chairperson for session, Dynamics of Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems, 1993 Annual Meeting 

of Ecological Society of America, Madison, WI. 

Judge for Buell Award for best student oral presentation, 1993, 1995, 1999 Annual Meeting of 

Ecological Society of America. 

Judge for best student oral presentation, 1994 – 1995, 1998, 2000 Annual Meetings of the 

Society of Wetland Scientists. 

Review of aquatics program for Ottawa, Nicolet, and Chequamegon National Forests, Sept. 19, 

1994. 

Panel member for NSF/DOE/NASA/USDA Joint Program on Terrestrial Ecology and Global 

Change, June 1995. 

Panel member for NSF/EPA Partnership for Environmental Research, Water and Watersheds, 

July 1996. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 6 of 21 

Invited participant for the Upper Great Lakes Regional Climate Change Impacts Workshop, US 

Global Change Research Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, May 4-7, 

1998. 

Steering Committee of the Indiana Grand Kankakee Marsh Restoration Project, 1998 – 2002. 

Invited participant at the National Science Foundation CAREER Program Principal Investigator 

Meeting, Washington, DC, Jan. 10-12, 1999. 

Invited participant at workshop titled A Cross Biome Synthesis of Ecosystem Response to Global 

Warming held at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, 

CA, Feb. 1-5, 1999. 

Leader of Minnesota peatlands site in the initiative Terrestrial Ecosystem Response to 

Atmospheric and Climate Change (TERACC), under the auspices of the International 

Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP). 

Invited participant at workshop titled Synchotron Environmental Science held at Advance Photon 

Source of the Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, IL, April 19-21, 1999. 

Hosted sabbatical of Dr. Danilo Lopez-Hernandez from the Universidad Central de Venezuela 

from 1/99 through 5/99. 

Chair of the Division S-10, Wetland Soils, of the Soil Science Society of America, 2001 – 2002. 

Chairperson for session, Wetland Greenhouse Gases, in INTECOL International Wetland 

Conference VI and the annual meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Quebec, 

Canada, Aug. 6-12, 2000. 

Chairperson and organizer for session, Carbon Cycling and Sequestration in Wetlands, Seventh 

International Symposium on the Biogeochemistry of Wetlands, Duke University, Durham, 

NC, June 17-20, 2001. 

Invited participant at workshop titled Regulation of Organic Matter in Soils and Sediments, 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, July 27-28, 2001. 

Panel member for Soils and Soil Biology Program, National Research Initiative Competitive 

Grants Program (NRICGP), USDA, 4/2002. 

Interviewed on local news, WSBT, on Jan. 14, 2002 on climate change impacts on US. Other 

occasional interviews with radio and newspaper media. 

Tenure reviews for Cornell University (2001), Indiana University (2002), University of 

Tennessee (2002). 

Reviewer for Confronting Climate Change In The Great Lakes Region: Impacts on Our 

Communities and Ecosystems, report by the Ecological Society of America and Union of 

Concerned Scientists, 10/02. 

Invited participant at a scientific roundtable to discuss carbon sequestration as a mechanism of 

wetland restoration in Eastern North Carolina peatlands, US Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Conservation Fund, Raleigh, NC, Nov. 18, 2002. 

Attended workshop on “Interactions between increasing CO2 and temperature in terrestrial 

ecosystems,” Terrestrial Ecosystem Response to Atmospheric & Climate Change 

(TERACC), International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, Lake Tahoe, April 27-30, 2003. 

Assessment team for research program of Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Reserve in Homer, 

AK, June 23-26, 2003. 

Chairperson for session “Wetland Microbial Processes,” annual meeting of the Soil Science 

Society of America, Nov. 2-6, 2003 Denver, CO. 

External examiner for Ph.D. thesis at the University Waikato, New Zealand, 2005. 

Requested letter in support of chaired position for faculty member at the University of Wales, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 7 of 21 

Bangor, 2005. 

Lead author on wetlands chapter in The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): North 

American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. Synthesis and 

Assessment Report 2.2 (SAR 2.2) by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 2005-2007. 

Participated in panel discussion for “Advocates for the Land: Photography in the American 

West” at the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, University of Oregon, Sept. 7, 2005. 

Evaluator for faculty member for promotion to full professor, University of Nevada at Reno, 

Sept. 2006. 

Panel member for EPA STAR graduate fellowship program (microbiology panel), March 2007. 

Reviewed 41 pre-proposals for DOE National Institute for Climatic Research (NICCR), Midwest 

region, 2007. 

Panel member of EPA STAR solicitation on Ecological Impacts from the Interaction of Climate 

Change, Land Use Change, and Invasive Species: Aquatic Ecosystems, Oct. 1-3, 2007. 

Panel member for U.S. DOE National Institute for Climate Change Research, Midwest region, 

2007, 2008. 

On Oregon University System screening committee for the Director of the Oregon Climate 

Change Research Institute, 2008. 

Invited participant to PEATNET workshop on “Why Is There Peat?”, Villanova University, 

March 27-28, 2008. 

Invited participant for U.S. DOE sponsored workshop on “Exploring Science Needs for the Next 

Generation of Climate Change and Elevated CO2 Experiments in Terrestrial Ecosystems,” 

Crystal City, VA, April 14-18, 2008. 

Invited participant in Upper Willamette Watershed Climate Futures Workshop, Eugene, OR, 

Sept. 23, 2008. 

Evaluator for faculty promotion to full professor, York University, Canada, 2009. 

Chairperson for session “Wetland Vegetation Dynamics” in annual meeting of the Society of 

Wetland Scientists, Madison, WI, June 22-26, 2009. 

Invited participant in Expert Workshop: Achieving Carbon Offsets through Mangroves and other 

Wetlands, IUCN/Ramsar/Danone, Gland, Switzerland, Nov. 9-11, 2009. 

Board of Advisors for SPRUCE experiment (large manipulative climate change treatment in a 

Minnesota peatland) of the U.S. DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental 

Sciences Division, 2009 - 2012. 

Member of Integrated Network for Terrestrial Ecosystem Research on Feedbacks to the 

Atmosphere and Climate (INTERFACE): Linking experimentalists, ecosystem modelers, 

and Earth system modelers. 2011 - present. 

Invited participant in workshop on How Do We Improve Earth System Models: Integrating Earth 

System Models, Ecosystem Models, Experiments and Long-Term Data, organized by 

Integrated Network for Terrestrial Ecosystem Research on Feedbacks to the Atmosphere 

and Climate (INTERFACE), Captiva Island, FL, Feb. 28-March 3, 2011. 

Invited speaker on Challenges and Opportunity for Carbon Sequestration in the Restoration of 

Wetlands, Department of Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Program Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, March 24, 2011. 

Hosted high school student for summer research internship for Saturday Academy 

Apprenticeships in Science & Engineering Program, 2011, 2012. 

Interviewed by NPR reporter for Oregon and Washington concerning DOE-funded manipulative 
 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 8 of 21 

climate change experiment, June 10, 2011. 

Chair, Global Change Section of the Society of Wetland Scientists, 2012. 

Evaluator for faculty promotion to associate professor and tenure, Michigan Technological 

University, 2012. 

Co-authored an invited resolution concerning wetlands and climate change at INTECOL 

International Wetlands Conference, Orlando, FL June 3-8, 2012. 

Co-Moderator and organizer of session “Methane Dynamics in Peatland Ecosystems” at 

INTECOL International Wetlands Conference, Orlando, FL June 3-8, 2012. 

Member of site visit committee for Industrial Research Chair and Collaborative Research and 

Development Grant at Université Laval, Quebec City for Natural Sciences and Engineering 

Research Council, Canada, Nov. 12, 2012. 

Technical team for freshwater indicators of climate change as part of the U.S. National Climate 

Assessment, 2013 – current. 

Invited panel member of workshop “Belowground Carbon Cycling Processes at the Molecular 

Scale,” Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, Dept. of Energy, Feb. 19-21, 2013. 

Invited participant in Dept. of Energy Terrestrial Ecosystem/Subsurface Biogeochemical 

Research Joint Investigators Meeting, Potomac, MD, May 13-15, 2013. 

Co-Moderator and organizer of session “Peatlands and Global Change” at Society of Wetland 

Scientists meeting, Duluth, MN, June 3-7, 2013. 

Evaluator for faculty member for promotion to full professor, Louisiana State University, 2013. 

Co-Moderator and organizer of session, “Trace Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration in 

Wetlands and Lakes” at Joint Aquatic Sciences meeting, Portland, OR, May 18-23, 2014. 

Quoted in news article in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment concerning the launching the 

Global Freshwater Biodiversity Atlas, Feb. 2014. 

PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS 

(* = undergraduate student, # = graduate student, ^ = postdoctoral associate, † = technician) 

1)	 Bridgham, S. D. 1988. Chronic effects of 2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl on reproduction, mortality, 

growth, and respiration of Daphnia pulicaria. Archives of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology 17: 731-740. 

2)	 Bridgham, S. D., S. P. Faulkner#, and C. J. Richardson. 1991. Steel rod oxidation as a 

hydrologic indicator in wetland soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 55:856-862. 

3)	 Bridgham, S. D., C. J. Richardson, E. Maltby, and S. P. Faulkner#. 1991. Cellulose decay in 

natural and disturbed peatlands in North Carolina, U.S.A. Journal of Environmental Quality 

20:695-701. 

4)	 Bridgham, S. D. and C. J. Richardson. 1992. Mechanisms controlling soil respiration (CO2 

and CH4) in southern peatlands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 24:1089-1099. 

5)	 Bridgham, S.D. and C. J. Richardson. 1993. Hydrology and nutrient gradients in North 

Carolina peatlands. Wetlands 13:207-218. 

6)	 Bridgham, S. D., J. Pastor, C. A. McClaugherty, and C. J. Richardson. 1995. Nutrient-use 

efficiency: a litterfall index, a model, and a test along a nutrient availability gradient in North 

Carolina peatlands. American Naturalist 145:1-21. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 9 of 21 

7)	 Updegraff, K.†, J. Pastor, S. D. Bridgham, and C. A. Johnston. 1995. Environmental and 

substrate controls over carbon and nitrogen mineralization in northern wetlands. Ecological 

Applications 5:151-163. 

8)	 Bridgham, S. D., C. A. Johnston, J. Pastor, and K. Updegraff†. 1995. Potential feedbacks of 

northern wetlands on climate change. BioScience 45:262-274. 

9)	 Bridgham, S. D., J. Pastor, J. A. Janssens, C. Chapin#, and T. J. Malterer. 1996. Multiple 

limiting gradients in peatlands: A call for a new paradigm. Wetlands 16:45-65. (One of 30 

papers chosen for 30-yr commemorative issue of journal: 

http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ecology/journal/13157?detailsPage=press) 

10) Bridgham, S. D., K. Updegraff†, and J. Pastor. 1998. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus 

mineralization in northern wetlands. Ecology 79:1545-1561. 

11) Updegraff, K.†, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, and P. Weishampel†. 1998. Hysteresis in the 

temperature response of carbon dioxide and methane production in peat soils. 

Biogeochemistry 43:253-272. 

12) Pastor, J., and S. D. Bridgham. 1999. Nutrient efficiency along nutrient availability 

gradients. Oecologia 118:50-58. 

13) Bridgham, S. D., J. Pastor, K. Updegraff†, T. J. Malterer, K. Johnson†, C. Harth†, and J. 

Chen. 1999. Ecosystem control over temperature and energy flux in northern peatlands. 

Ecological Applications 9: 1345-1358. 

14) Weltzin, J. F.^, J. Pastor, C. Harth†, S. D. Bridgham, K. Updegraff†, and C. T. Chapin#. 

2000. Response of bog and fen plant communities to warming and water-table 

manipulations. Ecology 81: 3464-3478. 

15) Updegraff, K.†, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, P. Weishampel†, and C. Harth†. 2001. Response 

of CO2 and CH4 emissions in peatlands to warming and water-table manipulation. 

Ecological Applications 11: 311-326. 

16) Bridgham, S. D., K. Updegraff†, and J. Pastor. 2001. A comparison of nutrient availability 

indices along an ombrotrophic—minerotrophic gradient in Minnesota wetlands. Soil Science 

Society of America 65:259-269. 

17) Johnston, C. A., S. D. Bridgham, and J. P. Schubauer-Berigan. 2001. Nutrient dynamics in 

relation to geomorphology of riverine wetlands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 

65:557-577. 

18) Bridgham, S. D., C. A. Johnston, J. P. Schubauer-Berigan, and P. Weishampel†. 2001. 

Phosphorus sorption dynamics in soils and coupling with surface and pore water in riverine 

wetlands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65: 577-588. 

19) Weltzin, J. F.^, C. Harth†, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, and M. Vonderharr#. 2001. 

Production and microtopography of bog bryophytes: response to warming and water-table 

manipulations. Oecologia 128: 557-565. 

20) Rustad, L. E., J. L. Campbell, G. M. Marion, R. J. Norby, M. J.Mitchell, A. E. Hartley, J. H. 

C. Cornelissen, J. Gurevitch and GCTE-NEWS. 2001. Meta-analysis of the response of soil 

respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental 

ecosystem warming. Oecologia 126:243-262 (I was part of the workshop, ‘GCTE-NEWS’, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 10 of 21 

that formulated this paper, and am acknowledged as such on the paper. 

21) Kellogg, C. H.#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2002. Colonization during early succession of 

restored freshwater marshes. Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 176-185. 

22) Pastor, J., B. Peckham, S. Bridgham, J. Weltzin^, and J. Chen. 2002. Plant dynamics, 

nutrient cycling, and multiple stable equilibria in peatlands. American Naturalist 160:553-

568. 

23) Bridgham, S. D. 2002. Commentary: nitrogen, translocation, and Sphagnum mosses. New 

Phytologist 156:140-141. 

24) Weltzin, J. F.^, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, J. Chen, and C. Harth†. 2003. Potential effects of 

warming and drying on peatland plant community composition. Global Change Biology 9:1-

11. 

25) Pastor, J., J. Solin#, S. D. Bridgham, K. Updegraff†, C. Harth†, P. Weishampel†, and B. 

Dewey†. 2003. Global warming and the export of dissolved organic carbon from boreal 

peatlands. Oikos 100: 380-386. 

26) Kellogg, L. E.# and S. D. Bridgham. 2003. Phosphorous retention and movement compared 

across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic gradient in Michigan. Biogeochemistry 63:299-315. 

27) Kellogg, C. H.#, S. D. Bridgham, and S. A. Leicht*. 2003. Effects of water level, shade and 

time on germination and growth of freshwater marsh plants along a simulated successional 

gradient. Journal of Ecology 91:274-282. 

28) Vile, M. A.#, S. D. Bridgham, R. K. Wieder, and M. Novák. 2003. Atmospheric sulfur 

deposition alters pathways of gaseous carbon production in peatlands. Global 

Biogeochemical Cycles 17:1058-1064. 

29) Vile, M. A.#, S. D. Bridgham, and R. K. Wieder. 2003. Response of anaerobic carbon 

mineralization rates to sulfate amendments in a boreal peatland. Ecological Applications 

13:720-734. 

30) Bridgham, S. D., and C. J. Richardson. 2003. Endogenous versus exogenous nutrient 

control over decomposition in North Carolina peatlands. Biogeochemistry 65:151-178. 

31) Xenopoulos, M. A.^, D. M. Lodge, J. Frentress#, T. A. Kreps#,S. D. Bridgham, E. 

Grossman*, and C. J. Jackson*. 2003. Regional comparisons of watershed determinants of 

dissolved organic carbon in temperate lakes from the Upper Great Lakes region and selected 

regions globally. Limnology and Oceanography 48:2321-2334. 

32) Chapin, C. T.#, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, and K. Updegraff†. 2003. Nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and carbon mineralization in response to nutrient and lime additions in peatlands. Soil 

Science 168:409-420. 

33) Bauer, C. R.#, C. H. Kellogg#, S. D. Bridgham, and G. A. Lamberti. 2003. Mycorrhizal 

colonization across hydrologic gradients in restored and reference freshwater wetlands. 

Wetlands 23:961-968. 

34) Lilienfein, J.^, R. G. Qualls, S. M. Uselman#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2003. Soil formation 

and organic matter accretion in a young andesitic chronosequence at Mt Shasta, California. 

Geoderma 116:249-264. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 11 of 21 

35) Keller, J. K.#, J. R. White, S. D. Bridgham, and J. Pastor. 2004. Climate change effects on 

carbon and nitrogen mineralization in peatlands through changes in soil quality. Global 

Change Biology 10:1053-1064. 

36) Lilienfein, J.^, R. G. Qualls, S. M. Uselman#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Adsorption of 

dissolved organic and inorganic phosphorus in soils of a weathering chronosequence. Soil 

Science Society of America Journal 68:620-628. 

37) Lilienfein, J.^, R. G. Qualls, S. M. Uselman#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Adsorption of 

dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen in soils of a weathering chronosequence. Soil Science 

Society of America Journal 68:292-305. 

38) Chapin, C. T.#, S. D. Bridgham, and J. Pastor. 2004. pH and nutrient effects on aboveground net primary production in a Minnesota, USA bog and fen. Wetlands 24:186-201. 

39) Kellogg, C. H.#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Effects of disturbance, seed bank, and 

herbivory on dominance of an invasive grass. Biological Invasions 6(3):319-329. 

40) Noormets, A.^, J. Chen, S. D. Bridgham, J. F. Weltzin^, J. Pastor, B. Dewey†, and J. 

LeMoine#. 2004. The effects of infrared loading and water table on soil energy fluxes in 

northern peatlands. Ecosystems 7:573-582. 

41) Pendall, E., S. Bridgham, P. J. Hanson, B. Hungate, D. W. Kicklighter, D. W. Johnson, B. E. 

Law, Y. Luo, J. P. Megonigal, M. Olsrud, M. G. Ryan, and S. Wan. 2004. Below-ground 

process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature: a discussion of observations, 

measurement methods, and models. New Phytologist 162:311-322. 

42) Young, K. C.#, P. A. Maurice, K. M. Docherty#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Bacterial 

degradation of dissolved organic matter from two northern Michigan streams. 

Geomicrobiology Journal 21:521-528. 

43) Keller, J. K.#, S. D. Bridgham, C. T. Chapin#, and C. M. Iversen#. 2005. Limited effects of 

six years of fertilization on carbon mineralization dynamics in a Minnesota fen. Soil Biology 

and Biochemistry 37(6):1197-1204. 

44) Frost, P. C.^, J. H. Larson#, L. E. Kinsman*, G. A. Lamberti, and S. D. Bridgham. 2005. 

Attenuation of ultraviolet radiation in streams of northern Michigan. Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society 24(2):246-255. 

45) Weltzin, J. F.^, J. K. Keller#, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, P. B. Allen#, and J. Chen. 2005. 

Litter controls plant community composition in a northern fen. Oikos 110:537-546. 

46) Young, K. C.# , K. M. Docherty#, P. A. Maurice, and S. D. Bridgham. 2005. Degradation 

of surface-water dissolved organic matter: influences of DOM chemical composition and 

microbial populations. Hydrobiologia 539:1-11. 

47) Qualls, R. G. and S. D. Bridgham. 2005. Mineralization rate of 14C labeled dissolved 

organic matter from leaf litter in soils from a weathering chronosequence. Soil Biology and 

Biochemistry 37:905-916. 

48) Frost, P. C.^, J. H. Larson#, C. A. Johnston, K. C. Young#, P. A. Maurice, G. A. Lamberti, 

and S. D. Bridgham. 2006. Landscape predictors of stream dissolved organic matter 

concentration and physicochemistry in a Lake Superior river watershed. Aquatic Sciences 

68:40-51. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 12 of 21 

49) Kellogg, L. E.#, S. D. Bridgham, and D. López-Hernández. 2006. A comparison of four 

methods of measuring gross phosphorus mineralization. Soil Science Society of America 

Journal 70:1349-1358. 

50) Keller, J. K.#, A. K. Bauers#, S. D. Bridgham, L. E. Kellogg#, and C. M. Iversen#. 2006. 

Nutrient control of microbial carbon cycling along an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic peatland 

gradient. Journal of Geophysical Research—Biogeosciences 111, G03006, 

doi:10.1029/2005JG000152. 

51) Frost, P. C.^, A. Mack*, J. H. Larson#, S. D. Bridgham, and G. A. Lamberti. 2006. 

Environmental controls of UV radiation in forested streams of northern Michigan. 

Photochemistry and Photobiology 82:781–786. 

52) Bridgham, S. D., J. P. Megonigal, J. K. Keller^, N. B. Bliss, and C. Trettin. 2006. The 

carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands 26:889-916. (selected for Faculty 

of 1000 Biology and one of 30 papers chosen for 30-yr commemorative issue of the 

journal: http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ecology/journal/13157?detailsPage=press) 

53) Docherty, K. M.#, K. C. Young#, P. A. Maurice, and S. D. Bridgham. 2006. Dissolved 

organic matter concentration and quality influences upon structure and function of freshwater 

microbial communities. Microbial Ecology 52:378-388. 

54) Frost, P. C.^, C. T. Cherrier†, J. H. Larson, S. Bridgham, and G. A. Lamberti. 2007 Effects 

of dissolved organic matter and ultraviolet radiation on the accrual, stoichiometry, and algal 

taxonomy of stream periphyton. Freshwater Biology 52:319-330. 

55) Keller, J. K.# and S. D. Bridgham. 2007. Pathways of anaerobic carbon cycling across an 

ombrotrophic-minerotrophic peatland gradient. Limnology and Oceanography 52:96-107. 

56) Larson, J. H.#, P. C. Frost^, Z. Zheng, C. A. Johnston, S. D. Bridgham, D. M. Lodge, and G. 

A. Lamberti. 2007. Effects of upstream lakes on dissolved organic matter in streams. 

Limnology and Oceanography 52:60-69.
 

57) Pfeifer-Meister#, L. and S. D. Bridgham. 2007. Seasonal and spatial controls over nutrient 

cycling in a Pacific Northwest prairie. Ecosystems 10:1250-1260. 

58) Pfeifer-Meister, L.#, E. Cole*, B. A. Roy, and S. D. Bridgham. 2008. Abiotic constraints on 

the competitive ability of exotic and native grasses in a Pacific Northwest prairie. Oecologia 

155:357-366. 

59) White, J. R., R. D. Shannon, J. F. Weltzin^, J. Pastor, and S. D. Bridgham. 2008. Effects of 

soil warming and drying on methane cycling in a northern peatland mesocosm study. Journal 

of Geophysical Research—Biogeosciences, 113, G00A06, doi:10.1029/2007JG000609. 

60) Chen, J., S. Bridgham, J. Keller†, J. Pastor, A. Noormets^, and J. F. Weltzin^. 2008. 

Temperature responses to infrared-loading and water table manipulations in peatland 

mesocosms. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 50:1484-1496. 

61) Johnston, C. A., B. A. Shmagin, P. C. Frost^, C. Cherrier†, J. H. Larson#, G. A. Lamberti, 

and S. D. Bridgham. 2008. Wetland types and wetland maps differ in ability to predict 

dissolved organic carbon in streams. Science of the Total Environment 404:326-334. 

62) Bridgham, S. D., J. Pastor, B. Dewey†, J. F. Weltzin^, and K. Updegraff†. 2008. Rapid 

carbon response of peatlands to climate change. Ecology 89:3041-3048. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 13 of 21 

63) Iversen#, C. M., S. D. Bridgham, and L. E. Kellogg#. 2010. Scaling nitrogen use and uptake 

efficiencies in response to nutrient additions in peatlands. Ecology 91:693-707. 

64) D’Amore, D. V., N. Bonzey†, J. Berkowitz†, J. Rüegg#, and S. Bridgham. 2010. Holocene 

soil-geomorphic surfaces influence the role of salmon-derived nutrients in the coastal 

temperate rainforest of southeast Alaska. Geomorphology 

doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.04.014. 

65) Bachelet, D., B. R. Johnson, S. D. Bridgham, P. V. Dunn, H. E. Anderson, and B. M. Rogers. 

2011. Climate change impacts on Western Pacific Northwest prairies and savannas. 

Northwest Science 85:411-429. (http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3955/046.085.0224) 

66) Yospin#, G. I., S. D. Bridgham, J. Kertis, and B. R. Johnson. 2012. Ecological correlates of 

fuel dynamics and potential fire behavior in former upland prairie and oak savanna. Forest 

Ecology and Management 266:54-65. 

67) Ye, R.^, Q. Jin, B. Bohannan, J. K. Keller, S. A. McAllister#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012. 

pH controls over anaerobic carbon mineralization, the efficiency of methane production, and 

methanogenic pathways in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic gradient. Soil 

Biology and Biochemistry 54:36-47. 

68) Pfeifer-Meister^, L., B. R. Johnson, B. A. Roy, S. Carreño#, J. L. Stuart#, and S. D. 

Bridgham. 2012. Restoring wetland prairies: tradeoffs among native plant cover, 

community composition, and ecosystem functioning. Ecosphere 3(12): art 121 

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00261.1). 

69) Pfeifer-Meister^, L., B. A. Roy, B. R. Johnson, J. Kruger, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012. 

Dominance of native grasses leads to community convergence in wetland restoration. Plant 

Ecology 213:637-647. 

70) Bridgham, S. D., H. Cadillo-Quiroz, J. K. Keller, and Q. Zhuang. 2013. Methane emissions 

from wetlands: biogeochemical, microbial, and modeling perspectives from local to global 

scales. Global Change Biology 19:1325-1346. (one of 20 most downloaded papers in Wiley 

Online Library in 2013) 

71) Pfeifer-Meister^, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski^, C. J. Little†, L. L. Reynolds#, M. E. 

Goklany#, and B. R. Johnson. 2013. Pushing the limit: Experiment evidence of climate 

effects on plant range distributions. Ecology 94 (10):2131-2137. 

72) Ye^, R., Q. Jin, B. Bohannan, J. K. Keller, and S. D. Bridgham. 2014. Homoacetogenesis: A 

potentially underappreciated carbon pathway in peatlands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 

68:385-391. 

73) Ye^, R. J. K. Keller, Q. Jin, B. J. M. Bohannan, and S. D. Bridgham. Submitted. Mechanisms 

for the suppression of methane production in peatland soils by a humic substance analog. 

Biogeosciences Discuss 11:1739-1771 (http://www.biogeosciencesdiscuss.net/11/1739/2014/). 

74) Yospin#, G. I., S. D. Bridgham, R. P. Neilson, J. P. Bolte, D. M. Bachelet, P. J. Gould, C. A. 

Harrington, J. K. Kertis, C. Evers†, and B. R. Johnson. In revision. A new model to simulate 

climate change impacts on forest succession for local land management. Ecological 

Applications. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 14 of 21 

PEER-REVIEWED BOOK CHAPTERS/PROCEEDINGS 

(* = undergraduate student, # = graduate student, ^ = postdoctoral associate, † = technician) 

1)	 Bridgham, S. D., D. C. McNaught, C. Meadows†. 1988. Effects of complex effluents on 

photosynthesis in Lake Erie and Lake Huron. Pages 74-84 in Functional Testing of Aquatic 

Biota for Estimating Hazards of Chemicals, J. Cairns, Jr. and J. R. Pratt, eds. American 

Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. 

2)	 McNaught, D. C., S. D. Bridgham, and C. Meadows†. 1988. Effects of complex effluents 

from the River Raisin on zooplankton grazing in Lake Erie. Pages 128-137 in Functional 

Testing of Aquatic Biota for Estimating Hazards of Chemicals, J. Cairns, Jr. and J. R. Pratt, 

eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. 

3)	 Johnston, C.A., K. Updegraff†, S. Bridgham, and J. Pastor. 1992. Influence of beaver and 

bogs on greenhouse gases at Voyageurs National Park. Pages 471-479 in Managing Water 

Resources During Global Change, American Water Resources Association Conference & 

Symposia, November 1-5, 1992, Reno, NV, R. Herman, ed. 

4)	 Updegraff, K.†, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, and C. A. Johnston. 1994. A method to 

determine long-term anaerobic carbon and nutrient mineralization in soils. Pages 209-219 in 

Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment, J. Doran, D. Bezdicek, and D. 

Coleman, eds., Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. 

5)	 Johnston, C. A., J. P. Schubauer-Berigan and S. D. Bridgham. 1997. The potential role of 

riverine wetlands as buffer zones. Pages 155-170 in Buffer Zones: Their Processes and 

Potential in Water Protection, N. E. Haycock, T.P. Burt, K.W.T. Goulding, and G. Pinay, 

eds. Quest Environmental, Harpenden, UK. 

6)	 Bridgham, S. D., C.-L. Ping , J. L. Richardson, and K. Updegraff†. 2001. Soils of Northern 

Peatlands: Histosols and Gelisols. Pages 343-370 in Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, 

Landscapes, and Classification, J. L. Richardson and M. J. Vepraskas, eds., Lewis Publishers, 

Boca Raton, FL. 

7)	 Wu, K.^, C. Johnston, C. Cherrier†, S. Bridgham, and B. Shmagin. 2006. Hydrologic 

calibration of the SWAT model in a Great Lakes coastal watershed. Pages 15-28 in Coastal 

Hydrology and Processes, V.P. Singh and Y. Jun Xu, eds., Proceedings of the American 

Institute of Hydrology 25th Anniversary Meeting & International Conference, “Challenges in 

Coastal Hydrology and Water Management.” Water Resources Publications, Highlands 

Ranch, CO. 

8)	 Ogram, A., S. Bridgham, R. Corstanje, H. Drake, K. Küsel, A. Mills, S. Newman, K. Portier, 

and R. Wetzel. 2006. Linkages between microbial community composition and 

biogeochemical processes across scales. Pages 239-270 in Wetlands and Natural Resource 

Management, J. T. A. Verhoeven, B. Beltman, R. Bobbink, and D. F. Whigham, eds., 

Springer, New York. 

9)	 Bridgham, S. D., J. P. Megonigal, J. K. Keller^, C. Trettin, and N. B. Bliss. 2007. Wetlands. 

The North America carbon budget past and present. Pages 139 – 148 in The First State of 

the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 15 of 21 

Global Carbon Cycle. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research, A. W. King, L. Dilling. G. P. Zimmerman, D. M. 

Fairman, R. A. Houghton, G. H. Marland, A. Z. Rose, and T. J. Wilbanks, eds., National 

Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, 242 pp. 

10) Pacala, S., R. Birdsey, S. Bridgham, R. T. Conant, K. Davis, B. Hales, R. Houghton, J. C. 

Jenkins, M. Johnston, G. Marland, K. Paustian, and S. C. Wofsy. 2007. The North America 

carbon budget past and present. Pages 29 – 36 in The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report 

(SOCCR): North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A 

report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global 

Change Research, A. W. King, L. Dilling. G. P. Zimmerman, D. M. Fairman, R. A. 

Houghton, G. H. Marland, A. Z. Rose, and T. J. Wilbanks, eds., National Climatic Data 

Center, Asheville, NC, 242 pp. 

11) Bridgham, S. D. and G. A. Lamberti. 2009. Decomposition in wetlands. Pages 326 -- 345 

in The Wetlands Handbook, E. Maltby and T. Barker, eds., Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 

Oxford, United Kingdom. 

12) Dise, N., N. J. Shurpali, P. Weishampel, S. Verma, S. Verry, E. Gorham, P. Crill, R. Harriss, 

C. Kelly, J. Yavitt, K. Smemo, R. Kolka, K. Smith, J. Kim, R. Clement, T. Arkebauer, K. 

Bartlett, D. Billesbach, S. Bridgham, A. Elling, P. Flebbe, J. King, C. Martens, D. Sebacher, 

C. Williams, K. Wieder. 2011. Carbon emissions in peatlands. In Peatland 

Biogeochemistry and Watershed Hydrology at the Marcel Experimental Forest, eds. R. 

Kolka, S. Sebestyen, S. Verry, and K. Brooks. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, Oxford, 

United Kingdom. 

13) Kerns, B. K., M. A. Hemstrom, D. Conklin, G. I. Yospin#, B. Johnson,, D. Bachelet, and S. 

Bridgham. 2012. Approaches to incorporating climate change effects in state and transition 

models of vegetation. Pages 161-172 in Proceedings of the First Landscape State-andTransition Simulation Modeling Conference, eds. B. K. Kerns, A. J. Shlisky, and C. J. 

Daniels, June 14-16, 2011, Portland, OR, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-869, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

14) Bridgham, S. D. and R. Ye^. 2013. Organic matter mineralization and decomposition. 

Pages 253-274 in Methods in Biogeochemistry of Wetlands, eds. R. D. DeLaune, K. R. 

Reddy, C. J. Richardson, and J. P. Megonigal. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 

WI. 

15) Bridgham, S. D. 2014. Carbon dynamics and ecosystem processes. In Ecology of 

Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands (edited texbook), eds. D. P. Batzer and R. R. Sharitz, 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

16) Kolka, R., S. D. Bridgham, and C.-L. Ping. In press. Soils peatlands: Histosols and Gelisols. 

In Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification, 2nd Edition, M. J. 

Vepraskas and C. Craft, eds., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 

OTHER PUBLICATIONS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 16 of 21 

1)	 Bridgham, S. D. 1986. The Effects of PCBs on the Physiology of Daphnia pulicaria. M.S. 

thesis, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 

MN. 

2)	 Bridgham, S. D. 1991. Mechanisms Controlling Soil Carbon Cycling in North Carolina 

Peatlands. Ph.D. dissertation, Nicholas School of the Environment & Earth Sciences, Duke 

University, Durham, NC. 

3)	 Bridgham, S. D. and C. J. Richardson. 1991. Freshwater peatlands on the southeastern 

Coastal Plain of the USA: Community description, nutrient dynamics, and disturbance. 

Pages 1 - 15 in Proceedings of the International Peat Symposium, August 19-23, Duluth, 

MN, D.N. Grubich and T.J. Malterer, eds. 

4)	 Bridgham, S. D. 1994. Review of Wetlands: Guide to Science, Law, and Technology, M. 

S. Dennison and J. F. Berry, eds., Noyes Publications. Journal of Environmental Quality 

23:1119-1120. 

5)	 Axler, R. P., J. Henneck†, S. Bridgham, C. Tikkanen†, D. Nordman†, A. Bamford†, and M. 

McDonald. 1996. Constructed wetlands in northern Minnesota for treatment of aquacultural 

wastes. In Proceedings from the Constructed Wetlands in Cold Climates, June 4-5, 1996, 

Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada. 

6)	 Bridgham, S. D. 1998. The role of agriculture in phosphorus eutrophication of surface water. 

Review of Phosphorus Loss from Soil to Water, H. Tunney, O. T. Carton, P. C. Brookes, 

and A. E. Johnston, eds., CAB International. Ecology 79:2215-2216. 

7)	 Bridgham, S. D. 1999. Meeting review of “How nutrient cycles constrain carbon balances 

in boreal forests and arctic tundra.” A conference organized on behalf of the GCTE (Global 

Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems) core project of the IGBP (International Geosphere 

Biosphere Programme) in Abisko, Sweden on June 15-19, 1999. Bulletin of the Ecological 

Society of America 80:244-245. 

8)	 Bridgham, S. D. 1999. How nutrient cycles constrain carbon balances in boreal forests and 

arctic tundra. GCTE (Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems) Newsletter. 

9)	 Pfeifer-Meister, L. S. Bridgham, B. Roy, and B. Johnson. 2007. Testing the effectiveness of 

site preparation techniques for wetland prairie restoration. Final report to West Eugene 

Wetland Partnership (http://www.lcog.org/Site%20Prep%20Presentation_May%202007.pdf). 

INVITED SEMINARS (last 4 years) 

1)	 Climate change effects on plant range distribution in (and the restoration of) prairies. Web 

seminar to The Nature Conservancy personnel in Washington and Oregon. March 12, 2010. 

2)	 Experimental determination of climate change effects on native prairies in the Pacific 

Northwest. Public talk at Deer Creek Center, Selma, OR, April 8, 2010. 

3)	 Climate change effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Public talk at Eugene Natural History 

Society, March 18, 2011. 

4)	 Challenges and opportunity for carbon sequestration in the restoration of wetlands. 

Department of Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program 
 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 17 of 21 

Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, March 24, 2011. 

5)	 Climate effects on plant Range distributions and ecosystem function in Mediterranean 

grasslands: A manipulative experiment embedded in a natural climate gradient in the Pacific 

Northwest. Center on Global Change, Duke University, Oct. 25, 2012. 

INVITED SYMPOSIA (last 4 years) 

1)	 Bridgham, S., J. Keller, J. White, and M. Vile. 2010. Biogeochemical controls over methane 

production and emissions from peatlands. Society of Wetland Scientists, Salt Lake City, 

June 27 – July 2. 

2)	 Megonigal, P., S. Bridgham, V. Gauci, M. Finlayson, C. Lloyd, S. Luchessa, M. McCartney, 

N. Pettorelli, S. Page. 2010. Misconceptions about wetland management for carbon 

sequestration. Society of Wetland Scientists, Salt Lake City, June 27 – July 2.
 

3)	 Bridgham, S. D., R. Ye, J. K. Keller, S. McAllister, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2012. 

Controls over Anaerobic carbon cycling and methane production in peatlands. INTECOL 

Wetlands, Orlando, FL, June 3-8. 

4)	 McAllister, S. A., S. D. Bridgham, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2012. Linking methane 

production rate to methanogen community structure in peatland soils. INTECOL Wetlands, 

Orlando, FL, June 3-8. 

5)	 Bridgham, S. D. 2013. Rhizosphere processes and the role of humic substances in driving 

peatland carbon dynamics. Workshop on Belowground Carbon Cycling Processes at the 

Molecular Scale, Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, Richland, WA, Feb. 19-21. 

6)	 Pfeifer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, L. Reynolds, M. E. Goklany, C. J. 

Little, H. E. Wilson. 2013. Climate change impacts on biodiversity in Pacific Northwest 

prairies: Shifts in plant range distributions and functional group composition. Cascadia 

Prairie-Oak Partnership and Northwest Scientific Association, Portland, OR, Mar. 20-23. 

OTHER PRESENTATIONS AND POSTERS (last 4 years) 

1)	 White, J. R., R. D. Shannon, J. F. Weltzin, J. Pastor, and S. D. Bridgham. 2010. Stable 

isotopic evidence of climate-driven changes in methane cycling in northern peatlands. 

Goldschmidt Conference on Earth, Energy and the Environment, Knoxville, TN, June. 

2)	 Bridgham S., B. Johnson., L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, L. Reynolds, and M. 

Goklany. 2010. How will climate change affect the range distributions of native prairie 

plants and the viability of restored prairies in the Pacific Northwest? Pacific NW Climate 

Science Conference, June 15-16, Portland, OR. 

3)	 Johnson, B. R., R. G. Ribe, D. W. Hulse, J. P. Bolte, S. D. Bridgham, T. Sheehan, M. 

Nielson-Pincus, G. I. Yospin1

, A. A. Ager, J. A. Kertis, D. Bachelet, R. P. Neilson, D. 

Conklin, C. A. Harrington, and P. J. Gould. 2010. Modeling the potential for surprise in 

coupled human and natural systems under future climate change, population growth and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 18 of 21 

wildfire hazard in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion. Pacific NW Climate Science 

Conference, June 15-16, Portland, OR. 

4)	 McAllister, S., B. Bohannan, S. Bridgham, and Q. Jin. 2010. Microbial community 

structure and ecosystem function: linking methane production rate to methanogen 

community structure in wetland soils. International Symposium on Microbial Ecology, 

Aug. 23-27, Seattle, WA. 

5)	 Bridgham, S. D., B. Johnson, T. Tomaszewski, L. Pfeifer-Meister, M. Goklany, L. 

Reynolds, and H. Wilson. 2011. Poster: Temperature and Precipitation Effects on Plant 

Range Distributions, Community Structure, and Ecosystem Function across a Natural 

Climate Gradient in Prairie Ecosystems. Invited participant in workshop on How Do We 

Improve Earth System Models: Integrating Earth System Models, Ecosystem Models, 

Experiments and Long-Term Data, organized by Integrated Network for Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Research on Feedbacks to the Atmosphere and Climate (INTERFACE), Feb. 

28-Mar. 3, Captiva Island, FL. 

6)	 Eisenhut, N., R. Ye, B. Bohannan, Q. Jin, and S. Bridgham. 2011. pH effects on carbon 

mineralization to CO2 and CH 4 in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic 

gradient. Annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Aug. 7-12, Austin, TX. 

7)	 Goklanay, M., B. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Mesiter, T. Tomaszewski, and S. Bridgham. 2011. 

How climate change affect the physiology and productivity of perennial grasses in Pacific 

Northwest prairies? Annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Aug. 7-12, 

Austin, TX. 

8)	 McAllister, S. A., S. D. Bridgham, Q. Jin, and B. J. M. Bohannon. 2011. Linking methane 

production rate to methanogen community structure in wetland soils. Annual meeting of 

the Ecological Society of America, Aug. 7-12, Austin, TX. 

9)	 Bridgham, S. D., L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, L. Reynolds, M. Goklany, H. 

Wilson, and B. R. Johnson. 2011. Climate impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and managed 

resources. Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference, Sept. 13-14, Seattle, WA. 

10)	 Pfeifer-Meister, L., B. R. Johnson, T. Tomaszewski, M. Goklany, L. Reynolds, H. Wilson, 

and S. D. Bridgham. 2011. Natural and experimental climatic effects on native plant range 

distributions in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference, 

Sept. 13-14, Seattle, WA. 

11)	 Wilson, H., B. Johnson, and S. Bridgham. 2011. Increased experimental heating decreases 

arbuscular mycorrhizal abundance across a latitudinal gradient in annual prairie forbs. 

Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference, Sept. 13-14, Seattle, WA. 

12)	 Reynolds, L., B. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, and S. Bridgham. 2011. 

The response of soil respiration to simulated climate change along a latitudinal climate 

gradient in Pacific Northwest prairies. Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference, 

Sept. 13-14, Seattle, WA. 

13)	 Ye, R., S.D. Bridgham, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2011. pH controls over anaerobic carbon 

mineralization to CO2 and CH 4 in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic 

gradient. Annual meeting of the Soil Science Society of America, Oct. 16-19, San 

Antonio, TX. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 19 of 21 

14)	 Ye, R., Q. Jin, B. Bohannan, J. Keller, and S.D. Bridgham. 2011. pH controls over carbon 

mineralization to CO2 and CH 4 in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic 

gradient. Annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Dec. 5-9, San Francisco, 

CA. 

15)	 Cadillo-Quiroz, H., S. Maguffin, S. Bridgham, B. Bohannan, and Q. Jin. 2012. 

Methanogenic community and kinetics of methane production from acetate in contrasting 

ecosystems. Annual meeting of the American Society of Microbiology, June 16-19, San 

Francisco, CA. 

16)	 Bridgham, S. D., L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, M. E. Goklany, L. L. Reynolds, C. J. 

Little, and Bart R. Johnson. 2012. Pushing limits: Altered temperature and precipitation 

differentially affect plant species inside and beyond their current ranges. Poster presented at 

the U.S. DOE Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Principal Investigators Meeting, Washington, 

DC, Apr. 23-24. 

17)	 Reynolds, L. L., B. R. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, and S. D. Bridgham. 

2012. Response of soil respiration to experimental warming and increased precipitation 

intensity depends upon a latitudinal climate gradient in Pacific Northwest grasslands. 

Poster presented at the U.S. DOE Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Principal Investigators 

Meeting, Washington, DC, Apr. 23-24. 

18)	 Bridgham, S. D., R. Ye, J. K. Keller, S. McAllister, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2012. 

Controls over anaerobic carbon cycling and methane production in peatlands. Biogeomon 

International Symposium on Ecosystem Behavior, Northport, ME, July 15-20. 

19)	 Vandegrift, A. W. B. A. Roy, L. E. Pfeifer-Meister, T. E. Tomaszewski, B. R. Johnson, and 

S. D. Bridgham. 2012. Climate change and Epichloë endophyte infection influences 

arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization rates in grasses. Annual Meeting of the Ecological 

Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10. 

20)	 Bridgham, S. D., R. Ye, J. K. Keller, S. McAllister, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2012. Why 

does the efficiency of methane production vary so much among peatlands? Annual 

Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10. 

21)	 Wilson, H. E. B. R. Johnson, R. C. Mueller, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, B. J. M. 

Bohannan, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012. Experimental warming across a natural climate 

gradient reverses soil nutrient effects on arbuscular mycorrhizal abundance in prairie 

plants. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10. 

22)	 Yospin, G. I., S. D. Bridgham, R. P. Neilson, J. P. Bolte, D. M. Bachelet, P. J. Gould, C. A. 

Harrington, J. A. Kertis, J. Merzenich, C. Evers, and B. R. Johnson. 2012. Projections of 

climate change impacts on forest succession for local land management using a new 

vegetation model, CV-STM. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, 

Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10. 

23)	 Johnson. B. R., J. P. Bolte, S. D. Bridgham, D. W. Hulse, R. P. Neilson, R. G. Ribe, , A. A. 

Ager, M. Nielsen-Pincus, T. Sheehan, G. I. Yospin, J. A. Kertis, C. A. Harrington, and P. J. 

Gould. 2012. Addressing uncertainties in climate change adaptation planning by using an 

integrated suite of mechanistic simulation models within an alternative futures planning 

framework. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-

10. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 20 of 21 

24)	 McAllister, S. A., S. D. Bridgham, Q. Jin, and B. J. M. Bohannan. 2012. Microbial 

community structure and ecosystem function: Linking methane production rate to 

methanogen community structure in peatland soils. Annual Meeting of the Ecological 

Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10. 

25)	 Pfiefer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, M. E. Goklany, L. L. Reynolds, C. J. 

Little, and B. R. Johnson. Pushing Limits: Altered temperature and precipitation 

differentially affect plant species inside and outside their current ranges.. Annual Meeting 

of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10. 

26)	 Reynolds, L. L., B. R. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. E. Tomaszewski, and S. D. 

Bridgham. 2012. Response of soil efflux to experimental warming and increased 

precipitation intensity depends upon latitudinal climate gradient in Pacific Northwest 

grasslands. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-

10. 

27)	 Tomaszewski, T., B. R. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, M. E. Goklany, L. L. Reynolds, H. E. 

Wilson, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012. Site-dependent versus regionally consistent effects of 

increased temperature and precipitation on plant community composition, productivity, and 

soil nutrient availability in restored Pacific Northwest prairies. Annual Meeting of the 

Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10. 

28)	 Reynolds, L. L., K. Lajtha, R. D. Bowden, B. Johson, and S. Bridgham. 2012. The DIRT 

on Q10 : Differential temperature response of soils depleted of labile inputs. Poster at LongTerm Ecological Research (LTER) All Scientists Meeting, Estes Park, CO, Sept. 10-13. 

29)	 Pfeifer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, L. Reynolds, M. E. Goklany, C. J. 

Little, H. E. Wilson. 2013. Climate change impacts on biodiversity in Pacific Northwest 

prairies: Shifts in plant range distributions and functional group composition. Annual 

meeting of the Northwest Science Association and Cascadia Prairie-Oak Partnership, 

Portland, OR, March 20-23. 

30)	 Bridgham, S. 2013. Rhizospheric processes and the role of humic substances in driving 

peatland carbon dynamics. Workshop on “Belowground Carbon Cycling Processes at the 

Molecular Scale,” Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, Dept. of Energy, Feb. 19-

21, 2013. 

31)	 Pfeifer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, M. E. Goklany, L L. Reynolds, C. J. 

Little, and B. R. Johnson. 2013. Pushing the limit: Experimental evidence of climate 

effects on plant range distributions. Dept. of Energy Terrestrial Ecosystem/Subsurface 

Biogeochemical Research Joint Investigators Meeting, Potomac, MD, May 13-15, 2013. 

32)	 Pfeifer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, L L. Reynolds, M. E. Goklany, C. J. 

Little, H. E. Wilson, and B. R. Johnson. 2013. Consistent shifts in the community 

composition and diversity in response to experimental climate manipulations across a 

latitudinal gradient in Pacific Northwest prairies. Dept. of Energy Terrestrial 

Ecosystem/Subsurface Biogeochemical Research Joint Investigators Meeting, Potomac, 

MD, May 13-15, 2013. 

33)	 Reynolds, L. L., B. R. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, and S.D. Bridgham. 

2013. Response of soil respiration to experimental warming and increased precipitation 

intensity depends upon a latitudinal climate gradient in Pacific Northwest grasslands. 
 

 

 

 

 

Bridgham, CV, 21 of 21 

Dept. of Energy Terrestrial Ecosystem/Subsurface Biogeochemical Research Joint 

Investigators Meeting, Potomac, MD, May 13-15, 2013. 

34)	 Bridgham, S.D., J. Pastor, J. Keller, J. White, and R. D. Shannon. 2013. A retrospective 

analysis of a Minnesota peatland manipulative climate change study. Annual Meeting of 

the Society of Wetland Scientists, Duluth, MN, June 2-6. 

35)	 Keller, S. D. and S. D. Bridgham. 2013. Rethinking the role of soil organic matter in 

peatland decomposition. Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Duluth, 

MN, June 2-6. 

36)	 Pfeifer-Meister, L., L. G. Gayton, S. D. Bridgham. 2013. Controls of trace gas emissions 

in natural, restored, and agricultural seasonal wetlands. Annual Meeting of the Society of 

Wetland Scientists, Duluth, MN, June 2-6. 

37)	 Reynolds, L. L., K. Lajtha, R. D. Bowden, B. Johnson, and S. Bridgham. 2013. Depletion 

of labile-inputs does not increase temperature sensitivity in a laboratory incubation but 

does this imply no change in the molecular nature of the decomposed organic carbon? 

Users Meeting for Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Department of Energy, Richland, WA, July 30-31. 

38)	 Reynolds, L. L., K. Lajtha, R. D. Bowden, B. Johnson, and S. Bridgham. 2013. The DIRT 

on Q10 : Depletion of labile-inputs does not increase temperature sensitivity in a laboratory 

incubation. Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 

9-13. 

39)	 Kostka, J. E., X. Lin, M. M. Tfaily, J. P. Chanton, W. Cooper, S. Bridgham, and J. Keller. 

2014. The abundance and expression of genes for methanogenesis and methanotrophy in 

northern peatlands. Annual Meeting of American Society of Microbiology, Boston, MA, 

May 17-20. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biographical sketch: MONIQUE Y. LECLERC 

Regents Professor and D. W. Brooks Distinguished Research Professor
 

Atmospheric BioGeosciences Group (www.biogeosciences.uga.edu), The 

University of Georgia
 

Education 

1980 B.Sc. Sciences McGill University, Canada 

1982 M.Sc. Land Resource Science University of Guelph, Canada 

1987 Ph.D. Land Resource Science University of Guelph, Canada 

Professional Experience 

2009-Present Regents’ Professor, University of Georgia 

2000-Present Professor, Lab for Environmental Physics, Univ. of Georgia 

2007-Present Honorary Professor, Peking Univ., State Key Laboratory, 

Beijing, China 

2003-Present Honorary Professor, Chiang Mai Univ., Chiang Mai, Thailand 

1995-2000 Associate Professor, Laboratory for Environ. Physics, Univ. 

Georgia 

1990-1995 Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Univ.Quebec at Montreal 

1991- Adjunct Professor, Dept. Atmos. and Ocean. Sci., McGill Univ. 

1991-1995 Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Environ. Sci., Univ. Quebec at Montreal 

1987-1990 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Soils and Biometeorology, Utah State 

University 

1987-1991 Associate Faculty, Center for Theoretical Hydrology, Utah State 

University 

1987-1992 Associate Faculty, Ecology Center, Utah State University 

Recent Selected Recognitions 

•	 Distinguished Professor. King Mongkut University. Bangkok. 

Thailand 2013
 

•	 Scientific Advisory Committee. Oil Palm Board. Kuala Lumpur. 

Malaysia 2014-

• D. W. Brooks Award of Excellence in Global Programs. 2012; 

•	 Advisory Board.Integrated Carbon Observation System ( ICOS)
 

Sweden 2012-2015
 

•	 The American Meteorological Society ‘The Award for Outstanding 

Achievement in Biometeorology’ for ‘Pioneering Research that has advanced 

our understanding of temporal and spatial patterns of local and regional 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

carbon exchanges, and for global leadership in advancement of 

biometeorology.’ 2008. Nota Bene: THIS AWARD WAS GIVEN TO THE 

YOUNGEST SCIENTIST AND THE FIRST FEMALE; 

• National Advisory Board. CAST, Wash. DC 2007-2010; 

• Advisory Board to the President of the University of Georgia 2014-

•	 Member of evaluation panels at USDA, DOE, NSF, NSERC, Italian 

Research Council, etc. 

•	 D. W. Brooks Distinguished Professor Award for Excellence in
 

Research 2009;
 

•	 Advisor to the Government of Bhutan on Climate Change. Thimphu, 

Bhutan. 2009; 

•	 Guest Professor. State Key Laboratory. Dept. of Atmospheric
 

Sciences. Peking University. 2008-

•	 University of Oxford, 20th Anniv., Oxford Annual Round Table. StAnne’s College. England. 2008; 

•	 Marquis Who’s Who in America. Global Marquis Who’s Who. 2008, 

2009, 2010, 2011. 2012; 2013; 2014 

•	 Advisory Board and Full Member of the Centre for Climate and
 

Global Change Research, McGill University 1990 – 1995; 

•	 Visiting Fellow, National Center of Atmospheric Research, Boulder, 

CO 1988 1988; 

Examples of Synergistic Activities 

•	 Advisory Panel. Malaysian Oil Palm Board. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia. 2014-

2017. 

•	 Advisory Panel. Peat Panel Review. Malaysian Oil Palm Board. Kuala 

Lumpur. Malaysia. 2014. 

•	 Malaysian Palm Oil Board International Palm Oil Congress (PIPOC). October 2013. 

Keynote Speaker ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Peat Lands’. 

•	 International Society of Oil Palm Congress. ISOP). Keynote Speaker. 

November 2013. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia. 

•	 Journal of Oil Palm Research (JOPR) Editorial Board 2014-

•	 Associate Editor. Journal of Ag. and Forest. Meteorology, Elsevier Publ., 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands. (No. 1 in Forestry and no. 3 in Agr. In terms of 

impact factor) 2005-Present. 

•	 Editorial Board. Advances in Meteorology, Hindawi Publ. Mumbai. 2010-

Present 
 

 

 

 

 

•	 Associate Editor. American J. Climate Change. 2011- present. 

•	 Editor. Earth Perspectives 2012- (new) 

•	 International Scientific Committee. Atmospheric Chemistry in Vegetation 

Canopies. EGER. Castle Thurnau, Germany. 2009-2010. 

•	 Advisor to the Ministry of Energy, Bangkok, Thailand on Impact 

Assessment of Climate Change.2009. 

•	 Advisor to the Government of Bhutan, Prime Minister’s Office. On Rapid 

Climate Change Adaptation and Preparedness. 2009. 

•	 Guest Lecturer. Oxford Annual Round Table on Climate Change. 20th 

Anniversary. Univ. of Oxford, England –2008. 

•	 Past President. International Society of Biometeorology. 2002-2005. 

•	 International Scientific Committee. International Association for the 

promotion of c-operation with scientists from the New Independent States of 

the Soviet Union (INTAS). Member International Symposium on Footprints. 

. Bruxels, Belgium. 2001-2002/ 2002-2003. 

•	 Visiting Fellow. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). 1988. 

Selected Publications 

Zhang G., M.Y. Leclerc, A. Karipot, H. Duarte, E. Mursch-Radlgruber, H.L. 

Gholz. 2011. The impact of logging on the surrounding flow in a managed 

plantation. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Vol. 106, No. 3 pp. 511-

521. 

Pingintha N., M. Y. Leclerc, J. P. Beasley Jr., G. Zhang, C. Senthong. 2010. 

Hysteresis Response of Daytime Net Ecosystem CO2 Exchange during a 

Drought. Biogeosciences. Vol. 7, No.3 pp. 1159-1170. 

van Gorsel E., N. Delpierre, R. Leuning, J. M. Munger, S. Wofsy, M. Aubinet, C. 

Heigenwinter, J. Beringer, D. Bonal, B. Chen, J. Chen, R. Clement, K. J. 

Davis, A. Desai, D. Dragoni, S. Etzold, T. Grunwald, L. Gu, B. Heinesch, L. 

R. Hutyra, W. W. P. Jans, W. Kutsch, B. E. Law, M. Y. Leclerc, I. 

Mammarrella, L. Montagnani, A. Noormets, C. Rebmann, S. Wharton. 2009. 

Estimating nocturnal ecosystem respiration from the vertical turbulent flux 

and change in storage of CO2. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol. 

149, No. 11. pp. 1919-1930. 

Pingintha N., M.Y. Leclerc, J.P. Beasley Jr., G. Zhang, and C. Senthong. 2009. 

Assessment of the soil CO2 gradient method for soil CO2 efflux 

measurements: comparison of six models in the calculation of the relative 

gas diffusion coefficient. Tellus B, Vol. 62B, pp. 47-58. 

Sogachev, A., M. Y. Leclerc, G. Zhang, U. Rannik, and T. Vesala. 2008. CO2 fluxes 

near a forest edge: a numerical study. Ecological Applications, 18(6), 1454-
 

 

 

 

1469. 

Kim, J., Q. Guo, D.D. Baldocchi, M.Y. Leclerc, L. Xu and H.P. Schmid. 2006. 

Upscaling Fluxes from 

Tower to Landscape: Overlaying Flux Footprints on High Resolution 

(IKONOS) Images of 

Vegetation Cover, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 136 (3-4): 132-146. 

Baldocchi, D., T. Krebs and M.Y. Leclerc. 2005. 'Wet/Dry Daisyworld': A 

Conceptual Tool for Quantifying the Spatial Scaling of Heterogeneous 

Landscapes and its Impact on the Subgrid Variability of Energy Fluxes. 

Tellus, 57B: 1-14. 

Hollinger, D.Y., J. Aber, B. Dail, E. A. Davidson, S. M. Goltz, H. Hughes, M.Y. 

Leclerc, J. T. Lee, A. D. Richardson, C. Rodrigues, N.A. Scott, D. Varier, 

and J. Walsh. 2004. Spatial and Temporal Variability in Forest-Atmosphere 

CO2 Exchange. Global Change Biology, 10: 1-18. 

EXPERTISE RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT: 

Monique Y. Leclerc: Regents Professor, D.W. Brooks Distinguished 

Research Professor, and Head of the Laboratory for Environmental Physics 

at the University of Georgia. Dr. Leclerc has over 20 years of experience in 

field campaigns throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia focusing on 

surface-atmosphere interactions. She has led field campaigns using a 

combination of eddy-covariance to measure greenhouse gas emissions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kristell HERGOUALC’H
 

Researcher in Ecosystem Functioning
 

Nationality French 

Date of birth 30th of March, 1974 

Contact Address: CIFOR 

c/o Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) 

Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina 

Apartado postal 1558 

Lima 12, Perú 

Voice: +51 (1) 349 6017 ext 1015 

Electronic: k.hergoualch@cgiar.org 

Current position Scientist in climate change mitigation 

With CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research), Forests and Environment. 

Research topics Forestry, agroforestry, agriculture, land-use change, climate change, 

environmental services, peatlands, REDD+

Soil fluxes of greenhouse gases (N2O, CH4, and CO2). Microbial processes and 

biophysical modeling of soil fluxes of N2O (NGAS, NOE, DNDC) and C 

sequestration (CO2Fix). N and C cycles. Carbon dynamics in soil and biomass. 

Education	 2008: Ph D in Ecosystem Functioning (SIBAGHE, SupAgro, Montpellier, France). Area: 

Soil sciences 

2004: MSc. in Agronomy (Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, ENSAIA, Nancy, 

France) 

1997: Engineer in Energy and Environment (Ecole Polytechnique Féminine, Paris, 

France). Areas: Renewable energies and environmental pollution (air, water, soil) 

Employment Since November 2008: CIFOR. Bogor, Indonesia until July 2013; currently in Lima, 

history Peru. Researcher in Ecosystem Functioning 

Carbon stocks, stock changes and greenhouse gas fluxes (N2O, CH4, CO2) associated with 

land-use change in the tropics, with a special focus on peatlands. Implications for 

climate change. 

September 2004-January 2008: CIRAD (French center of cooperation specialized in 

development-oriented agricultural research for the tropics and subtropics)-CATIE (Latin 

American center of research and education in tropical agronomy)-CEH (English center of 

research in ecology and hydrology). Costa Rica, France & UK. Collaboration with INRA 

(French national institute of research in agronomy) and IRD-SeqBio (French institute of 

research for Development-Carbon Sequestration unity). Ph. D student in Ecosystems 

Functioning. 

Soil greenhouse gases (N2O, CH4 and CO2) emissions and carbon storage in a coffee 

monoculture and a coffee plantation shaded by the N2 fixing legume species Inga densiflora 

on Andosols in Costa Rica. Characterization of the nitrification-denitrification processes 

and modeling of soil N2O fluxes with the process-oriented models NOE and NGAS. 

April 2007: Rainforest Alliance (NGO working on biodiversity conservation and 

sustainable livelihoods). Costa Rica. Freelance consultant on climate change mitigation. 

Revision of a method for estimating carbon sequestration in coffee agroforestry systems. 

September 2003-August 2004: CIRAD-CATIE-CEH. Costa Rica, France & UK. 

MSc. student in Agronomy 

Nitrous oxide production by nitrification and denitrification in a volcanic soil under 

different coffee systems in Costa Rica. 

Dr. Kristell Hergoualc’h 1/7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

January 2002-August 2003: CIRAD-CATIE. Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala. 

Carbon sequestration database and modeling (CO2Fix) in coffee plantations. 

Delegate of CATIE in the Costarican agroforestry national committee (CNAF). 

Design of the CNAF website. Contribution to the writing of the proposal of payment 

for environmental services to lands dedicated to agroforestry. Proposal approved by 

the Environment and Energy Ministry, come into effect in 2003. 

June 1998-December 2001: SupAgro (International center of education in advanced 

agronomic sciences). France. Engineer. 

Organization of computing software trainings applied to agronomy. 

March-October 1997: Lyonnaise des Eaux (private French company specialized in 

energy and environment). Argentina. Engineer. 

Environmental study on cyanide and chrome contamination in rivers, water network 

(water supply, sewage and wastewater treatment plant) and soils (sewage sludge 

application). 

Students 

advisory

committee 

Aini F, Carbon stocks and soil greenhouse flux changes in a forest transition into oil palm and 

rubber plantations of Indonesia. Ph D, University of Aberdeen, UK. 

Comeau L-P, Soil organic carbon dynamics after land-use change in tropical peatlands, Jambi, 

Indonesia. Ph D, University of Aberdeen, UK. 

Farmer J (2014) Measuring and modeling soil carbon and carbon dioxide emissions from 

Indonesian peatlands under land-use change. Ph D, University of Aberdeen, UK. 

Hartill J, Changes in soil nitrous oxide and methane fluxes following the conversion of 

tropical peat swamps in Jambi, Indonesia. Ph D, University of Aberdeen, UK. 

Hendry Dede, Partitioning of soil respiration into auto- and heterotrophic components as 

affected by peat swamp forest conversion to oil palm plantation. MSc., IPB, Indonesia. 

Novita N, Changes in greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) fluxes and carbon stocks from 

tropical peat swamp forest conversion to oil palm plantation. Ph D, Oregon state 

university, US. 

Oktarita S (2014) The effect of nitrogen fertilization on soil CO2, CH4, N2O and NO 

emissions in an oil palm plantation cultivated on peat in Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia. 

MSc., IPB, Indonesia. 

Persch S, Fine root dynamics in different land-uses on tropical peat in Jambi, Sumatra. Ph D, 

University of Göttingen, Germany. 

Persch S (2011) Carbon stock in aboveground and coarse root biomass in different land use 

treatments on tropical peat. MSc., University of Göttingen, Germany. 

Swails E, Linking GRACE with optical satellite data and field measures to determine the effect 

of climate variability on greenhouse gas emissions from tropical peatlands. Ph D, 

University of Virginia, US. 

Van Lent, The effect of peat forest degradation in the Peruvian Amazon basin on soil fluxes 

of greenhouse gases. Ph D, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Geographical Countries worked in: Argentina, Costa Rica, France, Guatemala, Indonesia, experience Nicaragua, Peru, UK.
 

Other visited countries: almost all countries of America, Africa (Morocco, Tunisia,
 

Madagascar, Kenya), Middle East (Turkey) and Asia (the Philippines, India, Korea, Vietnam).
 

Languages	 Mother tongue: French 

Working languages: English, Spanish 

Medium knowledge: Bahasa Indonesia, Italian 

Computer	 Languages: Programming in C, Pascal, Fortran. 

Software: Modeling with CO2Fix, DNDC. Database development with Access. 

Dr. Kristell Hergoualc’h 2/7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Articles Implementing REDD+: Case study evidence on governance, evaluation and impacts 

Matthews R, van Noordwijk M, Lambin E, Meyfroidt P, Gupta J, Veldkamp E, Verchot L, 

Hergoualc'h K (2014) Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Submitted. 

Mud, muddle and models in the knowledge value chain to action on tropical peatland 

issues 

van Noordwijk M, Matthews R, Agus F, Farmer J, Verchot L, Hergoualc’h K, Persch S, 

Tata HL, Khasanah N, Widayati A, Dewi S (2014) Mitigation and adaptation strategies for 

global change. Submitted. 

Soil N2O and NO emissions from land use and land-use change in the tropics and 

subtropics: A meta-analysis 

Van Lent J, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2014) Global change biology. Submitted. 

Comparison of methods for quantifying soil carbon in tropical peats. 

Farmer J, Matthews R, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot L, Langan C, Smith P, Smith JU (2014) 

Geoderma 214-215: 177-183 

Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use and land-use change in Southeast Asian 

peatlands. 

Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2013) Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. 

DOI 10.1007/s11027-013-9511-x. 

Generic allometric models including height best estimate forest biomass and carbon 

stocks in Indonesia. 

Rutishauser E, Noor’an F, Laumonier Y, Halperin J, Rufi’ie, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot L 

(2013) Forest Ecology and Management 307: 219–225 

Conversion of intact peat swamp forest to oil palm plantation: Effects on soil CO2 

fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra. 

Comeau L-P, Hergoualc'h K, Smith JU, Verchot L (2013) Working paper 110. CIFOR, 

Bogor, Indonesia. 

A cost-efficient method to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil. 

Warren MW, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Anshari G, Hergoualc'h K, Kurnianto S, 

Purbopuspito J, Gusmayanti E, Afifudin M, Rahajoe J, Alhamd L, Limin S, Iswandi 

A (2012) Biogeosciences 9:7049-7071. 

Changes in soil CH4 fluxes from the conversion of tropical peat swamp forests: a metaanalysis. 

Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2012) Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9:93-101 

Changes in carbon stocks and greenhouse gas balance in a coffee (Coffea arabica) 

monoculture versus an agroforestry system with Inga densiflora in Costa Rica. 

Hergoualc'h K, Harmand J-M, Blanchard E, Skiba U, Hénault C (2012) Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment 148:102-110 

Stocks and fluxes of carbon associated with land-use change in Southeast Asian 

tropical peatlands: a review 

Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2011) Global Biochemical Cycles, 25 

doi:10.1029/2009GB003718 

Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions tropical peatlands. 

Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2010) PNAS 107:19655-19660 

The utility of process-based model for simulating of N2O emissions from soils: a case 

study based on Costa Rican coffee plantations. 

Hergoualc'h K, Harmand J-M, Cannavo P, Skiba U, Hénault C (2009) Soil Biology and 

Biochemistry 41:2343-2355 

Fluxes of greenhouse gases from Andosols under coffee in monoculture or shaded by

Inga densiflora in Costa Rica. 

Hergoualc'h K, Skiba U, Harmand J-M, Hénault C (2008) Biogeochemistry 89:329-345 

Dr. Kristell Hergoualc’h 3/7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Processes responsible for the nitrous oxide emission from a Costa Rican Andosol 

under a coffee agroforestry plantation. 

Hergoualc'h K, Skiba U, Harmand J-M, Oliver R (2007) Biology and Fertility of Soils 

43:787-795 

Cuantificación del carbono almacenado en la biomasa aérea y el mantillo en sistemas 

agroforestales de café en el Sur Oeste de Costa Rica. 

De Miguel S, Harmand J-M, Hergoualc'h K (2004) Agroforestería en las Américas 41­

42:98-104 

Book chapters Chapter 2: Drained inland organic soils. 

Drösler M, Verchot LV, Freibauer A, Pan G, Evans CD, Bourbonniere RA, Alm JP, Page S, 

Agus F, Hergoualc'h K, Couwenberg J, Jauhiainen J, Sabiham S, Wang C, Srivastava N, 

Borgeau-Chavez L, Hooijer A, Minkkinen K, French N, Strand T, Sirin A, Mickler R, Tansey 

K, Larkin N (2014) In: Hiraishi T, Krug T, Tanabe K, Srivastava N, Baasansuren J, Fukuda 

M, Troxler TG (eds) 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national 

greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. IPCC, Switzerland 

Emissions factors, converting land use change to CO2 estimates. 

Verchot LV, Kamalakumari A, Romijn E, Herold M, Hergoualc’h K (2012) In: Angelsen A, 

Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (eds) Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. 

CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 261-278 

Ecosystem modeling of tropical wetlands. 

Hergoualc’h K, Frolking S, Canadell P, Crooks S, Harrison M, Joosten H, Kurnianto S, 

Yeager C (2012) In: Murdiyarso D, Kauffman B, Warren M, Pramova E, Hergoualc’h K (eds) 

Tropical wetlands for climate change adaptation and mitigation: Science and policy 

imperatives with a special reference to Indonesia. CIFOR working paper 91, Bogor, 

Indonesia, pp. 15-17. 

Principles and methods for assessing climate change mitigation as an ecosystem service 

in agroecosystems. 

Hergoualc’h K (2011) In: Rapidel B, DeClerck F, Le Coq J-F, Beer J (eds) Ecosystem services 

from agriculture and agroforestry. Measurement and payment. Earthscan, London, UK, pp. 

19-36 

Books	 Tropical wetlands for climate change adaptation and mitigation: Science and policy 

imperatives with a special reference to Indonesia. 

Murdiyarso D, Kauffman B, Warren M, Pramova E, Hergoualc’h K (2012) CIFOR working 

paper 91, Bogor, Indonesia, 54 pp. 

Communications	 Soil GHG emissions from forest conversion and oil palm cultivation: An update on 

emission factors.
 

Hergoualc’h K, Aini F, Comeau L-P, Hartill J, Hendry D, Oktarita S, Novita N, Kauffman 

B, Verchot L (2014) 4th International Conference on Oil Palm and Environment 

(ICOPE), Bali, Indonesia, 12 - 14 February 2014 

IPCC emission factors for greenhouse gas inventories in tropical peatlands. 

Verchot LV, Hergoualc’h K (2014) International Indonesia Peatland Conversation, 

Jakarta, 11-12 February 2014 

Tropical peat swamp forests: Current knowledge, gaps and science needs. 

Murdiyarso D, Kauffman B, Verchot LV, Purbopuspito J, Warren M, Hergoualc’h K 

(2013) UNFCCC Workshop on technical and scientific aspects of ecosystems with highcarbon reservoirs not covered by other agenda items under the Convention, Bonn, 

Germany, 24-25 October 2013 

Carbon dioxide fluxes and soil organic matter characteristics associated with land-use 

change in tropical peatlands of Jambi, Indonesia. 

Comeau L-P, Hergoualc’h K, Smith J, Verchot LV, Hartill J (2013) 11th meeting of 

Southeast Asia soil science, Bogor, Indonesia, 24 September 2013 

The effect of nitrogen fertilization on soil N2O emissions from oil palm cultivation on 

deep peat. 

Dr. Kristell Hergoualc’h 4/7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oktarita S, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2013) 11th meeting of Southeast Asia soil science, 

Bogor, Indonesia, 24 September 2013 

The effect of nitrogen fertilization on soil N2O emissions from oil palm cultivation on 

deep peat. 

Oktarita S, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2013) Tropical Peat 2013 workshop, Sarawak, 

Malaysia, 7 September 2013 

Modeling carbon accumulation dynamics in tropical peat swamp forests. 

Kurnianto S, Frolking S, Warren M, Hergoualc’h K, Talbot J, Kauffman JB, Varner R,
 

Murdiyarso D (2013) ATBC 2013 conference, San José, Costa Rica, 23-27 June 2013
 

CO2 Flux Associated with Land Use Change in Tanjung Puting National Park, 

Central Borneo. 

Novita N, Hergoualc’h K, Kauffman B (2013) IUSS Global Soil Carbon Conference, 

Madison WI, USA, 3-6, June 2013
 

Methane emissions following land-use change on tropical peat in Jambi, Sumatra. 

Hartill J, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV, Smith J (2013) IUSS Global Soil Carbon
 

Conference, Madison WI, USA, 3-6, June 2013
 

Soil CO2 emission and soil organic matter characteristics associated with land-use 

change in tropical peatlands of Sumatra, Indonesia. 

Comeau L-P, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV, Smith J, Hartill JA (2013) IUSS Global Soil 

Carbon Conference, Madison WI, USA, 3-6 June 2013 

SEA tropical peatlands: GHG emissions in the LULUCF sector. 

Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2013) FAO workshop Towards sustainable land
 

management practices for peatlands, Rome, Italy, 7-9 May 2013
 

Modeling long term carbon accumulation in tropical peat swamp forests: preliminary 

results. 

Kurnianto S, Frolking S, Warren M, Hergoualc’h K, Talbot J, Kauffman JB, Varner R, 

Murdiyarso D (2013) Mer Bleue carbon meeting 2013, McGill university, Montreal, 

Quebec, Canada, 4-5 March 2013 

CIFOR biophysical research on tropical peatlands. 

Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV, Warren M (2013) International Indonesia peatland
 

conversations, Bandung, Indonesia, 25-27 February 2013
 

Carbon loss associated with land-use change and wildfires in tropical peat swamp 

forests. 

Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2012) 14th International Peat Congress, Stockholm, Sweden, 

3-8 June 2012 

Land-use change effects on soil emissions of N2O in the tropics: a 3-continent 

comparative analysis. 

Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV, Aini FK, Brienza Júnior S, Cattânio JH, Costa de Oliveira V, 

Davidson E, Hairiah K, Neufeldt H, Thiongo M, van Noordwijk M (2012) Planet Under 

Pressure conference, London, UK, 25- 29 March 2012 

Land-use change effects on soil respiration in the tropics: a 3-continent comparative 

analysis. 

Verchot LV, Hergoualc’h K, Aini FK, Brienza Júnior S, Cattânio JH, Costa de Oliveira V, 

Davidson E, Hairiah K, Neufeldt H, Thiongo M, van Noordwijk M (2012) Planet Under 

Pressure conference, London, UK, 25- 29 March 2012 

The forgotten D: challenges of addressing forest degradation in REDD+. 

Rutishauser E, Bech Bruun T, de Neergaard A, Berry N, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV, 

Mertz O (2012) ATBC – Asia Pacific Chapter Annual Meeting, Xishuangbanna, China, 24­

27 March 2012 

Phytomass carbon stock changes following peat swamp forest conversion to oil palm 

plantation in Jambi, Sumatra. 

Dr. Kristell Hergoualc’h 5/7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Persch S, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2012) ATBC – Asia Pacific Chapter Annual
 

Meeting, Xishuangbanna, China, 24-27 March 2012
 

Carbon stock in coarse root biomass in a primary forest, secondary logged forest and 

an oil palm plantation on tropical peat in Jambi, Sumatra. 

Persch S, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2012) 3rd International Conference on Oil Palm and 

Environment (ICOPE), Bali, Indonesia, 22-24 February 2012 

Soil CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions from an oil palm plantation on deep peat as 

affected by nitrogen fertilization. 

Hergoualc'h K, ,Handayani EP, Indrasuara K, van Noordwijk M, Bonneau X, Verchot LV 

(2012) 3rd International Conference on Oil Palm and Environment (ICOPE), Bali, 

Indonesia, 22-24 February 2012 

Changes in soil CH4 fluxes from the conversion of tropical peat swamp forests: a 

meta-analysis. 

Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV (2011) 6th International Symposium on non-CO2 Greenhouse 

Gases (NCGG-6), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2-4 November 2011 

CH4 and N2O flux changes from forest conversion to rubber and oil palm plantation 

in Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia. 

Aini FK, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV, Smith J (2011) 6th International Symposium on nonCO2 Greenhouse Gases (NCGG-6), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2-4 November 2011 

Carbon stock in coarse root biomass in different land-use systems on tropical peat. 

Persch S, Hergoualc’h K, Laumonier Y, Verchot LV (2011) Workshop on tropical wetland 

ecosystems of Indonesia: Science needs to address climate change adaptation and 

mitigation, Bali, Indonesia, 11-14 April 2011 

Assessing GHG emissions from peatlands: methodological challenges. 

Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot L (2010) Workshop on options for carbon 

financing to support peatland management, Pekanbaru, Indonesia, 4-6 October 2010
 

Coffee production, nitrate leaching and N2O emissions in Coffea arabica systems in 

Costa Rica according to fertilization and shade management. 

Harmand JM, Chaves V, Cannavo P, Dionisio L, Zeller B, Hergoualc’h K, Siles P, 

Vaast P, Oliver R, Beer J, Dambrine E (2010) AGRO2010, The Scientific International 

Week around Agronomy, Montpellier, France, 29 August-3 September 2010 

Carbon loss associated with land-use change in tropical peat forests: Methods and 

quantification. 

Hergoualc'h K, Verchot L (2010) In: Parrotta, J.A., Carr, M.A. (Eds.), The international 

forestry review. Forests for the future: Sustaining society and the environment. XXIII 

IUFRO World Congress, 23-28 August 2010. Commonwealth forestry association, Seoul, 

Republic of Korea, p. 244 

C loss associated with land-use change in tropical peatlands: Methods and knowledge 

gaps. 

Hergoualc’h K (2010) USINDO (United States – Indonesia Society) conference, The 

Indonesia- United States comprehensive partnership, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2 March 2010
 

Carbon loss associated with the conversion of tropical peat forests to oil palm 

plantations. 

Hergoualc’h K, Verchot L (2010) 2nd International Conference on Oil Palm and
 

Environment, Bali, Indonesia, 23-25 February 2010
 

Balance between soil N2O emissions and aboveground CO2 uptakes in coffee 

monocultures and agroforestry plantations in Costa Rica. 

Hergoualc’h K, Harmand J-M, Skiba U (2009) Second World Congress of Agroforestry, 

Nairobi, Kenya, 23-28 August 2009 

Nitrate leaching and N2O emissions in Coffea arabica systems in Costa Rica 

according to fertilization and shade management. 

Dr. Kristell Hergoualc’h 6/7 
 

 

Harmand J-M, Chaves V, Cannavo P, Avila H, Dioniso L, Zeller B, Hergoualc’h K, Vaast 

P, Oliver R, Beer J, Dambrine E (2009) 2nd World Congress of Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya, 

23-28 August 2009 

Large variability in the partitioning of net primary productivity (NPP) between growth 

and litter production in major tropical plantations: Consequences for ecosystem carbon 

pools, respiration partitioning and stakes for carbon sequestration methodologies 

Roupsard O, Nouvellon Y, Laclau J-P, Epron D, Harmand J-M, Vaast P, Hergoualc’h K, 

Jourdan C, Saint-André L, Thaler P, Lamade E, Gay F, Hamel O, Bouillet J-P (2008) 

IUFRO International conference on Processes Controlling Productivity in Tropical 

Plantations, IPEF, Porto Seguro, Bahia State, Brazil, 10-14 November 2008 

Soil N2O emissions and carbon balance in coffee monocultures and agroforestry 

plantations on Andosols in Costa Rica 

Hergoualc’h K, Harmand J-M, Skiba U (2007) 2nd international symposium on Multi-Strata 

Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 17-21 

September 2007 

Carbon sequestration in aerial biomass and derived products from coffee agroforestry 

plantations in Central America 

Harmand J-M, Hergoualc’h K, De Miguel S, Dzib B, Siles P, Vaast P, Locatelli B (2007) 

2nd international symposium on Multi-Strata Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops, 

CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 17-21 September 2007 

Nitrogen dynamics (coffee productivity, nitrate leaching and N2O emissions) in 

Coffea arabica systems in Costa Rica according to edaphic conditions, fertilization 

and shade management 

Harmand J-M, Chaves V, Cannavo P, Avila H, Dioniso L, Zeller B, Hergoualc’h K, Vaast 

P, Oliver R, Beer J, Dambrine E (2007) 2nd international symposium on Multi-Strata 

Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 17-21 

September 2007 

Carbon sequestration in coffee agroforestry plantations of Central America 

Harmand JM, Hergoualc'h K, De Miguel, Dzib B, Siles P, Vaast P (2006) 21st international 

conference on coffee science (ASIC), CIRAD, Montpellier, France, 11-15 September 2006 

Dr. Kristell Hergoualc’h 7/7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photograph

Curriculum Vitae
 

Name: 

Supiandi SABIHAM [Male] 

Institution: 

Department of Soil Science and Land Resource 

Faculty of Agriculture 

Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) 

Position: Professor of Land Resource Management 

Address of Institution: 

IPB Campus, Darmaga-Bogor 16680, INDONESIA 

Email: ssupiandi@yahoo.com 

Place & Date of Birth : Cianjur, West Java, Indonesia; January 5th, 1949 

Citizenship : Indonesia 

Home Address : Jln. Raya Pondok Rumput No. 3, Bogor 16162 

INDONESIA. Phone; +62-251-833-8102 

I. Highlights of His Careers 

Supiandi SABIHAM obtained a PhD Degree in Agricultural Sciences from Kyoto 

University, Japan in 1988 with the specialization in “Tropical Soil Sciences”. He has 

been working as Professor of Land Resource Management at the Department of Soil 

Science and Land Resource, Faculty of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University, 

Indonesia. As a senior staff at his institution, he has more than 40 years of experience 

in teaching and researches focusing on the main topic of Ecology-Based Peatland 

Management. He has also conducted more than 10 titles of multiyear-researches 

supported by national and international research funds where each of the research was 

conducted in two to four years. He received the first international research-fund from 

Japanese Government (Monbusho) for his study in Kyoto University titled: Studies of 

Peats in the Coastal Plains of Sumatra and Borneo which are conducted in the period 

of 1983-1988. He received the second international research-fund from The Toyota 

Foundation for the three-year research (1991-1993) titled: Wetland Development in 

Sumatra, Indonesia in collaboration with the Japanese Scholars of Kyoto University. 

In the period of 1993-1994 he then conducted research in the Center for Southeast 

Asian Studies (CSEAS), Kyoto University as a Visiting Researcher to study peatland 

development in Japan compared with that in Indonesia. In the period of 1995-2005 he 

carried out research titled: Stability and Destabilization of the Indonesian Peats which 

is funded by Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of Education and 

Culture, the Republic of Indonesia (RI). Since 2006 he has then been working closely 

with Agricultural Research and Development Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, RI to 

evaluate peatland utilization for annual and perennial (plantation) crops. In the period 

of February-August in 2009, again he was invited by the CSEAS, Kyoto University as 

Visiting Scholar to carry out research titled: Indonesian Peatland Management Based 

on Ecosystem Unique. In November 2009, he received the two-year research grant 

from The Toyota Foundation in order to carry out research titled: An Adaptive Socioentropy System: Balancing the Economic Endeavors and Socio Ecological Dynamics 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

 

 

at a Palm Oil Plantation in Indonesia, which is conducted together with the Japanese 

Scholars of Kyoto University. Throughout all of his careers, more than 30 scientific 

papers have been written and published in the national and international journals, 

either written alone or with other scholars. In the period of 2011-2013 he worked as 

one of Lead Authors of 2013 Supplement to the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: 

Wetlands. He was invited by the Department of Palynology and Climate Dynamics, 

Georg-August-University of Gottingen, Germany as Visiting Research Scholar during 

the period of January-February 2013 to study History of Peat Deposits in Indonesia. 

During the period of April 2013 to March 2014 he worked as Visiting Professor at 

Graduate School / Faculty of Agriculture, Kyoto University to conduct teaching and 

research titled: Carbon Management in the Tropical Peatlands. 

II. His Careers / Experiences in Detail 

Education Background 

[1] PhD, Tropical Agriculture/ Soil Science (Kyoto Univ., Japan) 1988 

[2] Master, Tropical Agriculture/Soil Science (Kyoto Univ., Japan) 1985 

[3] Sarjana1 ) in the field of Soil Science (IPB, Indonesia) 1974 

Careers in Academic-Work 

[1] Visiting Professor at Graduate School of Agriculture/Faculty 

of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Japan (one year) ............. 2013-2014 

[2] Visiting Research Scholar at the Department of Palynology 

and Climate Dynamics, Georg-August-University of Gottingen, 

Germany ............................................................... Jan-Feb 2013 

[3] Visiting Research Scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian 

Studies, Kyoto University, Japan ................................. Mar-Aug 2009 

[4] Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture, IPB ......................... 2003-2007 

[5] Professor at the Dept. of Soil Science & Land Resource, IPB 2000-present 

[6] Vice Rector of IPB .................................................. 1999-2003 

[7] Chairman of the Dept. of Soil Science, IPB ........................... 1996-1999
 

[8] Head of the Laboratory of Soil Chemistry and Soil Fertility, 

Dept. of Soil Science, IPB ..................................................... 1994-2002 

[9] Visiting Research Scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian 

Studies, Kyoto University, Japan (one year) .................. 1993-1994 

[10] Vice Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture, IPB ................... 1990-1993 

[11] Faculty Member of the Dept. of Soil Science and Land 

Resource, IPB ......................................................... 1975-2000 

Research Experiences 

[1] Improving the productivity of lands on sustainable development
 

of Telang’s Integrated Autonomous-Region (KTM). Sponsored
 

by Ministry of Man Power and Transmigration, RI in collaboration with IPB ............................................................ 2012 

[2] Low carbon development strategies of Bengkalis District, Riau 

Province that reduces pressure on peatland ecosystems ............ 2011 

[3] Management model for improving the productivity of lands
 

on sustainable development of freshwater swamp areas based
 

on local resources. Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, RI in
 

1 ) Education program for “Sarjana degree” in IPB, in the period of 1968-1972, was six years. 

CV-Supiandi SABIHAM – Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

 

collaboration with IPB (KPP3T) .................................................. 2010-2011
 

[4] An adaptive socio-entropy system: Balancing economic endeavors and socio-ecological dynamics at a Palm Oil Plantation in 

Indonesian peatlands. Sponsored by the Toyota Foundation..... 2009-2010 

[5] Increasing the synergetic role of	 Brachiaria’s root exudates, 

mycorrhiza, and compost of rice straw that was enriched by K 

for reducing Al content in soil and increasing cassava starch. 

Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, RI in collaboration with 

IPB (KPP3T) .............................................................................. 2009-2010 

[6] Study on the ecological and technological aspects of peat lands 

for sustainable agriculture. Sponsored by Agricultural Research 

& Development Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, the Republic 

of Indonesia (RI).......................................................................... 2008-2012 

[7] An Ecofarming model for sustainable farming on upland agricultural landuse areas. Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, 

RI in collaboration with IPB (KPP3T) ........................................ 2008-2009 

[8] Analysis of food-crop-based integrated farming system in the 

upland and lowland areas of South Cianjur. Sponsored by 

Ministry of Agriculture, R .................................................. 2004-2007 

[9] Improving peat productivity for paddy field by using mineral 

soil which has high content of Fe3+. Sponsored by Ministry of 

Agriculture, RI............................................................................ 2001-2004 

[10] Stability condition and the processes of destabilization of the 

Indonesian tropical peat. Sponsored by URGE Project, DGHE 

Ministry of Education and Culture, RI................................ 1999-2001 

[11] Controlling toxic organic-acid reactivity for increasing the peat 

productivity. Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, RI............. 1995-1998 

[12] Controlling methane emission from the Indonesian paddy soil. 

Sponsored by Osaka Gas Foundation, Japan. ...................... 1994-1997 

[13] Ecological changes and landuse transformation in tidal swamplands of Sumatra. Sponsored by Toyota Foundation, Japan. .... 1989-1992 

[14] Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and Borneo 

(PhD Dissertation, Kyoto University). Sponsored by Ministry 

of Education and Culture, Japan...................................... 1985-1988 

Work Experience in Extension 

[1] Member of the Lead Authors of 2013 Supplement to the 2006 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines 

For National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands ................. 2011-2013 

[2] Assessment of the Merauke Integrated Farming for Food and 

Energy (MIFFE) in Papua; sponsored by WWF ...................... 2010 

[3] Assessment of tidal swamp lands in Sumatra for new settlements 

of transmigration; sponsored by Ministry of Public Works ......... 1975-1982 

[4] Site Manager in order to assist the farmers in new settlements of 

transmigration of the Berbak Delta, Jambi in conducting soil 

cultivation for food and plantation crops; sponsored by Ministry 

of Public Works .......................................................... 1973-1974 

Society/Organization Activities 

[1] President of the Indonesian Peat Society.......................... 2012-present 

[2] President of the Kyoto Univ. Alumni (HAKU) in Indonesia... 2007-2009 

[3] Secretary General of Agricultural Higher Education Forum in 

CV-Supiandi SABIHAM – Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 

Indonesia................................................................. 2005-2007 

[4] Vice President of Int’l Society for Southeast-Asia Agricultural 

Sciences (ISSAAS).................................................... 2004-2007 

[5] President of the Indonesian Soil Science Society .................. 2003-2007 

[6] Vice President of the Indonesian Peat Society ..................... 2001-2005 

[7] Secretary General of the Indonesian Soil Science Society......... 1999-2003 

[8] Member of the Indonesian Peat Society.............................. 1988-present 

[9] Member of the Indonesian Soil Science Society................... 1975-present 

Selected publication 

[1] Supiandi, S., M. Setiari, T. Watanabe, S. Funakawa, U. Sudadi, and F. Agus. 

2014. Estimating the relative contribution of root respiration and peat decomposition to the total CO2 flux from peat soils at an oil palm plantation in 

Sumatra, Indonesia. J. Trop. Agri. (in press) 

[2] Supiandi, S., S.D. Tarigan, Hariyadi, I. Las, F. Agus, Sukarman, P. Setyanto 

and Wahyunto. 2012. Organic Carbon Storage and Management Strategies 

for reducing carbon emission from peatlands: Case study in oil palm plantation 

in West and Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Pedologist 55(3):426-434. 

[3] Hafif, B., S. Supiandi, I. Anas, A. Sutandi and Suyamto. 2012. Impact of 

brachiaria, arbuscular mycorrhiza, and potassium enriched rice-straw-compost 

on aluminum, potassium and stability of acid soil aggregates. J. Agric. Sci. 

13(1):27-34. 

[4] Maswar, O. Haridjaja. S. Supiandi, and M. van Noordwijk. 2011. Carbon 

loss from several landuse types on tropical peatland drainage (in Indonesia). J. 

Tanah dan Iklim 34:13-25. 

[5] Supiandi, S and U. Sudadi. 2010. Indonesian peatlands and their ecosystem 

unique: A science case for conservation and sound management. Proceedings 

the International Conference on Soil Fertility and Productivity – Differences of 

Efficiency of Soils for Land Uses, Expenditures and Returns held at Humboldt 

University, Berlin-Germany, March 17-20, 2010. 

[6] Handayani, E.P., K. Idris., S Supiandi, S. Djuniwati, and M. van Noorwijk. 

2010.. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission of oil palm plantation on West Aceh 

Peat: The effects of various water table depths on CO2 emission. J. Tanah 

Trop. Vol.15 No.3. 

[7] Sudadi, U. S. Supiandi, A.Sutandi, and S. Saeni. 2008. In situ inactivation of 

cadmium (Cd) pollution in arable soils using ameliorants snf fertilizers at 

rational dosage for crop cultivation (in Indonesian) J. Tanah Trop. 13(3):171-

178.. 

[8] Nursyamsi, D., K. Idris, S. Supiandi, D.A. Rachim, and A. Sofyan. 2007. 

Dominant soil characteristics that effect on available K at smectitic soils (in 

Indonesian) J. Tanah dan Iklim 26:13-28. 

[9] Indriyati, L.T., S. Supiandi, L.K. Darusman, R. Situmorang, Sudarsono, and 

W.H. Sisworo. 2007. Nitrogen transformation in flooded soil: Application of 

rice straw and rice straw composts and its effect on nitrogen uptake and 

acetylene reduction activity in rice plant rhizosphere (in Indonesian) J. 

Tanah dan Iklim 26:63-70. 

[10] Subiksa, I.G.M., S. Supiandi, Sudarsono, and J.S. Adiningsih. 2006. The 

relationship between the Q-I value of potassium with nutrient absorption and 

growth of maize (in Indonesian) J. Penel. Pert. Terapan 5(2):197-204. 

CV-Supiandi SABIHAM – Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

[11] Muhammad, H. S. Supiandi, A. Rachim, and H. Adijuwana. 2005. Transformation rate of sulfur to sulfate at three kinds of soil with the treatment of 

without and with organic matter (in Indonesian) J. Tanah dan Lingkungan 

7(1):15-21. 

[12] Supiandi, S. 2004. Ecological issues of the Mega Rice Project: Case study of 

swampland development in Central Kalimantan. pp. 73-87. In Furukawa, H. 

et al. (eds.), Destruction, Health, Development: Advancing Asian Paradigms. 

Kyoto Univ. Press and Trans Pacific Press. 638p. 

[13] Hartatik, W., K. Idris, S. Supiandi, S. Djuniwati, and J.S. Adiningsih. 2004. 

Increasing the bounded-P in peat added by mineral materials and rock 

phosphate (in Indonesian) J. Tanah dan Lingkungan. 6(1):22-30. 

[14] Pujiyanto, Sudarsono, A. Rachim, S. Supiandi, A. Sastiono, and J.B. Baon. 

2003. Influence of organic matter and kind of cover crops on the form of soil 

organic matter, the distribution of soil aggregate, and growth of cacao (in 

Indonesian). J. Tanah Trop. 17:75-87. 

[15] Mario, M.D., and	 S. Supiandi. 2002. The use of mineral soil enriched by 

materials containing higher of Fe3+ as ameliorant in order to increase the rice 

production and peat stability (in Indonesian). J. Agroteksos 2(1):35-45. 

[16] Supiandi, S. 2001. Increasing the productivity of the Indonesian tropical peat 

through controlling several toxic phenolic acids J. Agrivita. 22:170-176. 

[17] Supiandi, S. 2000. Critical water content of the Center Kalimantan’s peat in 

relation with irreversible drying (in Indonesian) J. Tanah Trop. 11:21-30. 

[18] Supiandi, S., and N.B.E. Sulistyono. 2000. Studies on several inherent properties and behavior of peat: Losses of CO2 and CH4 through the processes of 

reduction-oxidation (in Indonesian). J. Tanah Trop. 10:127-135. 

[19] Supiandi, S., and Riwandi. 2000. The relationship between total iron with 

humification degree and derivative phenolic acids in peat of Jambi and Center 

Kalimantan (in Indonesian). J. Agrista. 4(1):10-16. 

[20]	 Supiandi, S. 1998. Several toxic phenolic acids in peat of Sumatra and 

Kalimantan (in Indonesian). In, Prosiding Seminar Nasional IV Kimia 

dalam Industri dan Lingkungan. 

[21] Supiandi, S. 1997. The use of selected cations for controlling toxic phenolic 

acids in peat (in Indonesian) J. Ilmu Pert. 7(1):1-7. 

[22] Supiandi, S., S. Dohong, and T. Prasetyo. 1997. Phenolic acids in Indonesian 

peat. pp. 289-292. In, Riley, J.O., and S.E. Page (eds.), Biodiversity and 

Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands. Smith Settle, UK. 

[23] Husin, Y., D. Murdiyarso, M.A.K. Khalil, R.A. Rasmusen, M.J. Shearer S. 

Supiandi, A. Sunar, and H. Adijuwana. 1995. Methane flux from Indonesian 

wetland rice: The effect of water management and rice variety. Chemosphere 

31(4):3153-3180. 

[24] Kusmana, C., and S. Supiandi. 1992. An estimation of above ground tree 

biomass of mangrove forest in East Sumatra, Indonesia. Tropics 1(4):234-257. 

[25] Kusmana, C., and S. Supiandi. 1991. Soil as a factor influencing mangrove 

forest community occurrence in Talidendang Besar, Riau. Media Komunikasi 

3(3):49-56. 

[26] Supiandi, S. 1990. Studies on the Holocene peat deposits in the coastal plains 

of Jambi, South Kalimantan, and Brunei: Research based on fossil pollen 

analysis (in Indonesian). Geol. Indon. 13(1):37-61. 

[27] Muhadiono, I., S. Supiandi, I. Mansjoer, and M.U. Garcia. 1990. Agroforestry 

technology: Rhizobium and endomycorrhizal infections in the root of Albazia 

procera (Roxb.) Benth., as biofertilizer for the future. Agroforestry and Tech. 

39:107-114 (Biotrop Spec. Publ.) 

CV-Supiandi SABIHAM – Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6
 

[28]	 Supiandi, S. 1990. Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and 

Borneo: IV. A study of the floral composition of peat in the coastal plains of 

Brunei. Southeast Asian Studies 27(4): 461-484. 

[29]	 Supiandi, S. 1989. Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and 

Borneo: III. Micro-morphological study of peat in the coastal plains of Jambi, 

South Kalimantan, and Brunei. Southeast Asian Studies 27(3): 339-351. 

[30] Supiandi, S., and B. Sumawinata. 1989. Studies on peat in the coastal plains 

of Sumatra and Borneo: II. The clay mineralogical composition of sediments 

in the coastal plains of Jambi and South Kalimantan. Southeast Asian Studies 

27(1): 35-54. 

[31]	 Supiandi, S. 1988. Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and 

Borneo: I. Physiography and geomorphology of the coastal plains. Southeast Asian Studies 26(3): 308-335. 

[32] Supiandi, S., and H. Furukawa. 1987. Stratigraphy and geomorphology of the 

coastal swampy lands in the lower Batang Hari river basin of Jambi, Sumatra, 

pp. 65-74. In, Thiramongkol, N (ed.), Proceedings of the Int’l Workshop on 

Economic Geology, Tectonic, Sedimentary Processes and Environment of the 

Quaternary in Southeast Asia. Department of Geology, Chulalongkorn Univ. 

[33] Supiandi, S., and H. Furukawa 1986. A study of floral composition of peat in 

the lower Batang Hari river basin of Jambi, Sumatra. Southeast Asian Studies 

24(2):113-132. 

[34] H. Furukawa, and S. Supiandi. 1985. Agricultural landscape in the lower 

Batang Hari: I. Stratigraphy and geomorphology of coastal swampy lands 

(written in Japanese). Tonan Ajia Kenkyu 23(1): 3-37. 

Bogor, May 23, 2014 

Supiandi SABIHAM 

CV-Supiandi SABIHAM – Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CV Arina Schrier
 

Arina Schrier 

Personal data 

Name: Adriana Pia Schrier-Uijl 

Gender: Female 

Nationality: Dutch 

Country of Birth: the Netherlands 

Date of Birth: November 4th 1974 

Address: Bovenbuurtweg 66 

6721 MN, Bennekom, The Netherlands 

Company name: CEIC (Climate and Environment International Consultancy) 

Email: Arina.schrier@ceic.org 

Telephone: +31 614470780 

Work experience 

2010-currently Owner of CEIC (Climate and Environmental International Consultancy), Bennekom 

2010-currently Associate Expert Climate and Environment, Wetlands International, Ede 

2005-2010 Ph.D. Wageningen University, Wageningen 

2003-2005 Junior soil specialist, Environmental Services Zuidoost Utrecht, Zeist 

1999-2001 X-ray technician, Gelderse Vallei hospital, Ede, Netherlands 

1993-1997 X-ray technician, Hospital Lievensberg, Bergen op Zoom, Netherlands 

Education 

2005-2010 Ph.D., Wageningen University, Wageningen 

Working on 1) spatial and temporal variability of greenhouse gas emissions in peatland ecosystems in 

the Netherlands, 2) the upscaling of fluxes based on regression models 3) improvement of measurement 

and upscaling techniques 4) estimates of total carbon balances in managed and unmanaged peat areas 

5) Implementation of results in policy. 

1997-2003 M.Sc. soil science, hydrology and meteorology, Wageningen University, Netherlands and 

Univ. of Saskatchewan, Canada 

Thesis 1 and practical period: Carbon distribution and sediment redistribution in a Canadian pothole 

landscape 

Thesis 2 : Management, Soil Structure and Organic Matter Dynamics in Dutch agricultural landscapes 

1993-1997 Medical visual Techniques, Fontys Hogescholen, Eindhoven, Degree for X-ray technician 

Relevant experiences in past 2 years 

CEIC 

2014-current: Exploring possibilities for peatland rewetting schemes under Goldstandard 

2012-current: Associate expert Climate and Environment at Wetlands International, tasks include 

involvement as independent expert (reviewer) in the EU, UNFCCC, IPCC, EPA, RSB, RSPO and work 

related to REDD(+) activities and implementation. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012-current. Expert reviewer of the IPCC Wetlands Supplement
 

2012-current. Various tasks related to life cycle analysis.
 

2013-current. Involvement in RSPO, including various tasks related to GHG emissions reporting,
 

peatland conservation and rehabilitation, carbon sequestration options and carbon accounting, carbon
 

and GHg emission monitoring, reviewer and (past) working group membership (peatland working group
 

and emissions reduction working group).
 

Wetlands International Indonesia Programme, IND
 

2012-current. On behalf of Wetlands International part of a multi-disciplinary, scientific team of 12
 

people developing GHG emission and carbon sequestration methodologies (under VCS) for peatland
 

conservation and restoration projects (for avoiding deforestation, forest degradation and peat soil 

degradation in tropical regions).
 

For RSPO/ Wetlands International Head Quarters, MAL/NL
 

2011-2013. Preparation of a scientific review on environmental and social impacts of oil palm cultivation
 

on tropical peat. This report is commissioned by the Peatland Working Group (PLWG) of the RSPO and
 

provides an independent review of available scientific information on impacts of the use of tropical
 

peatlands for oil palm cultivation in Southeast Asia. The report provides recommendations for reducing
 

negative impacts.
 

For RSPO/ Wetlands International Head Quarters, MAL/NL
 

2012-2013. Preparing a document on currently available methods for determining greenhouse gas
 

emissions and carbon stocks from oil palm plantations and their surroundings in tropical peatlands. This
 

report was commissioned by the peatland workgroup of the RSPO and provides insight in measuring,
 

reporting and verifying carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. The report
 

presents gaps in knowledge, uncertainties and recommendations.
 

For Brinkmann Consultancy, NL
 

2011. Reviewing and helping to improve a (excel based) CIPO (Carbon Impact of Palm Oil)-tool that can
 

be used to calculate the carbon footprint of palm oil production in a specific situation (e.g. on the level
 

of an estate, a company, a region or a country), and can support the decision making processes. The tool
 

focusses on the oil-palm-production-system. It includes the growing of palms, the processing of FFB’s
 

and potential land use change. It excludes transport, processing and use of CPO outside the the estate.
 

For Shelll , NL
 

2011. Assisting in preparing a document on wetlands and biofuels - impact of the global increase in
 

biofuel use on the biodiversity, water and carbon resources of wetlands’. The purpose of this fact book
 

is to support the development of criteria and standards for biofuels and their production, in order to
 

produce fuels that are truly a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. The focus of the document is on
 

palm oil, rape seed and soya.
 

For Quantis/Epagma, FRA
 

2011-2012. Act as external reviewer of a Comparative life cycle assessment of peat and major growing
 

media constituents.
 

Publications in scientific journals 

Schrier-Uijl, A.P. et al (Biogeosciences Discussion, 2014, in preparation): Agricultural peatlands; towards 

a greenhouse gas sink. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Veraart, A.J., Leffelaar, P.A., Berendse, F., Veenendaal, E.M (2011). Release of CO2 and 

CH4 from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry, doi:10.1007/s10533-010­

9440-7. 

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. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Kroon, P.S., Hensen, A., Leffelaar, P.A., Berendse, F. & Veenendaal, E.M. (2009). 

Comparison of chamber and eddy covariance based CO2 and CH4 emission estimates in a 

heterogeneous grass ecosystem on peat, Agric. For. Meteorol., doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.11.007. 

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Veenendaal, E.M., Leffelaar, P.A., van Huissteden, J.C., Berendse, F. (2010). Methane 

emissions in two drained peat agro-ecosystems with high and low agricultural intensity. Plant Soil, 

doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0180-1. 

Jacobs, C.M.J., Jacobs, F.C., Bosveld, F.C., Hendriks, D.M.D., Hensen, A., Kroon, P.S., Moors, E.M., Nol, L., 

Schrier-Uijl, A.P. et al. (2007). Variability of annual CO2 exchange from Dutch grasslands. Biogeosciences, 

4, pp. 803–816. 

Veenendaal, E.M., Kolle, O., Leffelaar, P.S. Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Van Huissteden, J., Van Walsem, J., Möller, 

F. & Berends, F., (2007). CO2 exchange and carbon balance in two grassland sites on eutrophic drained 

peat soils. Biogeosciences, 4, pp. 1027-1040. 

Bedard-Haughn, A., Jongbloed, F., Akkerman, J., Uijl, A., et al. (2006). The effects of erosional and 

management history on soil organic carbon stores in ephemeral wetlands of hummocky agricultural 

landscapes. Geoderma 135, pp. 296-306. 

Pulleman, M.M., Six, J., Uijl, A, et al. (2005). Earthworms and management affect organic matter 

incorporation and microaggregate formation in agricultural soils. Applied Soil Ecology 29, 1, pp. 1-15. 

Uijl, A., Didden, W., Marinissen, J. (2002). Earthworm activity and decomposition of C-14-labelled grass 

root systems. Biology and Fertility of Soil, 36, pp. 447-455. 

Other publications 

A.P. Schrier-Uijl et al, on behalf of the PLWG-RSPO and Wetlands International: Environmental and 

social impacts of oil palm cultivation on tropical peat in SE Asia – a scientific review (2013). 

A.P. Schrier-Uijl et al, on behalf of the PLWG-RSPO and Wetlands International : Available methods for 

determining greenhouse gas emissions and carbon stocks from oil palm plantations and their 

surroundings in tropical peatlands (2013). 

A.P. Schrier-Uijl, P.S. Kroon, D.M.D. Hendriks, P. A. Leffelaar, F. Berendse and E.M. Veenendaal (2009): 

How the methane balance changes if agricultural peatlands are transformed into wetland nature and 

how this transformation influences the total carbon balance – contribution to Cost Action ES0804. In: 

Water in a Changing Climate, 6th international Scientific Conference on the Global Energy and Water 

Cycle and 2nd Integrated Land Ecocystem – Atmosphere Processes Study (iLEAPS) Science Conference. 

Australia, Melbourne. 
APPENDIX D
 

MATERIALS PROVIDED TO THE PEER-REVIEW PANEL
 

D-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Work Product for Peer Review: 

Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Palm Oil Cultivation
 

May 15, 2014 

Introduction: 

In January 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a Notice of Data Availability 

Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program 

(the “January 2012 NODA”).1 As part of the January 2012 NODA, the EPA sought comment on its 

analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with palm oil-based biodiesel and 

renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels reduce GHG emissions by 17% and 11%, 

respectively, compared to the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the !gency’s analysis, these biofuels 

would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold and thus would not qualify for 

the RFS program, with limited exceptions.2 One of the major sources of GHG emissions in the EP!’s 

analysis for the January 2012 NODA was emissions from development of palm oil plantations on tropical 

peat soils, which requires the peatlands to be drained in advance of plantation establishment. In this 

peer review EPA is requesting scientific input about the !gency’s assessment of the average annual GHG 

emissions from tropical peatlands over the first thirty years resulting from the draining of the land for 

production of palm oil (the “peat soil emission factor”) for use in EP!’s lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oilbased biofuels. 

Background: 

EP!’s analysis of palm oil-based biofuels for the January 2012 NODA estimated significant indirect 

emissions from land use changes, such as emissions resulting from drained organic peat soils preceding 

the development of new palm oil plantations. To estimate such emissions, the Agency projected the 

extent (area in hectares) by which peat soil drainage increased in a scenario with more palm oil biofuel 

production compared to a baseline scenario. This estimated area was multiplied by a peat soil emission 

factor, a coefficient quantifying the emissions in tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per hectare (ha) of 

drained peat soil, to obtain the total GHG emissions from the expansion of peat soil drainage. 

For the January 2012 NODA, EPA used a peat soil emission factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxideequivalent3 per hectare per year (tCO2e/ha/yr) over thirty years.4 EPA chose this emission factor after a 

thorough survey of the literature. We are conducting further review of the scientific literature to 

determine whether new information warrants revisiting our choice of emission factor. Considering the 

1 U.S. EPA. 2012. Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the RFS 

Program. January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4300. 

2 A baseline volume of fuel produced from facilities that commenced construction prior to December 20, 2007 

may qualify as renewable fuel even if it fails to achieve 20% greenhouse gas reduction (40 CFR 80.1403). 

3 EP!’s emission factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of O2. Carbon stock 

changes from clearing standing vegetation such as trees, roots and stumps were considered separately. 

4 Based on extensive public comment and peer review, in the March 26, 2010, RFS final rule (75 FR 14669) EPA 

decided to annualize land use change GHG emissions over 30 years for purposes of biofuel lifecycle GHG 

assessment. 

Page 1 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

comments received on the NODA and new articles published or provided to EPA, our objective is to use 

a peat soil emission factor that meets the following criteria: 

1.	 Estimates the impacts of tropical peat soil drainage on CO2 emissions from heterotrophic 

respiration of drained peat soils, excluding such emissions from root respiration. 

2.	 Includes all significant GHG emissions impacts resulting from drainage over a 30-year period 

following the drainage event, including any initial pulse of GHGs following drainage and loss of 

dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in drainage waters. 

3.	 Represents average emissions from the development of palm oil plantations on tropical peat soil 

across Southeast Asia. 

The first criterion is important because several studies that EPA has reviewed did not attempt to exclude 

CO2 emissions from root respiration. Respiration from roots must be excluded from the peat soil 

emission factor because they are not the result of peat soil drainage, i.e., they likely would have 

occurred anyway. The second criterion is important because EP!’s analysis seeks to estimate all 

significant emissions, including significant indirect emissions from land use changes. Many of the 

studies reviewed, particularly studies using a flux-chamber measurement technique, did not estimate 

the initial pulse of emissions immediately following drainage or the impacts of DOC. The literature 

suggests that such emissions sources are significant, and therefore they should be included in the 

emission factor used in EP!’s assessment. The third criterion is based on the fact that EPA seeks to use 

one peat soil emission factor to estimate average emissions from peat soil drainage across Southeast 

Asia, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia. Based on our review of the literature, we believe that the 

present science and data available are not sufficient to justify, for the purposes of EP!’s analysis, the use 

of different peat soil emission factors for different regions or peat soil types. Thus, we are working to 

develop an emission factor that represents average emissions impacts considering the average climatic, 

geophysical and other conditions found in tropical peatlands. 

Technical Analysis: 

Table 1, below, outlines the major studies EPA considered in choosing an emission factor for the January 

2012 NODA, as well as studies that were referenced by commenters. The table indicates how well each 

study meets some of EP!’s criteria and provides summary information about the spatial and temporal 

extent of measurements for the studies. 

Based on EP!’s review of the public comments5 and relevant literature, the Agency believes that the 

peat soil emission factor of 95 tCO2e/ha/yr, based on Hooijer et al. (2012), best meets our three criteria 

and is thus the most appropriate emission factor for EP!’s purposes, for the following reasons. 

Criterion #1: Estimates the impacts of tropical peat soil drainage on CO2 emissions from heterotrophic 

respiration of drained peat soils, excluding such emissions from root respiration. 

The subsidence-based approach used in Hooijer et al. (2012) excludes respiration from roots, 

which is difficult to do in flux-based studies. 

5 Public comments on the January 2012 NODA are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0542 

Page 2 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion #2: Includes all significant GHG emissions impacts resulting from drainage over a 30-year 

period following the drainage event, including any initial pulse of GHGs following drainage and loss of 

dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in drainage waters. 

Hooijer et al. (2012) was the only study to integrate carbon losses from the period of time 

immediately following drainage. The authors did so by measuring the impacts from the first 

years following drainage, when emissions are known to be highest. In contrast, flux chamberbased measurements can only measure emissions at the moment of measurement. The fluxbased studies that EPA reviewed took measurements over a relatively short period of time 

(generally weeks or months) many years after the initial drainage. 

The subsidence-based approach includes emissions from respiration of peat-derived DOC, which 

may be significant.6 In contrast, the flux approach does not capture loss of DOC because it only 

measures gases respired into the flux chamber, whereas DOC losses lead to offsite CO2 

emissions. 

Criterion #3: Represents average emissions from the development of palm oil plantations on drained 

tropical peat soil across Southeast Asia. 

Hooijer et al. (2012) evaluated the largest number of sampling locations of any study (>200 

total, with 167 under palm oil or acacia), with the exception of one newer study that has other 

limitations.7 

The study provided good temporal coverage of emissions, and its measurement of subsidence 

under acacia (2 years for most locations, 8 years for some) was among the longest-term studies 

published. (Three other studies evaluated longer sets of data, but these studies are less 

appropriate based on the EP!’s criteria. 

8

) The measurements on palm oil were conducted over 

one year, similar to many other studies, but measurements were made more frequently (every 

two weeks). 

The study was conducted on deep, organic-rich peat with very low mineral content that is 

typical of peatlands in Southeast Asia that have been converted to palm oil. 

The study was carried out in a region of central Sumatra that receives intermediate amounts of 

rainfall compared to other places in Southeast Asia, suggesting that these locations should have 

6 See, for example, Moore, S., C.D. Evans, S.E. Page, M.H. Garnett, T.G. Jon es, C. Freeman, A. Hooijer, A.J. Wiltshire, 

S.H. Limin, and V. Gauci (2013) Deep instability of deforested tropical peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon 

fluxes. Nature 493, 660-664. 

7 Couwenberg and Hooijer (2013) studied nine more locations than did Hooijer et al. (2012), but this study did not 

consider the original emissions pulse (see criterion #2 above) following drainage and thus is not as appropriate for 

EP!’s purposes. 

8 Couwenberg and Hooijer (2013) extended the measurements included in Hooijer et al. (2012) out to three years 

for both palm oil and acacia and found similar emissions but did not constrain the initial emissions pulse. Wösten 

et al. (1997) measured subsidence over several decades; however, this study did not measure bulk density or 

carbon content and thus their emissions estimates are based on many assumptions. Othman et al. (2011) 

measured subsidence over 8 years; however, they used a relationship from Hooijer et al. (2010) to estimate 

emissions from subsidence. 

Page 3 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

intermediate levels of soil moisture and thus emissions representative of the average in the 

region.9 

Other support for the use of the emission factor value from Hooijer et al. (2012): 

The emissions determined by the study agreed very well with flux chamber-based 

measurements made on one of the same locations published in Jauhiainen et al. (2012). As 

such, the emission factor was supported by two distinct measurement techniques. Additionally, 

a new paper by Couwenberg and Hooijer (2013) also confirms the long-term (>5 years after 

drainage) emissions estimates by extending measurement of subsidence in these locations out 

to three years. This last study avoided the use of estimates of the percent of subsidence due to 

oxidation (versus physical processes) and thus removed one source of uncertainty in the Hooijer 

et al. (2012) emission factor. 

The emission factor of 95 tCO2e/ha/yr was recommended for a 30-year time period by Page et 

al. (2011) in their review of the literature on peat surface GHG emissions from palm oil 

plantations in Southeast Asia. 

The study was peer reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal. 

EPA recognizes that the emission factor based on Hooijer et al. (2012) is among the highest published, 

but we believe this study is still the most appropriate for use in our lifecycle analysis of palm oil biofuels. 

There are legitimate reasons for this emission factor to be among the highest published because Hooijer 

et al. (2012) was the only study to consider two factors that we believe should be included as part of 

EP!’s analysis. Specifically, as stated above, this study was the only one to include the pulse of emissions 

during the first years following drainage and was one of the only studies to include GHGs emitted via a 

DOC pathway. 

Furthermore, we believe that although this emission factor is among the highest published, it is still 

likely a conservative representation of the net effect on GHG emissions from draining peat soils since it 

does not include emissions due to burning of drained peat during land clearing or via accidental fires. 

While such emissions are episodic and thus difficult to estimate, peat fires have been estimated to emit 

around 1000 tCO2/ha per event, with very large variability (Couwenberg et al., 2010). The emission 

factor based on Hooijer et al. (2012) also does not consider emissions that may occur on inadvertently 

drained peatlands adjacent to drained palm oil plantations. Taken altogether, our qualitative 

assessment of areas of uncertainty suggests that, even though this estimate falls at the high end of 

published values, it is more likely an underestimate than an overestimate of the total GHG emissions 

impact associated with draining tropical peatlands for palm oil development. 

Because this emission factor is an important piece of our lifecycle GHG emissions analysis, we are 

seeking additional input from the scientific community about whether the emission factor used by the 

EPA in the January 2012 NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment. 

9 ased on data from N!S!’s Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Satellite, 

http://pmm.nasa.gov/TRMM/TRMM-based-climatology 

Page 4 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

Literature consulted: 

Agus, F., Handayani, E., van Noordwijk, M., Idris, K., & Sabiham, S. (2010). Root respiration interferes 

with peat CO2 emission measurement. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil 

Solutions for a Changing World. Brisbane, Australia. 

http://www.iuss.org/19th%20WCSS/Symposium/pdf/0739.pdf 

Agus, F., Wahyunto, Dariah, A., Runtunuwu, E., Susanti, E. & Supriatna, W. (2012) Emission reduction 

options for peatlands in the Kubu Raya and Pontianak Districts, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of 

Palm oil Research, 24, 1378-1387. 

Agus, F., Henson, I.E., Sahardjo, B.H., Harris, N., van Noordwijk, M. & Killeen, T.J. (2013). Review of 

emission factors for assessment of CO2 emission from land use change to oil palm in Southeast Asia. In 

T.J. Killeen & J. Goon (eds.) Reports from the Technical Panels of the Second RSPO GHG Working Group, 

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil – RSPO, Kuala Lumpur. 

Ali, M., Taylor, D., & Inubushi, K. (2006) Effects of environmental variations on CO2 efflux from a tropical 

peatland in eastern Sumatra. Wetlands, 26,612-618. 

Couwenberg, J., Dommain, R. & Joosten, H. (2010). Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in 

south-east Asia. Global Change Biology, 16, 1715-1732. 

Couwenberg, J. & Hooijer, A. (2013) Towards robust subsidence-based soil carbon emission factors for 

peat soils in south-east Asia, with special reference to palm oil plantations. Mires and Peat, 12, 1-13. 

Dariah, A., Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. (2013) Root- and peat-based CO2 emissions from oil palm 

plantations, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, doi: 10.1007/s11027-013-9515-6 

Furukawa, Y., Inubushi, K., Ali, M., Itang, A.M. and Tsuruta, H. (2005) Effect of changing groundwater 

levels caused by land-use changes on greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peat lands. Nutrient Cycling in 

Agroecosystems, 71, 81-91. 

Hirano, T., Segah, H., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Takahashi, H., and Osaki, M. (2012) Effects of disturbances on 

the carbon balance of tropical peat swamp forests. Global Change Biology, doi: 10.1111/j.1365­

2486.2012.02793.x 

Hooijer, A., Page, S., Canadell, J.G., Silvius, M., Kwadijk, J., Wösten, H. & Jauhiainen, J. (2010) Current 

and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences, 7, 1505-1514. 

Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon 

loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9, 1053-1071. 

Husnain, Agus, F., Wigena, I.P., Dariah, A. & Marwanto, S. (in preparation) Peat CO2 emissions from 

several land use types in Indonesia. Manuscript provided to EPA by the Government of Indonesia. 

Page 5 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inubushi, K., Furukawa, Y., Hadi, A., Purnomo, E. & Tsuruta, H. (2003) Seasonal changes of CO2, CH4, and 

N2O fluxes in relation to land-use change in tropical peatlands located in coastal areas of South 

Kalimantan. Chemosphere, 52, 603-608. 

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 

Jauhiainen, J., Heikkinen, J., Martikainen, P., & Vasander, H. (2001) CO2 and CH4 fluxes in pristine peat 

swamp forest and peatland converted to agriculture in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Peat 

Journal, 11, 43-49. 

Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A., & Page, S. E. (2012). Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation on 

peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences, 9, 617-630. 

Kool, D.M., Buurman, P. & Hoekman, D.H. (2006) Oxidation and compaction of a collapsed peat dome in 

Central Kalimantan. Geoderma, 137, 217-225. 

Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. (2013) Is CO2 flux from palm oil 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 

Melling, L., Hatano, R. & Goh, K.J. (2005). Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of 

Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus, 57B, 1-11. 

Melling, L., Goh, K.J., Beauvais, C. & Hatano, R. (2007). Carbon flow and budget in a young mature palm 

oil agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on 

Tropical Peatland, Yogyakarta, 27-29 August 2007. 

Murayama, S. & Bakar, Z.A. (1996). Decomposition of Tropical Peat Soils. Japan Agricultural Research 

Quarterly, 30, 153-158. 

Othman, H., Mohammed, A.T., Darus, F.M., Harun, M.H. & Zambri, M.P. (2011) Best management 

practices for palm oil cultivation on peat: Ground water-table maintenance in relation to peat 

subsidence and estimateion of CO2 emissions at Sessang, Sarawak. Journal of Palm oil Research, 23, 

1078-1086. 

Page, S.E., Morrison, R., Malins, C., Hooijer, A., Rieley, J.O., & Jauhiainen, J. (2011) Review of peat 

surface greenhouse gas emissions from palm oil plantations in Southeast Asia. International Council on 

Clean Transportation (ICCT) White Paper Number 15, Indirect Effects of Biofuel Production Series. 

Setiawan, B.I. (unpublished) Study by Bogor Agricultural University. Study is preliminary so a manuscript 

was unavailable, but the study was cited in comments by Bogor Agricultural University. 

Page 6 of 10 
 

 

 

Setyanto, P., Susilawati, H.L., Rahutomo, S. & Erningpraja, D.L. (2010) CO2 emission from peat under 

palm oil plantation. International Palm oil Conference, 1-3 June 2010, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 

U.S. EPA. 2012. Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under 

the RFS Program. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 18, p. 4300, January 27, 2012. 

Wösten, J.M.H., Ismail, A.B. & van Wijk, A.L.M. (1997). Peat subsidence and its practical implications: A 

case study in Malaysia. Geoderma, 78, 25-36. 

Page 7 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Outline of studies consulted. The study used by EPA is in bold, and the studies most frequently recommended by commenters are 

italicized.10 

Study Method Peer 

Reviewed? 

Land 

Use? 

Info on 

Drainage 

Depth? 

Info on 

Drainage 

Time? 

Heterotrophic 

Respiration? 

Loss 

to 

DOC? 

Initial 

Pulse? 

# of 

Locations 

Years 

Measured 

Measurement 

Frequency 

Murayama & 

Bakar (1996) 

Flux Yes OP+ <10 <1 Once 

Jauhiainen et 

al. (2001) 

Flux Yes Ag Yes Yes 20-49 Periodica 

(>Monthly) 

Inubushi et al. 

(2003) 

Flux Yes Ag/F Yes <10 1 ~Monthly 

Furukawa et al. 

(2005) 

Flux Yes Ag/F Yes Yes <10 1 Monthly 

Melling et al. 

(2005) 

Flux Yes OP/F+ Yes Yesb <10 1 Monthly 

Ali et al. (2006) Flux Yes Ag/F Yes 10-19 <1 >Monthly 

Melling et al. 

(2007) 

Flux OP Yesb Yes <10 1 Monthly 

Agus et al. 

(2010) 

Flux ? OP Yesb <10 <1 <Monthly 

Setyanto et al. 

(2010) 

Flux ? OP/F Yes Yesb Yes 10-19 1 <Monthly 

Jauhiainen et 

al. (2012) 

Flux Yes Ac Yes Yes Yes ~100c 2 Monthly 

Marwanto & 

Agus (2013) 

Flux Yes OP Yes Yesb Yes 20-49 1 Periodica 

(>Monthly) 

Dariah et al. 

(2013) 

Flux Yes OP Yes Yesb Yes ~50c 1 Periodica 

(>Monthly) 

Husnain et al. Flux OP Yes Yesb Yes 20-49c,d 1 Periodica 

10 The studies listed in Table 1 include new and previously considered studies mentioned in comments to EPA, discussed in revi ew papers on this topic or provided to 

EPA by stakeholders. The table only includes studies that focused on estimating an emission factor based on experimental data via primary research or metaanalysis of primary studies. The table excludes a preliminary study mentioned in a comment by Bogar Agricultural University (Setiawan et al., unpublished) because 

a manuscript describing the study was not yet available, and several papers provided to EPA that did not derive a new peat so il emission factor (e.g., Agus et al., 

2012; Hirano et al., 2012). EPA also considered Kool et al. (2006), but because this study focused on the rapid collapse of a peat dome (i.e., over several months), 

rather than the long-term subsidence of peats (i.e., over many decades), we do not consider these results relevant to EP!’s purposes. 

Page 8 of 10 
 

 

Study Method Peer 

Reviewed? 

Land 

Use? 

Info on 

Drainage 

Depth? 

Info on 

Drainage 

Time? 

Heterotrophic 

Respiration? 

Loss 

to 

DOC? 

Initial 

Pulse? 

# of 

Locations 

Years 

Measured 

Measurement 

Frequency 

(in prep) (>Monthly) 

Wösten et al. 

(1997) 

Subsid. Yes ? Yes Yes Yes 10-19e 21 <Monthly 

Othman et al. 

(2011) 

Subsid. Yes OP Yes Yes Yes Yes 20-49 8 <Monthly 

Hooijer et al. 

(2012) 

Subsid. Yes OP/Ac Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes >100 2-8 (Ac), 1 

(OP) 

? Monthly (Ac) 

> Monthly (OP) 

Couwenberg & 

Hooijer (2013) 

Subsid. Yes OP/Ac Yes Yes Yes Yes >100 3 Monthly (Ac), 

>Monthly (OP) 

Hooijer et al. 

(2010) 

Meta Yes Many Yes Yes? 20-49 Variable 

Couwenberg et 

al. (2010) 

Meta Yes Many Yes Yes Yes Yes 20-49 Variable 

Agus et al. 

(2013) 

Meta Yes Many Yes? Yes? Yes 20-49 Variable 

IPCC (2014) Meta Yes OP Yes Yes Yes Yes No >100f Variable 

Notes:
 

Method. Flux = flux chamber method used, Subsid. = subsidence method used, Meta = meta -analysis of other studies.
 

Peer Reviewed. Yes = published in peer reviewed journal, Blank = not published in peer reviewed journal, ? = uncertainty rega rding peer review status.
 

Land Use. Land use at site during study period. OP = palm oil, Ag = agricultural, Ac = acacia, F = forest, + = additional land uses.
 

Info on Drainage Depth. Indicates whether the study discussed drainage depth at the site.
 

Info on Drainage Time. Indicates whether the study discussed when drainage occurred relative to the study period.
 

Heterotrophic Respiration. Indicates whether the study attempted to isolate heterotrophic respiration from peat soil, e.g., b y excluding root respiration.
 

Loss to DOC. Indicates whether the study captured emissions related to losses via DOC.
 

Initial Pulse. Indicates whether the study captured the initial pulse of respiration following drainage.
 

# of Locations. Number of sites sampled, including replicates at the same location. Grouped into bins for comparison.
 

Years Measured. Length of study period. Grouped into bins for comparison.
 

Measurement Frequency. Indicates how often measurements were taken. Grouped into bins for comparison.
 a Emissions were measured intensively for several periods of time per year, e.g. weekly for one month, every third month. Overall, the number of samplin g times
 

per year is greater than 12.
 b The paper provided information on plantation age but not explicitly on time since drainage.
 c Only includes chambers used to estimate heterotrophic respiration.
 d Only includes that part of the study that was not published in other papers. Number of locations was not clear from manuscri pt; number is an estimate.
 

Page 9 of 10 
 

 

e This study appears to have measured more locations, but only 17 were mentioned in the publication. 

f Number of locations is an estimate based on references cited by this study. 

Page 10 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charge Questions for Peer Review:
 

Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
 

May 15, 2014 

Instructions: 

Please review the attached Technical Work Product (TWP) and respond to the charge questions 

provided below. We ask that you organize your responses based on the structure of the charge 

questions provided. Please provide detailed explanations for all responses and provide citations as 

appropriate. 

Charge Questions: 

1.	 Overarching charge question: Given the three criteria outlined in the TWP and the estimates 

available in the literature, did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) choose the most 

appropriate value for the peat soil emission factor? If not, please provide a recommendation on the 

most appropriate peat soil emission factor to use in EP!’s analysis, with a detailed explanation. 

2.	 Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012): Some commenters have raised 

questions about particular values used in the Hooijer et al. (2012) study (e.g., organic carbon 

content and peat bulk density). Would you recommend that EPA use the overall approach and data 

published in Hooijer et al. (2012) but use a different value for: (a) organic carbon content, (b) peat 

bulk density, (c) the percent of subsidence due to oxidation, or (d) another parameter (please 

specify)? Please explain your recommendation and provide supporting documentation. 

3.	 Directionality of estimate: EPA recognizes that the Hooijer et al. (2012) study that forms the 

foundation of our estimate of peat soil emissions was conducted under specific circumstances. For 

example, it was conducted in a limited number of plantations on the island of Sumatra. For the 

reasons listed in the TWP, we believe this is the best available estimate of peat soil emissions, but 

we recognize that numerous factors could cause this estimate to be higher or lower than the 

average emission factor for peat soils drained for oil palm across Southeast Asia. Please discuss 

whether the emission factor value used by EPA (95 tCO2e/ha/yr) is likely to overestimate, 

underestimate (and if so by how much) or provide a plausible estimate of average greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions from peat soil drainage for oil palm across Southeast Asia. In particular, please 

discuss whether the following factors are likely to make EP!’s emission factor an overestimate or an 

underestimate: 

a.	 Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of 

degradation, etc). 

b.	 Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc). 

c.	 Differing water management practices at plantations. 

d.	 Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e.	 The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first five years 

after drainage. 

f.	 Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. 

g.	 Omission of emissions due to fire. (As discussed in the TWP, omission of this factor will 

cause EP!’s emission factor to underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments about 

how large this underestimation may be.) 

h.	 Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations. 

4.	 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report: IPCC (2014) lists a Tier 1 emission factor 

of 40 tCO2/ha/year for tropical drained oil palm plantations. This value does not include emissions 

for the first 6 years after drainage. However, studies have shown that a pulse of higher emissions 

occurs right after drainage. The IPCC report also gives a default DOC emission factor of 3 

tCO2/ha/yr. In addition, the IPCC gives guidance on quantifying emissions from fires. The report 

gives a default emission factor of 1701 gCO2/(kg dry matter burned) for tropical organic soil and a 

default dry matter consumption value of 155 t/ha for prescribed fires in the tropics.1 

a.	 Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40 

tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more 

detailed information? 

b.	 Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the first 

several years immediately following drainage? 

c.	 Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so, are 

the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EP!’s 

purpose? 

d.	 There are also erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and waterborne transport 

of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from autotrophic and 

heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded that at present the 

science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on CO2 emissions or 

removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you agree that the science on 

these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC and dissolved inorganic 

carbon in its peat soil emission factor? 

5.	 Additional input: Please provide any additional scientific information that you believe the EPA 

should consider regarding the !gency’s assessment of the average annual GHG emissions from 

draining tropical peatlands for palm oil cultivation for use in EP!’s lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oilbased biofuels. 

1 Putting these factors together yields 264 tCO2 per ha of prescribed burning. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E
 

PEER-REVIEW RESPONSES
 

Peer Review Response from Dr. Scott Bridgham, University of Oregon 

Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation 

1. Overarching charge question 

The EPA used the soil emission factor for conversion of tropical peatlands to oil palm 

(OP) cultivation from Hooijer et al. (2012). I thoroughly reviewed this paper, as well as a 

number of other estimates of soil CO2 emissions from drainage of peatlands in SE Asia. I am 

also quite familiar with the methods described in these papers for estimating soil CO2 emissions. 

Based upon my best professional judgment, the Hooijer et al. (2012) paper is the best estimate of 

soil CO2 emissions from tropical peatlands converted to OP cultivation, so I concur with the 

EPA’s decision on this matter. 

My assessment is based upon the following reasons. Hooijer et al. (2012) included 218 

locations monitored over multiple time points from one to three years, which more than doubled 

the extant dataset in Southeast Asia. The analysis was done very carefully, separating out the 

biological oxidation component of subsidence from the physical components, with the latter not 

producing CO2 emissions. They also captured the initial rapid flush of soil respiration after 

conversion to OP, which is rare in these types of studies. Bulk density was measured very 

carefully in this study using excavated soil pits (although a literature value for soil carbon 

content was used). The subsidence methodology is based upon minimal assumptions and only 

requires estimation of subsidence, consolidation and compaction, and soil carbon content within 

a peatland. A carefully done soil respiration study that separated the autotrophic and 

heterotrophic components of soil respiration at the same sites (Jauhiainen et al. 2012) gave 

essentially the same values as the subsidence method over the time period of measurement. 

A number of studies have been published using chamber-based methods that estimate 

substantially lower soil CO2 emissions from OP plantations (reviewed in Page et al. 2011a). 

Chamber-based estimates of soil respiration are inherently difficult to scale up to multi-year 

estimates of a soil emission factor at a landscape scale. Maybe most importantly, most estimates 

include respiration of live roots, and this is an unknown or poorly constrained portion of total 

soil respiration. Methods of isolating heterotrophic soil respiration such as trenching likely lead 

to large artifacts in the data that are difficult-to-impossible to quantify. Additionally, most soil 

respiration estimates in tropical OP plantations occurred only during a limited period of the day, 

were infrequent over the year, and were done for no more than one year (and often less). Also, 

E-1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

typically only a few locations were measured. So essentially a few dozens of heterogeneous (and 

potentially biased) hourly flux measurements were upscaled to years and large landscapes, with 

all of the inherent limitations in such an exercise. Consequently, I have little faith in such 

estimates. 

Other studies give similar rates of subsidence after the rapid consolidation phase early 

after drainage, supporting the results in this study (see review in Page et al. 2013). Couwenberg 

and Hooijer (2013) supplemented the sampling locations in Hooijer et al. (2012), added 

additional years of observation, and used a different subsidence-based technique to estimate the 

soil emission factor. The CO2 emission estimates more than five years after drainage are very 

similar (68 vs. 66 CO2eq ha-1 yr-1) between the two studies, adding further confidence in the 

results of Hooijer et al. (2012). 

2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012) 

The largest limitation to the Hooijer et al. (2012) study was that it was geographically 

limited, if intensively sampled within that area. As noted above, their long-term subsidence 

values appear to be very reasonable compared to other studies. Having taken many bulk density 

measurements in peat myself, I am impressed by the care they took in sampling bulk density 

with their deep soil pits. Hooijer et al. (2012) do a reasonable job of estimating the effect of bulk 

density and soil C estimates from the literature, and show that the effect on their estimates is 

small. If anything, their bulk density estimates are lower than many published values (e.g., Page 

et al. 2011b), and using higher initial bulk density measurements would only increase their soil 

CO2 emission factor. 

Given the straight-forwardness of the approach used in Hooijer et al. (2012) and the high 

quality of their data, there is no reason to believe that their calculated percent of subsidence due 

to oxidation is not correct. 

3. Directionality of estimate 

Overall, it is my impression from reading the appropriate scientific literature that the sites 

used by Hooijer et al. (2012) are relatively representative of SE Asian peatlands, and also of 

those areas that are converted into OP. Sumatra originally had 45% of all peatland swamp forest 

area in SE Asia (Schrier-Uijl et al. 2013), and it is an area of intensive conversion of those 

peatlands to OP (Page et al. 2011a). 

E-2
 
 

 

 

a.	 Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of 

degradation, etc.). 

It is likely that mineral content of peatlands will affect soil oxidation rates upon drainage, 

although I am uncertain of the directionality of that effect. The carbon content is a direct part of 

the estimate of soil CO2 emissions using the subsidence technique, so the effect of variation in 

that parameter is straight forward to estimate (they do so in Hooijer et al. 2012). The major effect 

of peat depth (unless very shallow) will likely be in the absolute amount of peat that is available 

for oxidation before water-table control is no longer effective (conceptually illustrated in Fig. 6 

of Page et al. 2011a). The extent of peat degradation will affect both bulk density and the amount 

of labile carbon available for oxidation, as illustrated by the decrease in oxidation over time after 

drainage. Increases in soil pH will also increase decomposition rates of soil organic matter (Ye et 

al. 2012). However, most SE Asian peatlands have deep, acidic, woody peats and are 

ombrotrophic (Page et al. 2011a; Schrier-Uijl et al. 2013), and thus they will likely resemble 

reasonably closely those studied by Hooijer et al. (2012). 

b.	 Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc.). 

Increasing precipitation and the evenness of that precipitation will be important controls 

over the regional water table level, and thus the effectiveness of drainage. This should affect soil 

CO2 emissions rate from OP plantations. However to my knowledge, the climate of Sumatra is 

not substantially different than other areas of high density of OP plantations on peat. 

c.	 Differing water management practices at plantations. 

A number of studies (e.g., Wösten et al. 1997; Couwenberg et al. 2010; Hooijer et al. 

2010) demonstrate a substantial effect of drainage level on soil subsidence and soil CO2 

emissions. Interestingly, this water table effect was not observed in Hooijer et al. (2013) in OP 

plantations, which they ascribed to a nitrogen fertilization effect. To my knowledge, the average 

water table depth in the sites studied by Hooijer et al. (2012) is quite representative of OP 

plantations. 

d.	 Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia). 

Soil CO2 emissions do not appear to be very different between these two land-use types if 

drainage is similar. 

E-3
 
 

 

 

 

e.	 The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first five 

years after drainage. 

I have confidence in the approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions 

during the first five years after drainage. In fact, it is based upon a very minimal set of 

assumptions that seem quite reasonable. 

f.	 Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. 

The published data strongly indicate that tropical peatlands have relatively low emissions 

of both methane and nitrous oxide. Conversion of natural peatlands into OP plantations will 

reduce the methane emissions and likely increase nitrous oxide emissions. However, the limited 

data on these emissions in OP plantations suggest that the effect is small relative to soil CO2 

emissions (Page et al. 2011a). 

g.	 Omission of emissions due to fire. (As discussed in the TWP, omission of this factor will 

cause EPA’s emission factor to underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments 

about how large this underestimation may be.) 

While highly episodic in nature, emissions due to fire are massive in SE Asian peatlands 

(range 86 to 387 Tg C yr-1 in Couwenberg et al. 2010, Hooijer et al. 2006, van der Werf et al. 

2008). Since drainage of peatlands directly leads to increased incidence of fires, it is my opinion 

that the EPA should consider them in the soil emission factor. 

h.	 Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations. 

Hooijer et al. (2012) suggest that incidental drainage of adjacent forests can cause large 

emissions of CO2, and thus they should be included in the soil emission factor in my opinion. 

4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report: 

a.	 Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40 

tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more 

detailed information? 

The recent IPCC Wetlands Supplement (2014) used a Tier 1 emission factor that was 

based on the average of chamber-based and subsidence-based estimates. Furthermore, they used 

a carbon gain-loss mass budget approach that subtracted autotrophic soil respiration and aboveand belowground litter inputs into the soil. While this is a conceptually correct mass balance 

approach, it has the same uncertainties as described above in my discussion of chamber-based 

measurements, and includes further uncertainties associated with estimating litter inputs (which, 

in my opinion, is an almost insurmountable difficulty for belowground inputs). It is clear from 

the text of the IPCC document (Annex 2A.1) that the authors were challenged by the difficulty of 

E-4
 
 

 

 

 

deriving the corrections necessary to calculate soil oxidation from flux measurements and were 

divided about the best approach to take. It is my professional opinion that the emission factor 

from Hooijer et al. (2012) is more accurate than that derived from the IPCC (2014). The 

approach of Hooijer et al. (2012) is imminently clearer and more defensible that an averaging of 

studies without regard to the quality of their data. Also, including the initial flush of carbon 

emissions after drainage would increase the IPCC estimate, although it would still be 

substantially lower than the one given in Hooijer et al. (2012). 

b.	 Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the 

first several years immediately following drainage? 

The answer to this questions seems to be obviously yes. The only reason to not do this 

would be if the data were not available, but that is not the case with the publication of the 

Hooijer et al. (2012) study. It would be better if more of this type of data were available for 

comparison, but to not include it would clearly underestimate soil CO2 emissions. 

c.	 Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so, 

are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA’s 

purpose? 

If the subsidence method is used, then it is not necessary to include DOC fluxes because 

they are already accounted for in the loss of soil carbon and mass. However if the soil respiration 

method is used, then it is necessary to include DOC fluxes. This somewhat nuanced distinction is 

described more clearly in 2006 IPCC Guidelines (IPCC 2006, p. 2.9) than in the 2013 Wetlands 

Supplement (IPCC 2014). 

As stated above, it is my opinion that a fire emission factor should be included. While the 

highly episodic nature of these fires makes including them in emission estimates to be 

controversial, numerous studies have shown that ignoring their massive emissions is even more 

problematic. I am unsure of the correct emission factor to use for this without substantial more 

reading of the underlying literature. 

E-5
 
 

 

 

 

d.	 There are also erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and waterborne 

transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from 

autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded 

that at present the science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on 

CO2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you 

agree that the science on these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC 

and dissolved inorganic carbon in its peat soil emission factor? 

As in item 4c for DOC, it is not necessary to account for POC and DIC losses if a stockbased approach is used (i.e., the subsidence method). To the extent that these losses are 

important (DIC losses may be particularly large, see Aufdemkampe et al. 2011), this is another 

reason that emission estimates based upon soil respiration would be lower than those based upon 

the subsidence method. I have not done an extensive literature search on the availability of POC 

and DIC losses from peatlands, or even more specifically in SE Asian peatlands converted to OP, 

but I doubt that much, if any, of such data exists. This is yet another reason that the gain-loss 

approach of the IPCC (of which soil respiration is but one component) is inappropriate for 

estimating emission factors in this particular case. 

5. Additional Input 

I have no further information to add beyond what I state above. 

E-6
 
 

 

 

 

 

References Cited 

Aufdenkampe, A. K., E. Mayorga, P. A. Raymond, J. M. Melack, S. C. Doney, S. R. Alin, R. E. 

Aalto, and K. Yoo. 2011. Riverine coupling of biogeochemical cycles between land, 

oceans, and atmosphere. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9:53-60. 

Couwenberg, J., R. Dommain, and H. Joosten. 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical 

peatlands in south-east Asia. Glob Chang Biol 16:1715-1732. 

Couwenberg, J. and A. Hooijer. 2013. Towards robust subsidence-based soil carbon emission 

factors for peat soils in south-east Asia, with special reference to oil palm plantations. 

Mires and Peat 12:1-13. 

Hooijer, A., M. Silvius, H. Wösten, and S. Page. 2006. PEAT-CO2, Assessment of CO2 

emissions from drained peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943. 

Hooijer, A., S. Page, J. G. Canadell, M. Silvius, J. Kwadijk, H. Wosten, and J. Jauhiainen. 2010. 

Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. 

Biogeosciences 7:1505-1514. 

Hooijer, A., S. Page, J. Jauhiainen, W. A. Lee, X. X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2012. 

Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053-1071. 

IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4 

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories Programme. Eggleston ,H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. and Tanabe, 

K. (eds). IGES, Japan. 

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.). IPCC, Switzerland 

Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S. E. Page. 2012. Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia 

plantation on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9:617-630. 

Page, S. E., R. Morrison, C. Malins, A. Hooijer, J. O. Rieley, and J. Jauhiainen. 2011a. Review 

of Peat Surface Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil Palm Plantations in Southeast Asia. 

White Paper 15, The International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC. 

Page, S. E., J. O. Rieley, and C. J. Banks. 2011b. Global and regional importance of the tropical 

peatland carbon pool. Global Change Biology 17:798-818. 

Schrier-Uijl, A. P., M. Silvius, F. Parish, K. H. Lim, S. Rosediana, and G. Anshari. 2013. 

Environmental and Societal Impacts of Oil Palm Cultivation on Tropical Peat: A 

Scientific Review. Reports from the Technical Panels of the 2nd Greenhouse Gas 

Working Group of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia. 

E-7
 
 

 

 

van der Werf, G. R., J. T. Randerson, G. J. Collatz, L. Giglio, P. S. Kasibhatla, A. F. Arellano, S. 

C. Olsen, and E. S. Kasischke. 2004. Continental-scale partitioning of fire emissions 

during the 1997 to 2001 El Nino/La Nina period. Science 303:73-76. 

Wösten, J. H. M., A. B. Ismail, and A. L. M. van Wijk. 1997. Peat subsidence and its practical 

implications: a case study in Malaysia. Geoderma 78:25-36. 

Ye, R., Q. Jin, B. Bohannan, J. K. Keller, S. A. McAllister, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012. pH 

controls over anaerobic carbon mineralization, the efficiency of methane production, and 

methanogenic pathways in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic gradient. Soil 

Biology and Biochemistry 54:36-47. 

E-8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peer Review Response from Dr. Kristell Hergoualc’h, Center for International Forestry 

Research (CIFOR) 

Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation 

1. Overarching charge question 

The 3 criteria outlined by the EPA are that the emission factor: 

1.	 Estimates the impacts of tropical peat soil drainage on CO2 emissions from 

heterotrophic respiration of drained peat soils, excluding such emissions from root 

respiration 

2.	 Includes all significant GHG emissions impacts resulting from drainage over a 30-

year period following the drainage event, including any initial pulse of GHGs 

following drainage and loss of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in drainage waters 

3.	 Represents average emissions from the development of palm oil plantations on 

tropical peat soil across Southeast Asia. 

First of all, it is not clear which reference is used by the EPA for its emission factor. Page 

2 of the technical work product mentions a “peat soil emission factor of 95 tCO2e ha-1 yr

-1, based 

on Hooijer et al. (2012)”. But the results for the oil palm plantation on peat studied by Hooijer et 

al. (2012) are: 109 tonnes CO2 ha-1 

yr

-1 for a 25-year time period or 94 tonnes CO2 ha-1 

yr

-1 for a 

50-year time period. Page 4 of the technical work product says that the emission factor of 95 

tCO2e ha 1 

yr

-1 

was recommended for a 30-year time period by Page et al. (2011) in their review. 

But the review by Page et al. (2011) was published before the Hooijer et al. (2012) study and 

refers to both oil palm and pulp wood plantations. 

Whatever the reference used (Page et al. (2011) or Hooijer et al. (2012)), the emission 

factor that the EPA proposes to adopt is based on a single study and thus definitely does not 

meet the ‘representativeness across Southeast Asia’ criterion. If the reference used is Page et 

al. (2011), it does not meet the ‘representativeness from the development of palm oil 

plantations’ criterion as pulp wood plantations are merged with oil palm plantations. 

I recommend the EPA to use the emission factors recently published by the IPCC. 

Chapter 2 (Drösler et al., 2014) of the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2014) reviewed extensively the existing literature, 

scrutinized the quality of the data and proposes emission factors that represent carbon losses in 

oil palm plantations on peat across Southeast Asia. The emission factors are: 

E-9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

■	 On-site CO2 emissions: 11 tonnes CO2-C ha-1 yr

-1 

or 40 tonnes CO2 ha-1 yr

-1 

■	 Off-site CO2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses: 0.82 CO2-C ha-1 yr

-1 or 3 tonnes 

CO2 ha-1 yr

-1 

■	 CO2 from prescribed fires: 71.9 tonnes CO2-C ha-1 or 264 tonnes CO2 ha-1 CO2 from 

wildfires: 163.8 tonnes CO2-C ha-1 or 601 tonnes CO2 ha-1 

The on-site emission factor integrates data from 10 sites, 9 different ages after drainage, 2 

countries, and includes both industrial and small holder plantations. The 10 sites include the oil 

palm plantation studied by Hooijer et al. (2012). Hence if the EPA judges that the study of 

Hooijer et al. (2012) meets the ‘initial pulse of GHGs following drainage’ criterion; implicitly the 

on-site emission factor of the IPCC also does. This initial pulse of emissions was in fact not 

measured by Hooijer et al. (2012) but artificially introduced in the C loss calculation. 

2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012) 

The subsidence method is an alternative to the conventional C stock change and C flux 

change approaches for estimating peat C losses following drainage and conversion. It assumes 

that most induced chemical and physical changes (compaction, shrinkage, organic matter/carbon 

loss) occur above the water table and that solely consolidation-induced subsidence takes place 

below the water table. The method hypothesizes that the relative contribution of the different 

factors leading to peat subsidence above the water table (compaction, shrinkage, organic 

matter/carbon loss) is detectable by observing changes or absence of changes in peat bulk 

density. It assumes that in a given volume of subsiding peat if no change in bulk density happens 

then all the volume is lost in the form of organic matter/carbon. This hypothesis is erroneous as 

all processes leading to organic matter/carbon loss also induce bulk density changes. The method 

requires peat bulk density data at the start and end of the subsidence monitoring period of 

several years; at the same site or using a nearby reference site that would represent the initial 

conditions (Hooijer et al., 2012). 

The study of Hooijer et al. (2012) was implemented in a mature oil palm plantation in 

Jambi that was drained on average 18 years prior to the start of the experiment. The authors 

specify that fire was used for land clearing before establishing the plantation. Subsidence 

measurements took place over a year at 42 monitoring points and bulk density measurements 

were undertaken at 10 locations. All measurements were done on average 18 years after drainage. 

There was no reference site representing the initial site condition. The authors assumed that 

the bulk density below the water table depth was representative of the initial bulk density 

before drainage. This assumption is not correct as bulk density varies with depth in undrained 

E-10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

peat swamp forests (Matthew Warren, personal communication). This variation is apparent on 

the bulk density profile of the primary forest in Figure D-1 of Hooijer et al. (2012) and is 

recognized by the authors themselves in section 4.5 of their publication. The authors 

hypothesized that subsidence during the first 5 years after drainage was more intense than 

afterwards and assigned to the oil palm plantation an initial (0-5 years) subsidence rate which 

was measured in an Acacia (N2 fixing tree which N inputs may promote peat mineralization) 

plantation with different history (e.g. no fire) and practices (e.g. no fertilization and high soil 

disturbance due to short rotation periods) than the oil palm plantation and located several 

hundred kilometers to the north in Sumatra. The assigned subsidence rate during the first 5 years 

was 28.4 cm y-1. Peat consolidation was assumed to take place over the first 3 years after 

drainage and was calculated as 25% of the subsidence (75 cm) during the first year in the 

Acacia plantation. These 25% and 3 years factors are arbitrary and not based on 

measurements. After removing the peat volume lost due to consolidation, the organic matter 

volume lost was calculated using the equations provided in section 2.5 of the article. These 

calculations used, as already mentioned, hypothetical initial bulk density values from below 

the water table. Organic matter losses were converted using a default peat C content value of 

55% which seems high when compared to values measured in Indonesian peat swamp forests 

(Warren et al., 2012). The final results indicated C losses of 119, 109 and 94 tonnes CO2 ha-1 

y

-1 

for 18-, 25- and 50-year time periods, respectively. 

Figure D-1. Variation of Hooijer et al. (2012)’s results of carbon loss rate 0-25 years after 

drainage as affected by the chosen value of bulk density before drainage (left), contribution 

of consolidation to subsidence 3 years after drainage (middle) and peat C content (right). 

Blue lines indicate the values assigned in the study, leading to C losses of 109 tonnes CO2 

ha-1 y-1 0 -25 years after drainage. 

Those results, which are based on a series of hypotheses and assumptions, evaluate 

peat total C losses including losses from prescribed fire(s) and particulate losses. The results 

E-11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hinge on the accuracy of the values chosen for key parameters such as bulk density before 

drainage, contribution of consolidation to subsidence or peat C content. A sensitivity 

analysis shows that an increase of 0.01 in the bulk density value before drainage induces an 

increase in the 0-25 year C loss rate of 23 tonnes CO2 ha-1 y

-1 (Fig. 1 left); an increase of 0.1 

(10%) in the contribution of consolidation to subsidence over the first 3 years after drainage 

induces a decrease in the 0-25 year C loss rate of 14 tonnes CO2 ha-1 y

-1 (Fig. 1 middle); and 

an increase of 0.05 (5%) in the peat C content induces an increase in the 0-25 year C loss rate 

of 10 tonnes CO2 ha-1 y-1 (Fig. 1 right).None of these three parameters was measured by the 

authors therefore it’s not surprising that commenters have raised questions about the values 

adopted. Using an initial bulk density value of 0.9 g cm-3 (average value cited by the authors in 

their discussion section 4.5), a consolidation contribution to subsidence of 75% instead of 25%, 

and a peat C content of 50% instead of 55% leads to C losses over 0-25 years of 50 tonnes CO2 

ha-1	 -1 y-1 rather than 109 tonnes CO2 ha-1y . 

I would not recommend the EPA to use the overall approach proposed by Hooijer et al. 

(2012) and change the values of some parameters. This approach is too sensitive to the chosen 

parameter values. I also would not recommend the EPA to base its emission factor exclusively on 

the Hooijer et al. (2012)’s study for the same reasons. 

3. Directionality of estimate 

The emission factor of 95 tonnes CO2 ha-1 y

-1 (which should actually be 109 tonnes CO2 

ha-1 

y

-1 if truly based on the reference mentioned) based on the single study of Hooijer et al. 

(2012) which calculated the highest C loss rate in oil palm plantation on peat in the scientific 

literature will likely overestimate the actual loss rate. All other studies carried out in oil palm 

plantations on peat show lower C loss rates. 

a.	 Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of
 

degradation, etc.).
 

Peat properties likely affect the C loss rate after conversion. The study of Othman et al. 

(2011), for instance, measured lower peat subsidence rates in shallow peats cultivated with oil 

palm than in deeper peats. The differences between the studied shallow and deep peat soils such 

as nitrogen content, C/N ratio, phosphorous, exchangeable bases, etc. are probably at the origin 

of the differences in subsidence rate. It could also be that the importance of consolidation is 

greater than previously thought and deep profiles experience ongoing consolidation for long 

periods of time. 

b.	 Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc.). 

E-12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To date there is no scientific evidence that rainfall patterns can influence peat C losses in 

converted tropical peatlands. 

c. Differing water management practices at plantations. 

The studies of Othman et al. (2011) and Wösten et al. (1997) (based on DID and 

LAWOO (1996)) found relationships between subsidence rate and ground water level in oil 

plantation on peat. These studies indicate increasing subsidence when the ground water level 

decreases. Field measurements of soil respiration in oil palm plantation on peat, on the other 

hand, do not correlate well with ground water level (Figure D-2). Laboratory incubations of peat 

from an oil palm plantation indicate that peat decomposition rate is related to water content via 

an optimum curve (Husnain et al., 2012). Peat respiration increases sharply from wet (100 % 

water-filled pore space (WFPS)) to moist soil (80 to 40 % WFPS), and decreases when soil dries 

(20 % WFPS).The peat WFPS in oil plantations is usually between 60 and 80%. 

Figure D-2. Annual soil respiration rate in oil palm plantations on peat as a function of the 

annual average ground water level. Soil respiration rates are from the studies of Melling et 

al. (2005); Comeau et al. (2013); Dariah et al. (2013); Marwanto and Agus (2013); Melling 

et al. (2013). The slope of the regression is not significant (P = 0.34). 

3 

0 y = -0.064x + 12.673

R2 = 0.0244 25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 

Ground water level 

-50 

0 

-40 

(cm) 

d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia). 

Soil respiration (Mg C ha-1 y -1 ) 

Acacia plantations on peat are confined in 2 regions of Sumatra (Riau and Jambi) whereas 

oil palm plantations on peat are spread over Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, Borneo and Papua. 

Acacia on peat is grown by industrial groups only while oil palm is cultivated half in an 

industrial way and half by small holders. Small holders usually drain their plantations less than 

E-13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

industrial groups. For all these reasons much more variability in C loss rate can be expected in oil 

palm than in Acacia plantations on peat. 

The recommended drainage depth for growing Acacia is higher than the one 

recommended for growing oil palm; which may lead to higher C losses in Acacia than in oil palm 

plantations on peat. In addition Acacia is an N2 fixing tree which N inputs to the soil may 

stimulate peat decomposition. Finally and very importantly the short rotation time (5-6 years) in 

Acacia plantations induce frequent extreme soil disturbance that may also enhance the 

decomposition of the peat. Soil respiration rate in Acacia plantations (29 tonnes C ha-1 

y

-1) is 

significantly higher than that in oil palm plantations on peat (17 tonnes C ha-1 y

-1) with, at the 

same time, a higher contribution of heterotrophic respiration to total respiration (Hergoualc’h and 

Verchot, 2013). 

Therefore the use of an emission factor developed for both plantation types will likely 

overestimate the C loss rate in oil palm plantations on peat. 

e.	 The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first five 

years after drainage. 

As already noted, this approach is highly hypothetical: 

■	 Subsidence rate over the 1st 5 years is from an Acacia plantation with different 

management and history and located elsewhere in Sumatra, 

■	 Consolidation is estimated to take place over 3 years and assumed to amount to 25% 

of the subsidence rate during the 1st year in the Acacia plantation. 

■	 Bulk density deep in the soil profile is assumed to represent pre-drainage bulk density 

over the whole profile. 

■	 No shrink swell effects of peat fibers affecting the short term measurements of peat 

elevation. 

f.	 Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. 

Methane emissions in oil palm plantations on peat seem negligible (Hergoualc’h and 

Verchot, 2013) and could indeed be omitted. Nitrous oxide emissions were barely measured. The 

only study available (Melling et al., 2007) assessed an emission rate of 1.2 kg N ha-1 

y

-1 but did 

not measure the high emissions expected following nitrogen fertilization. Given the high global 

warming potential of nitrous oxide I would recommend to take these emissions into account and 

use the IPCC emission factors: 

E-14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 kg N ha-1 

y

-1 (Drösler et al., 2014) + 1% N applied kg N ha-1 

y

-1 (IPCC, 2006) 

g.	 Omission of emissions due to fire. (As discussed in the TWP, omission of this factor will 

cause EPA’s emission factor to underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments 

about how large this underestimation may be.) 

Fire-induced emissions are extremely high and should be accounted for whenever a fire 

either prescribed or wild happens. The 2013 IPCC guidelines provide emission factors for both 

types of fires. 

h.	 Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations. 

The spatial extent of the impact of the drainage in the oil palm plantation on adjacent 

lands is difficult to estimate and will depend on the ground cover (forest, shrubland, cropland, 

etc.) of the adjacent land. I don’t think the current scientific knowledge on tropical peatlands 

allows integrating this impact in the emission factor. 

4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report: 

a.	 Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40 

tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more 

detailed information? 

The IPCC on-site CO2 emission factor for oil palm cultivation on peat of 40 tonnes CO2 

ha-1 

y

-1 integrates 10 sites (DID and LAWOO, 1996; Melling et al., 2005; Hooijer et al., 2012; 

Comeau et al., 2013; Dariah et al., 2013; Marwanto and Agus, 2013; Melling et al., 2013), 7 for 

which a soil flux balance approach (excluding root respiration) was applied and 3 for which the 

subsidence method was implemented. The ages of the plantations are 1 year (n =1), 4 years (n = 

1), 5 years (n = 1), 6 years (n = 1), 7 years (n = 2), 15 years (n = 1), 18 years (n = 1). For 2 of the 

subsidence sites the age of the palms is unknown but the study specifies that drainage started 12 

and 24 years, respectively, previous to the monitoring period. The sites are located both in 

Indonesia (n = 4) and Malaysia (n = 6), in industrial (n = 6) and small holder (n = 4) plantations 

and thus span the climate, peat properties and management variability existing in the region. The 

review done by the author team of the IPCC is, up to date, the most complete one and all 

available results in the literature were thoroughly scrutinized. There is no sound scientific 

justification for the EPA to exclude 9 of the 10 sites considered by the IPCC. Such an emission 

factor would certainly not meet criterion 3 set by the EPA. 

The high emissions during the first years following drainage are in some sense intuitive; it 

is also important to note that there is a significant physical restructuring of the peat profile as peat 

E-15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“matures” following drainage. Intact wood breaks down, peat compacts as buoyancy is lost, etc. 

There are no good data on CO2 fluxes to the atmosphere during this phase. 

b.	 Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the 

first several years immediately following drainage? 

The only study carried out in tropical peatlands measuring subsidence a few years after 

drainage is the one of Hooijer et al. (2012). The subsidence rate was observed to decrease from 

year 1 to year 6 after drainage in an Acacia plantation; not in an oil palm plantation. The 

corresponding C loss rate calculated by the authors heavily depends on a number of assumptions 

notably on the contribution of consolidation to subsidence in the first years after drainage 

(http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/8/C4429/2011/bgd-8-C4429-2011.pdf , see p. C4434; 

and see sensitivity analysis above). The study demonstrates indeed the pulse in subsidence after 

drainage but not the pulse in emissions. The study of Jauhiainen et al. (2012) which took place at 

the same Acacia plantation measured heterotrophic soil respiration rates in the first rotation 

transects (i.e. less than 5 years after drainage) of about 83 tonnes CO2 ha-1 

y

-1, which is about 

half the value of 178 tonnes CO2 ha-1 y

-1 calculated by Hooijer et al. (2012) for years 0-5 after 

drainage. Hence the consolidation in the first years may have been more important than estimated 

by the authors. The “emission pulse in the first several years immediately following drainage” 

still remains hypothetical and not based on sound scientific evidence. 

c.	 Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so, 

are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA’s 

purpose? 

The EPA could eventually merge the On- and Off- site emission factors of the IPCC but 

the emission factors for prescribed fires and wildfires should be kept apart to acknowledge site 

specific land use history. 

d.	 There are also erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and waterborne 

transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from 

autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded 

that at present the science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on 

CO2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you 

agree that the science on these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC 

and dissolved inorganic carbon in its peat soil emission factor? 

Yes, I agree. 

E-16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51 

5. Additional input: 

The literature review carried out by the EPA seems incomplete. A number of soil 

respiration studies were ignored. Hergoualc’h and Verchot (2013) made the list of publications 

that meet the IPCC quality criteria available at: 

http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/CIFOR/faces/study/StudyPage.xhtml?globalId=hdl:1902.1/223 

Some sentences in the technical work product (e.g. “In contrast, the flux approach does 

not capture loss of DOC because it only measures gases respired into the flux chamber”) suggest 

that the approach for calculating an emission factor using peat C fluxes is not fully understood by 

the EPA. The C flux approach calculates at different points in time the balance between the rate 

of C deposition and the rate of C decomposition and other losses. Carbon enters the peat through 

above and belowground litter inputs; it exits via decomposition of the peat and litter, fire if any 

and dissolved and particulate C. In pristine peat swamp forests the rate of C deposition exceeds 

the rate of decomposition and other losses so the peat accumulates C. In drained converted lands, 

it is the opposite. It has been demonstrated that peat and litter decomposition rates exceed by far 

C deposition as well as particulate C losses in oil palm plantations on peat (Hergoualc’h and 

Verchot, 2013). However, assuming that C losses equal soil heterotrophic respiration - as the 

EPA seems to - is erroneous and ignoring C inputs to and other C outputs from the peat is 

incorrect. The impact on the atmosphere is the net effect of inputs and outputs and this concept is 

anchored in the gain-loss approach of the IPCC. Failing to account for inputs is the equivalent of 

calculating a bank balance by looking only at withdrawals and not taking deposits into account. 

Using the soil C flux approach Hergoualc’h and Verchot (2013) calculated emission factors of 

CO2, CH4 and N2O for different land-use types however the study is not even mentioned in the 

technical work product. 

References 

Comeau, L.-P., Hergoualc'h, K., Smith, J.U., Verchot, L.V., 2013. Conversion of intact peat 

swamp forest to oil palm plantation: Effects on soil CO2 fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra. 

Working Paper 110. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 

Dariah, A., Marwanto, S., Agus, F., 2013. Root- and peat-based CO2 emissions from oil palm 

plantations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-013-9515-6. 

DID, LAWOO, 1996. Department of Irrigation and Drainage and Land and Water Research 

Group. Western Jahore integrated Agricultural Development Project. Peat Soil 

Management Study. Final report, Wageningen, The Netherlands. In. 

E-17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drösler, M., Verchot, L.V., Freibauer, A., Pan, G., Evans, C.D., Bourbonniere, R.A., Alm, J.P., 

Page, S., Agus, F., Hergoualc'h, K., Couwenberg, J., Jauhiainen, J., Sabiham, S., Wang, 

C., Srivastava, N., Borgeau-Chavez, L., Hooijer, A., Minkkinen, K., French, N., Strand, 

T., Sirin, A., Mickler, R., Tansey, K., Larkin, N., 2014. Chapter 2 Drained inland organic 

soils. In: Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Jamsranjav, B., Fukuda, M., 

Troxler, T. (Eds.), 2013 Supplement to the 2006 guidelines for national greenhouse gas 

inventories: Wetlands. IPCC, Switzerland. 

Hergoualc’h, K., Verchot, L.V., 2013. Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use and land-use 

change in Southeast Asian peatlands. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI 

10.1007/s11027-013-9511-x. 

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. 

Husnain, Agus, F., Wigena, P., Maswar, Dariah, A., Marwanto, S., 2012. Peat CO2 emissions 

from several land-use types in Indonesia. To be submitted to Mitigation and adaptation 

strategies for global change. 

IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for 

Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan. 

Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A., Page, S.E., 2012. Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation 

on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9, 617-630. 

Marwanto, S., Agus, F., 2013. Is CO2 flux from oil palm plantations on peatland controlled by 

soil moisture and/or soil and air temperatures? Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI 

10.1007/s11027-013-9518-3. 

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 Hort. (ISHS) 982, 25-35. 

Melling, L., Hatano, R., Goh, K.J., 2005. Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical 

peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus 57B, 1–11. 

Melling, L., Hatano, R., Goh, K.J., 2007. Nitrous oxide emissions from three ecosystems in 

tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 53, 792–805. 

Othman, H., Mohammed, A.T., Darus, F.M., Harun, M.H., Zambri, M.P., 2011. Best 

management practices for oil palm cultivation on peat: ground water-table maintenance in 

relation to peat subsidence and estimation of CO2 emissions at Sessang, Sarawak. Journal 

of Oil Palm Research 23, 1078-1086. 

Page, S.E., Morrison, R., Malins, C., Hooijer, A., Rieley, J.O., Jauhiainen, J., 2011. Review of 

peat surface greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia. 

International Council on Clean Transportation. White Paper Number 15, Indirect Effects 

of Biofuel Production Series. 

E-18
 
 

 

 

 

 

Warren, M.W., Kauffman, 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-efficient method to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil. 

Biogeosciences Discuss. 9, 7049-7071. 

Wösten, J.M.H., Ismail, A.B., van Wijk, A.L.M., 1997. Peat subsidence and its practical 

implications: a case study in Malaysia. Geoderma 78, 25-36. 

E-19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peer Review Response from Dr. Monique Leclerc, University of Georgia 

Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation 

1. Overarching charge question 

This reviewer/commenter praises the EPA team for recognizing the importance of the 

work by Hooijer et al. (2012) to be used as an average value of peat emission factor (95t 

C/ha/hr). The Hooijer et al. (2012) study has the advantage of including drainage data from the 

first year onward and this is a welcome contrast with many other studies. Its second significant 

advantage is to also include the emissions from waterways, something few, if any, studies 

consider at the present time in the published literature (although as we speak, there are ongoing 

efforts to remedy this lack of data). Given the above, this emission factor value, on a first 

examination, appears to be a reasonable and sensible choice. However, there is insufficient 

information to determine and constrain the range of information to derive an estimate. There is 

also insufficient information on whether the proposed emission factor is biased primarily at the 

low or high end of the spectrum and the degree to which this can translate into a lower and 

higher revised emission factor. There are reservations regarding the estimated current value: 

1.	 This reviewer agrees with the suggestion that data on root respiration is important and 

should be excluded from all GHG estimates related to peat emissions; this 

information is likely to play a significant modulating influence in reducing the 

uncertainties associated with the current estimate. That is one of the three main 

criteria and that one is not currently met to derive the emission factor. At this point in 

time, this reviewer believes there are no such studies yet that identifies the component 

of heterotrophic respiration from the assessment leading to the characterization of the 

proposed emission factor. As this time, it is thus not possible to come up with a 

modification related to root respiration to the proposed emission factor that would 

take that variable into account. Assuming more published literature becomes 

available at the time the emission factor comes into effect, the role of root respiration 

should be examined to quantify the differences between peat swamp forests, oil palm 

and acacia. 

Thus, the aspect of quantifying and removing autotrophic respiration needs to be 

assessed to refine the current proposed factor. Depending on which method of 

calculation is used to arrive at this estimate, the results can vary significantly. If the 

stock-difference approach is used, the root-to-shoot ratio for mature dense peat forests 

hovers between 0.01-0.06 (Brady, VA (1997). Organic matter dynamics of coastal 

peat deposits in Sumatra, Indonesia. PhD thesis. University, University of British 

Columbia, Vancouver). The difference between these forests and tree cropping 

systems is still unknown. Assuming it were the same for both the managed oil 

palm/acacia plantation and the mature dense forest, the results are less likely to be 

sensitive to the fact that root respiration is unknown at this time. This hypothesis 

E-20
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

however is unlikely because of the intensive management practices associated with 

oil palm. 

The alternate approach, the accounting approach, requires the information that the study 

by Hooijer et al. (2012) suggests as needed. It is highly likely to yield a more robust, 

scientifically credible estimate than the stock-difference approach as it uses measurements of the 

various carbon pools. At present, there is an urgent need to characterize all the carbon sources 

and sinks within oil palm grown on peat plantations and to do so in contrasting peat 

characteristics of peat characteristics and management practices. 

2.	 The Hooijer et al. (2012) is based on an approach that has large uncertainties and is 

fraught with numerous assumptions which we do not understand the implications. 

The change away from the proposed average emission factor should be predicated on 

accessing or creating a larger database on the interrelashionship between GHG 

emissions and spatially and temporally varying peat characteristics and peat 

management practices and, to a lesser degree, climate characteristics of precipitation 

and temperature. So, on that basis alone, no the current emission factor needs revision 

which should be higher. The magnitude of this factor is in direct relation to other 

factors such as peat characteristics, root respiration, peat depth, land-use history and 

management practices. The second criterion used by EPA which is important and not 

currently met in the present TWP document is that the peat soil emission factor 

should include ALL the significant GHG emissions impacts resulting from drainage 

over a 30-yr period following the drainage event and loss of carbon to the drainage 

canals. This criterion is critical and should be met. Non-CO2 GHG emissions in oilpalm grown on peat is extremely important to be investigated as this likely will sway 

the emission factor out of the average zone into the higher CO2-equivalent emissions 

zone. Given the global warming potential of nitrous oxide (238 times that of CO2) 

and given the intensive fertilization and water table practices used by the OP industry, 

quantitative information on the latter is necessary before a robust, scientifically 

credible value for CO2-equivalent emission factor. 

3.	 The emission factor does not represent the average emission from the development of 

OP plantations on tropical peat land. The Hooijer et al. (2012) study has an extremely 

narrow range of sample locations in a region which, unlike in temperate latitudes, is 

characterized with extremely heterogeneous peat depth, composition and 

decomposition rates. It is also subjected to rapid transformation through LUCLCC 

which leads to a variety of ‘signatures’ on the peat. The role of management practices 

and how these values vary is also absent. That is likely a reflection of the fact that 

there are few if any quantitative studies that pertain to their importance. 

Another addition which might be considered as a potential fourth criterion lies in the 

emissions caused by logging at the time of land conversion, opening canals, and land clearing 

with resulting large forest fires. The TWP has limited its task to post-clearing CO2 emissions and 

focuses its attention to the period from the first pulse of CO2 following the initial drainage 

E-21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

onward over a thirty-year period. Furthermore, the occurrence of peat fires following the 

establishment of oil-palm plantations on peat land is also ignored. Fires emissions of carbon 

monoxide and carbon dioxide are significant with smoldering fires that can linger for months 

after their onset. 

In summary, there is such a paucity of information on important questions (nitrous oxide 

and methane emissions from peat) and simplifications regarding peat types and other variables 

detract from the otherwise very careful work of Hooijer et al. (2012). The emissions factor could 

be used TEMPORARILY as this will have already an effect on emissions, but should be made 

conditional to the urgent need of further studies as we may still underestimate the emissions. 

2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012) 

The approach used to arrive at a suitable average emission factor should be refined. At 

present, we do not know the importance of several key variables. It is thus possible that the 

current proposed emission factor overestimates or underestimates the current emissions by an 

order of magnitude. Having sufficient baseline information on many of these variables can harm 

the economy of emerging countries or, conversely, can have an even more deleterious impact on 

the climate than suspected. Organic carbon content and peat bulk density are good variables but 

the broad variability in the number of estimates of the Hooijer et al. study for different (and 

limited) sample locations suggest that the authors have left out other variables. A key factor lies 

in the recognition that characteristics of peat lands are highly heterogeneous geographically and 

over short distances from the coast (Paramanthan 2014 article published in Geoderma). The peat 

varies both in composition and in depth, both of which are likely to impact the results of the 

study by Hooijer et al. (2012). While it is recognized that EPA seeks an ‘average’ value for an 

emission factor, there are still important facts that have been left out of the Hooijer et al. (2012) 

study which should be taken into account before an emission factor value is formally arrived at. 

The degree to which peat characteristics modulates the emissions of GHGs is unknown and 

temporal changes in peat characteristics and carbon loss over decades, should be assessed and 

incorporated into the emission factor. That, together with the fact that proposed emission factor 

is based on CO2 gas alone, is perhaps the single, most significant variation to the current 

emission factor. It is not possible at this time to provide a solid, credible revised emission factor. 

Another significant factor that limits the robustness of the emission factor used is the relationship 

of subsidence rate versus CO2 emissions which remains to be verified for different peat 

classifications (hemic sapric, fibric). Since most current classifications were developed for the 

most part for temperate latitude peat, a more meaningful classification should include peat depth 

and peat composition and management other than the water table level. At present, only the peat 

E-22
 
 

 

 

 

classification of Paramanthan published in Geoderma focuses on the mapping of the 

characteristics of Southeast Asian lands. The Hooijer et al. (2012) study does not appear to 

recognize the important regional differences in peat composition and the variables of bulk 

density and organic carbon content leave out related variables. 

Always discussing why the third criterion does not represent the emissions as well as 

hoped, is the issue of management practices and land-use history. Another limitation of the 

Hooijer et al. (2012) study is management practices information is not considered outside water 

table management. Management in this context should thus include more than water table 

management: it should also include ground cover which acts both to reduce CO2 emissions and 

acts to partially offset the emissions. We cannot make an informed recommendation on the level 

of importance of the ground cover in reducing the carbon dioxide emissions since there is no data 

at present. This addition of ground cover is increasingly being used as part of Best Management 

Practices in Southeast Asian oil palm plantations. 

More such factors pertaining to management practices include fertilizer application on 

peat. The timing of the applications, the fact that in oil palm the applications are continuous 

throughout the year and the currently standard fertilizer application rate have to be examined for 

contrasting peat types. This is also left out and should be added to the two main variables. As the 

amount of fertilizer in the peat changes, the amount of CO2 emissions will also changes in ways 

that have not been quantified. That is interrelated to the second criterion which encompasses the 

non-CO2 GHGs. We cannot make a revision to the proposed factor even though this is very 

important as there is a lack of relevant data. 

In the study by Hooijer et al. (2012), the importance of emission factor for global 

warming potential should be examined and not just limited to CO2. The nitrogen and the carbon 

cycles are intertwined and modulate one another through the activity of the methanogenesis and 

other bacterial action mechanisms. It is highly possible that methane and nitrous oxides can 

exceed the true GWP of CO2 in terms of GHG emissions. This is because of the extremely 

important nitrous oxide has the global warming potential of 238 that of carbon dioxide and 25 

times that of CO2 in the case of methane. With fertilization as a standard management practice, 

this aspect of emissions remains unknown and urgently needs quantification. (The two existing 

related studies were discussed in a different section). 

3. Directionality of estimate 

There is such an unprecedented paucity of data available in quality peer-review literature 

that it is challenging to adequately address this question directly. The Achilles’ heel of the study 

E-23
 
 

 

 

 

 

is as follow: the main limitation of the study is the fact that only CO2 emissions are considered 

when in peat, methane emissions and nitrous oxides resulting from fertilization practices are 

certain. It is thus likely that the neglect of these radiatively important greenhouse gases 

underestimate the proposed emission factor. It is highly recommended to include all three GHGs 

and to not oversimplify this variable in the determination of a reasonable emission factor. 

a.	 Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of 

degradation, etc.). 

A key factor beside the non-inclusion of two powerful GHGs lies in the fact that the 

widely varying peat characteristics (as discussed earlier). The rate of peat decomposition is 

intricately intertwined with the release of carbon dioxide and we can expect the proposed factor 

to underestimate the emissions more for sapric peat than for fibric and hemic. There is no 

literature either that documents this. Different peat types (hemic, sapric or fibric) will have 

different emission rates, a fact that is ignored from the average emission factor. We do not know 

at time the significance of leaving this variable out (high and low ends of the range of values and 

what fraction of the total OP grown on peat is on one type of peat rather than on the other). 

In addition, the Hooijer et al. study does not consider that peat changes composition over 

time, that fibric material, over a 30-yr period for instance, may turn hemic and sapric. The 

variation between emissions from these different peat needs to be quantified before sensible 

average emission factors can be derived with more certainty. 

b.	 Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc.). 

The precipitation regime is the main climatic driver in the tropics, unlike in temperate 

latitudes where temperature is an important limiting variable. The local microclimate with its 

concommittant spatial and temporal characteristics of heavy precipitation near the coast, rain 

clouds at high altitudes, interseasonal monsoonal variation in total precipitation and timing of the 

precipitation in relation to the years following LUCLCC, are expected to impact the emissions as 

it modifies the water content in the peat and its importance has yet to be examined. 

c.	 Differing water management practices at plantations. 

Current water table management practice with the suggestion of keeping it as high as 

possible results in the emission of methane, due to the action of anaerobic microbial activity 

(methanogenesis). That means that CO2 emissions rise when CH4 emissions fall and vice versa 

due to the preponderance of one microbial population over the other. Thus, customary water 

table management, as is currently practiced to keep the water level high, should be revised to 

E-24
 
 

 

 

 

 

decrease the total GHGs (calculated in terms of CO2-equivalent) emissions and not just CO2. It 

can thus been concluded that organic content and peat density as the main variables are 

insufficient predictors of carbon dioxide emissions. The resulting emissions, framed in terms of 

CO2-equivalent, is thus likely to be higher than estimated by the emission factor. 

Given that the emission factor is so closely intertwined with the cycles of nitrous oxide 

and methane and carbon dioxide, studies related to nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized peat 

are scant and contradictory: One such study suggests that N20 emissions from highly fertilized 

crop fields and peat forests to be extremely elevated (with emissions as high as 52Mg of CO2 

(Takakai, F. et al. 2006. Effects of agricultural and-use change and forest fire on N2O 

emission from tropical peatlands., Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Sci. Plant Nutri. 

(Tokyo) 52: 662-674). In that study, the authors conclude that nitrous oxide emissions are 

comparable and even larger than total C loss resulting from conversion of peat swap forests into 

oil palm. Since these emissions are peat-depth dependent, there are likely to be a wide variability 

in these estimates. However, another study finds contrasting results and concluded that nitrous 

oxide emissions are likely to play a minor role in the generation of nitrous oxide emissions from 

oil palm grown on peat. The process of nitrification and denitrification are the main processes 

that produce nitrous oxide emissions and these effluxes peak when the water content is around 

field capacity (often 60% of pore-filled space filled with water). Thus, drainage is likely to 

increase emissions, particularly in fertilized systems or in systems with nitrogen-fixing trees 

(Murdiyarso, D., K. Hergoualc’ and L. V. Verchot. Opportunities for reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions in tropical peatlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science DOI 

10.1073/pnas.091: 1966-107). The study by Hooijer et al. was conducted in an acacia plantation 

(Melling, L., Hatano, Fl., Goh K) 2005. Methane fluxes from three ecosystems in tropical 

peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Biol. Biochem 37:1445-145). The cycles of methane, 

CO2 and nitrous oxide are closely interrelated and there needs to be a greater body of studies in 

this regard as well as intercomparison/validation experiments. 

The frequency of the measurements used to arrive at this average value is too low. The 

use of monthly data can be hazardous given the temporal variability and intermittency of 

precipitation. There is a large diurnal and a seasonal variability in these estimates. The timing of 

the precipitation in relation to CO2 emission measurements needs to be addressed. The data 

should be collected continuously and makes a spatial integration (with the eddy flux method) 

using different instrumentation. 

The impact that different plantations types have on CO2 emissions when grown in peat: 

As alluded earlier, the lack of information on the role of root respiration is a limitation of the 

E-25
 
 

 

 

 

 

study by Hooijer et al. (2012). This information (see earlier discussion) may help revise slightly 

downward the emission factor and it is unlikely to modify the two other greenhouse gases. 

However, given that any difference between the root respiration of a natural peat swamp forest 

and oil palm is unknown, no information can be used at the present time. 

d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia). 

The impact of different types of plantations on emissions is likely to be concentrated 

across plantations differences between root respiration and whether the crop is one that fixes 

nitrogen or not (i.e. reduced fertilizer application). Plantation age is also a factor that the TWP 

does not address as this is relevant in terms of GHG emissions across different plantations (not 

just plantation types but also plantation age since the degree of variability across plantation types 

may be of the same order of variability seen across plantation ages for the same species of trees). 

Murdiyarso et al. (2010) suggest that the differences in emissions of nitrous oxides could be 

larger following the conversion of swamp forests in Acacia sp. plantations than on oil-palm. No 

supporting data is provided however for this statement. 

e.	 The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first five 

years after drainage. 

Given that the method itself is seen as a good first try, that may be ok but this is not an 

approach that is likely to represent the mean or median of the emissions for the 

Malaysian/Indonesian peninsula. 

f.	 Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. 

Always related to the second criterion outlined in the TWP document, the contribution of 

methane production is also not considered and converted into CO2-equivalent in the current 

calculations of the present emission factor. Methane production is a function of moisture, 

compaction and temperature; it is also linked to NH4+ NO3- contents in the case of fertilized 

systems. Oil palm plantations on peat are subjected to frequent fertilizer applications and how 

the combined result of altered soil organic content, soil porosity and water table impact these 

GHG emissions should be quantified. 

g.	 Omission of emissions due to fire. (As discussed in the TWP, omission of this factor will 

cause EPA’s emission factor to underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments 

about how large this underestimation may be.) 

Emissions from fires arising from land-use conversion are by far the most considerable 

source of emissions. In most cases, vegetation and forest fires are lit intentionally to remove 

E-26
 
vegetation residues or debris before introducing new plantations. With the detectable drying 

signature of changes to the climate, droughts-induced fires are also increasingly significant. 

Although peat fires are intermittent, the CO2 flux from smoldering peat fires can be at least as 

large as the decomposition flux from peatlands (Rein, G., Cohen S., Simeon A. 2009. Carbon 

emissions from smoldering peat in shallow and strong fronts. Proc. Combustion Ins. 

32:2489-2496). Quoting Murdiyarso et al. (2010), recent data using a Moderate Resolution 

Imaging Spectroradiometer and Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere sensors suggest 

an average CO2 emissions from fires from 2000-2006 of 6.5 Pg/yr (van der Werf G. R. et al. 

2008. Climate regulation of fire emissions and deforestation in equatorial Asia. Agr. 

Ecosyst. Environ. 104: 47-56). 

h.	 Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations. 

Horizontal carbon content advected from the neighboring swamps is unknown and should 

be quantified. A migration of DOC from regions of highly concentrated DOC to the lower DOC 

regions within the water table is expected. 

Charge Question # 4: 

a.	 Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40 

tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more 

detailed information? 

With regards to EPA using the IPCC Tier 1 default of 40t CO2/ha/yr, this estimate is 

likely to be too low. It is based on earlier, older literature data and also does not recognize the 

many factors outlined in the present review. In this regard, the EPA value appears closer to a 

genuine average emission factor. 

b.	 Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the 

first several years immediately following drainage? 

The emission factor that EPA uses should definitely include as much as possible all the 

sources and sinks modifications that result from land-use change and the first five years 

following drainage are very important. 

c.	 Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so, 

are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA’s 

purpose? 

EPA should include DOC and fire emission factors. DOCs are a ‘hot spot’ of GHGs and 

are now being documented. Advection from neighboring regions is caused by land-use 

E-27
 
 

 

conversion and this is also should be taken into account for robust emission factors to be 

determined. 

d.	 There are also erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and waterborne 

transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from 

autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded 

that at present the science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on 

CO2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you 

agree that the science on these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC 

and dissolved inorganic carbon in its peat soil emission factor? 

The level of POC arising from erosion should be quantified and I agree with the assertion 

that the current level of science is insufficient to decide whether these factors should be included 

in the determination of the emission factor or neglected. 

5. Additional input 

I have no further information to add beyond what I state above. 

E-28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peer Review Response from Dr. Supiandi Sabiham, Department of Soil Science and Land 

Resource, Bogor Agricultural University Indonesia 

Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation 

I. Introduction 

As an independent reviewer, I have read the Technical Work Product (TWP): Emission 

factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation reported by US Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the Charge Questions provided by RTI International. I also have 

read several literatures in relation to the topic in order to make comments on the EPA’s report 

concerning the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with palm oil-based 

biodiesel, which is estimated by EPA that this biofuel should reduce the GHG emissions by 17% 

compared to the petroleum diesel baseline. In January 2012, EPA released a Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) concerning the renewable fuels produced from palm oil under Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. For this January 2012 NODA, the Agency assumed that average 

emission factor from drained tropical-peatlands, referring to the subsidence studies of Hooijer et 

al. [2012] and review paper of Page et al. [2011], was of 95 t CO2 (eq) ha-1 yr-1 over a 30-year 

time period. Based on this emission factor, EPA then analyzed that the biofuel was not meeting 

the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction. Agus et al. [2013] has calculated the CO2 

emission from peat oxidation under oil palm plantation, where the result was of 43 t CO2(eq) 

ha-1 yr-1; this emission factor was then used by them as a default value based on their evaluation 

of various published studies with an assumption that groundwater level of peat soil under such 

plantation is at approximately 60 cm below the soil surface. 

II. Review of TWP 

The paper of Hooijer et al. [2012] is the developed paper of Hooijer et al. [2011], from 

which the Agency has adopted the emission factor of peats under oil palm plantation, i.e.: 95 t 

CO2 ha-1 yr-1 over a 30-year time period as mean high-emission rate from peats covered by oil 

palm plantation for 25 and 50 years of the plantation cycles (Table D-1). I observed that the 

paper of Hooijer et al. [2012] has two strength and several weaknesses in relation to the 

methodology they used. The strength includes: (i) the use of subsidence method that seems to 

be free from root respiration confusion, which could influence the emission measurement using 

closed chamber technique, (ii) large number of subsidence observation points with a total of 218, 

namely: 42 points in oil palm plantations, 125 points in Acacia plantation, and 51 points in peat 

swamp forest adjacent to the plantations of Acacia, and (iii) a high measurement intervals that 

vary from 1 to 3 months. 

E-29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D-1.	 Annualized values for peat carbon losses from plantations over various time 

scales, according for higher rates of emissions in the years immediately 

following drainage [Page et al., 2011] 

Numb -1 er of years	 Carbon loss (t CO2(eq) ha-1 

yr 

5 178 

10 121 

20 106 

25 100 

30 95 

40 90 

50 86 

The weaknesses, which can disqualify a validity of the emission factor, are described as 

follow. The accuracy of carbon stock measurement using the subsidence technique depends on 

the complete measurements of peat soil bulk density (BD) and carbon content throughout the 

profile of peat soil. I observe that no review was conducted on the change of peat BD profile. 

Hooijer et al. [2011] only used peat BD data from the soil surface to the depth of 1.2 m in 

Acacia plantation and 2 to 2.5 m in oil palm plantation; they assumed that peat BD data below 

these depths were the same value with that at above. They also estimated the change of peat 

BD only from the different locations and the different land uses, i.e.: under: Acacia plantations 

of 2 years, Acacia plantations of 5-7 years, and oil palm plantations of 18 years after drainage 

was started. It was not done to review peat BD at the same site, at least at the beginning and the 

end of their three- year-data collection. I understand that their research approach is the best for 

their research purposes since they had difficulties to meet data of peat BD at the same site for a 

period of many years of observations. However, to use such data as database for calculation of 

carbon stock and hence carbon emission from peat under oil palm plantation, however, it would 

give information which is not scientifically justifiable. In a reality, peat thickness of even at 

1000 ha (for example at the MPOB Research Station at Sessang, Sarawak) varied from 100 to 

400 cm consisting of the nature of peat BD that varied from 0.09 to 0.14 [Othman et al., 2011]; 

after the use of peat for oil palm cultivation in several years, peat BD sharply changed (Table D2). 

E-30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D-2. Mean peat BD (g cm-3) from several planting block (before and after peat 

development for palm oil cultivation) [Othman et al., 2011] 

Peat Nature 

After peat development for palm oil cultivation 

devel. of peat 

Thick peat 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Mean 

2-9 yr 0.09 0.08 (2) 0.10 (3) 0.11 (4) 0.12 (5) 0.14 (6) 0.15 (7) 0.16 (8) 0.17 (9) 0.13 

6-13 yr 0.11 (6) 0.12 (7) 0.14 (8) 0.15 (9) 0.16 (10) 0.17 (11) 0.18 (12) 0.19 (13) 0.15 

Shallow peat 

9-16 yr 0.14 0.17 (9) 0.18 (10) 0.19 (11) 0.20 (12) 0.21 (13) 0.22 (14) 0.23 (15) 0.24 (16) 0.21 

Notes: Numbers in blanket show year after development. Thick peat: >150 cm; Shallow peat: 100-150 cm. 

The other weaknesses are in peat subsidence and organic carbon (org-C) content 

measurements. Peat subsidence monitoring carried out under oil palm plantation was only 

conducted for one year (July 2009 to June 2010), which is too short a time period for a 

subsidence research. The result of the cumulative subsidence from 14 subsidence poles 

including in Acacia plantation was then recalculated to annual mean values that allowed 

comparison between all locations. 

In relation to org-C content analysis, Hooijer et al. [2011] and Hooijer et al. [2012] 

adopted the analysis result of org-C content of 55% in peat based on Suhardjo and Widjaja-Adhi 

[1977]. Kanapathy [1976] in his research on peat in Malaysia reported the values ranged from 

58% at the peat surface to 25% in the subsoil, and studies by Tie [1982] in Sarawak showed a 

range of 20% to 38%; these indicates that peat soil has large variations of org-C values both 

horizontally and vertically. Sedimentation during flooding gave a possibility to decrease the 

content of peat org- C. From our experiences, org-C contents in peat samples from Sumatra and 

Kalimantan mostly lay around 30% to 55%. It should also be noted that Hooijer et al. [2011] 

and Hooijer et al. [2012] determined that contribution of peat oxidation to subsidence was 92% 

for plantations on the drained tropical peat, which is not based on the direct measurement of the 

change of carbon stock according to the change of BD and org-C content. They then applied 

such constant as a basis of the rates of carbon loss which is equivalent CO2 emissions from peat. 

Regarding these problems, EPA has been conducted further review to the scientific 

literatures in order to revisiting the Agency’s choice of emission factor. To revisit such emission 

factor, EPA consideration has been focused on three criteria mentioned in TWP. However, for 

the second criterion, to me it seems to have a difficulty to include indirect emissions from land 

E-31
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use changes since the primary peat swamp-forest was mostly not converted directly to oil palm 

plantation, but it has followed the long-term processes as Pagiola [2000] stated (Table 3). 

Table D-3.	 Long-term Processes of Forest Conversion in Indonesia [modified from 

Pagiola, 2000] 

Transmigration Project Logging	 Estate Crops 

Transmigration project that started in 

1969 became the primary engine for 

new settlements of the Outer Islands, 

reaching its peak in the mid-1980s. In 

addition to its direct impact on the 

forests, the project had substantial 

secondary impact through mechanical 

land-clearing. During the period of 

1969 to 2000, number of population 

who resettled at several locations in 

the main Outer Islands (Sumatra, 

Kalimantan, and Papua) was of 3.05 

M [Tjondronegoro, 2004]; for which 

the lands of 8.94 M ha, provided by 

government, are mostly derived from 

primary forests. As an indirect impact 

of the project, there has been 

substantial amount of spontaneous 

settlement into the forest areas both by 

local population and by migrants from 

the more heavily populated islands. 

In line with the transmigration 

project, systematic logging in the 

Outer Islands was developed, which 

is started from 1970s. Logging also 

provided the access that facilitated 

spontaneous settlement into the 

forest areas. From a review of the 

available evidence indicates that 

estimated deforestation rate was of 

0.6 M ha year-1, much of it due to 

the programs sponsored by the 

Indonesian government, including 

the transmigration program and 

forest concessions (HPH). The loss 

of natural forest that reaching its 

peak during the period of 1985 to 

1997 was of about 6.7 M ha in 

Sumatra and about 8.5 M ha in 

Kalimantan; this amounts to an 

average annual rate in such two 

islands of about 1.26 M ha year-1 

[Holmes, 2000]. 

The mid-1980s saw the government 

commence its policy of promoting 

the diversification of product with a 

strong focus on the development of 

degraded forests for tree crop and 

oil palm plantations. From around 

0.5 M ha in 1984, the gross area of 

degraded forest under oil palm had 

increased to over 1.3 M ha by 1990, 

and nearly 2.4 M ha in 1997. 

Expansion of oil palm into 

degraded peat swamp forest, 

reaching its peak in the mid-1990s, 

was due to lack of available 

mineral-soil lands, particularly in 

the regions that having areas 

dominated by peat swamp forest. 

From around 8.02 M ha of oil palm 

plantation in 2010, the area of most 

degraded peat swamp forest under 

oil palm was about 1.71 M ha 

[Agus et al, 2011]. 

A recalculation from data availability [Gunarso et al, 2013], it can be summarized that 

oil palm expansion into peatland between 1990 and 2010 used only around 6% primary forest, 

28% degraded forest, 26% shrubland, and 40% other land uses including rubber plantation, 

timber plantation and other low carbon biomass agriculture and grasslands. For 2000 to 2010, 

based on the same database mentioned above, the expansion of oil palm into peat swamp forest 

in Sumatra and Kalimantan was only 28%, which mostly replaced the degraded forest 

[Table D-4]. 

E-32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D-4. Expansion of Oil Palm Plantation Into Land Use Types During the Period of 

1990 to 2010 Based on Agus et al. [2011] estimate (in %) 

Land Use Type 

Historical 1990 – 2010 for the Three 

Main Islands in Indonesia 

Historical 2000 – 2010 for 

Sumatra and Kalimantan 

Peat swamp forest: 

• Primary forest 

• Degraded forest 

6 

28 28 

Mixed (agroforestry)* 34 26 

Shrubland 26 23 

Grassland and cropland 6 23 

*) Rubber and timber plantation – agroforestry. 

III. Charge Questions 

1. Overarching charge question 

As I have mentioned above, the Agency chose the value of peat soil emission factor 

based on Hooijer et al. [2012] and Hooijer et al. [2011] that having several weaknesses, 

particularly in relation to database of peat BD and peat org-C content, needs to reconsider again 

for revisiting new choice of emission factor. I convinced that average emissions from peat soil 

drainage of 95 t CO2(eq) ha-1 yr-1 over a 30-year time period under oil palm plantation is 

categorized as a high emission rate. Table D-5 shows peat emission factor groupings under oil 

palm plantation based on closed chamber measurement. 

It should be noted that groundwater table of peat soil under oil palm plantations as deep 

as 60 cm is considered most representative and recommended as the best management practice 

for maintaining the low emission, where the production of oil palm (FFB, fresh fruit bunch) is 

also still in high level (Figure D-3). Based on data availability of the emission that measured by 

using closed chamber method (Table D -5) and groundwater level of 50 to 60 cm below soil 

surface, I have then calculated the average of emission rate under oil palm plantation as 

high as 43.6 t CO2(eq) ha-1 yr-1. Therefore, I recommend that this value is the most 

appropriate peat soil emission factor; such value has comparable with that of Melling’s report 

[Melling et al. 2007] of 41 t CO2(eq) ha-1 yr-1 with root respiration included. 

E-33
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D-5.	 Peat Emission-Factor Groupings Under Oil Palm Plantation Based on 

Different Sources, Which Are Measured by Using Closed Chamber and Peat 

Subsidence Methods 

Carbon emission from peat 

(t CO2 ha 

-1 

yr 

-1) Remarks References 

Based on closed chamber 

20 – 56.5 Depend on age of oil palm; and having the Agus et al. [2010] Fargione 

limitations of short-term measurements and et al. [2008] Jauhiainen et al. 

mixture of root respiration [2011] Melling et al. [2005] 

Melling et al. [2007] 

Murayama & Bakar [1996] 

Murdiyarso et al. [2010] 

Reijnders & Huijibregts [2008] 

Wicke et al. [2008] 

33.3 Immature oil palm 

8 9 years old mature oil palm Indonesian Oil Palm Research 

38.5 15 years old mature oil palm Institute (IOPRI) [2009] 

2 21 years old mature oil palm 

43.0 All these values have the limitations of short0 term measurements and mixture of root 

45.4 respiration 

5 

63.0 Mean emission calculated from the Sabiham et al. [2014] 

4 emissions that measured at the 8-position 

between nearest (1.0 m) and further (4.5 m) 

from the 15-year old oil palm trees, where 

groundwater levels were ≥100 cm below soil 

surface; having the limitations and mixture of 

root respiration. 

Based on peat subsidence 

8 None involves directs measurement of the Couwenberg et al. [2010] 

5 change in carbon stock; groundwater level was Delft Hydraulics [2006] 

(Std Dev: 21) assumed at 85 cm below soil surface Hooijer et al. [2011] 

Hooijer et al. [2010] 

Wösten et al. [1997] 

Figure D-3. Groundwater level in peat in relation to carbon flux (a) and oil palm 

production (b) 

(a) Data from Maswar [2011] (b) Source: Othman [2010] 

E-34
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The emissions from peat soil under oil palm plantations shown in Table 5 exclude the 

important of oil palm roots on the total CO2 emission. Jauhiainen et al. [2012] have been 

reported that the Acacia roots have important contribution to CO2 flux in peat soils of Kampar, 

Riau. However, there are few reports concerning the contribution of root respiration to the 

total CO2 emission from peat soil under oil palm plantation due to several difficulties in 

measuring respiration from oil palm roots directly in flux-based studies. Relative contribution of 

root respiration in mineral soil to the total CO2 flux was obtained successfully by Werth and 

Kuzyakov [2008], where the contributing proportion was found using isotopes 13C and 14C; the 

result showed that the relative contribution of root respiration to the total flux ranged from 69 to 

94%. In humid temperate region, the contribution of root respiration in peat soil range from 55% 

to 65% of the total soil respiration. 

The relative contribution of root respiration to the total CO2 fluxes of root respiration 

and peat oxidation from peat soil of Muaro Jambi, Sumatra (1o 43’ 0.7” S; 103o 52’ 56.7” E) 

under the 15- year-old oil palm plantation was reported by Sabiham et al. [2014]; this relative 

contribution of root respiration was of 74%. The average CO2 flux based on its measurement per 

oil palm tree at the 8-position observation points between the nearest (1.0 m) and the further (4.5 

m) from oil palm tree was of 63.04 t CO2 ha-1 yr-1. Dariah et al. [2013] have been reported that 

contribution of oil palm root to the total CO2 flux from peat soil at distances of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 

and 2.5 m from the 6-year-old oil palm trees was of 49%, 42%, 31%, and 17%, respectively. 

These indicate that the age of oil palm has clearly influenced the root-related contribution to the 

total CO2 fluxes. 

2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. [2012] 

It should be noted that the process of peat subsidence is not simple to be calculated 

because it depends on several factors such as peat compaction, peat consolidation, peat 

decomposition (peat oxidation), and the loss of peat materials due to erosion. Peat consolidation 

can be estimated by using the method based on the decrease of groundwater level of peat, and 

peat oxidation can be predicted by flux-based studies. However, there is lack of information 

about how much the rate of peat subsidence due to respective compaction and erosion 

processes. Therefore, estimating the most appropriate value for the peat soil emission factor 

based on subsidence research has to be reconsidered again. I agree that subsidence based 

technique seems to have better long-term effect of drainage on carbon stock depletion of peat as 

opposed to the technique of closed chamber measurement which reflects instantaneous CO2 

efflux and based on the majority of research design. However, subsidence technique is still 

questionable whether the accuracy of carbon-stock depletion measurement is valid or not, since 

E-35
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the complete measurement of peat BD and org-C content throughout peat profiles was not 

conducted. 

As I have already mentioned before that org-C content in the upper layer of peat soil 

depends on specific locations that varies from 20% to 58%, and vertically (at peat profile) it 

varies from 60% at the peat surface and 25% in the subsoil [Kanaphaty, 1979; Tie, 1982]. Our 

experiences, based on peat soil survey in Sumatra and Kalimantan, org-C content mostly ranged 

from 30% to 55%. 

Therefore, I recommend that the value of the most appropriate peat org-C content that 

can be used by US-EPA is not more than 45%, and it has comparable with that of our 

finding in the Indonesian peats which had the majority of less than 48%. 

In relation to peat BD, Agus and Wahdini [2008] showed that peat BD in oil palm 

plantation varies from more than 0.25 g cm-3 at the depth of 0-50 cm to 0.20-0.25 g cm-3 at 

the depth of 150-200 cm. They also reported that under secondary forest, peat BD varies from 

about 0.05 g cm-3 at the depth of 0 to 100 cm up to about 0.1 g cm-3 at the depth of 450 to 500 

cm. Marwanto [2012] reported that peat BD in oil palm plantation of Muaro Jambi, Sumatra 

varies from 0.09 to 0.22 g cm-3 at the depth of 0-50 cm; the high peat BD was mostly at the 

depth of 0-30 cm that varies from 0.14 to 0.22 g cm-3. In the case of peat BD in oil palm 

plantation, I believe that the high BD at the upper layer of peat is caused by peat consolidation 

due to drainage and by peat compaction due to intensive cultivation. These data clearly show: (i) 

a high range of BD for peat before and after drained peat developed, and (ii) higher BD at the 

upper layer of the drained peat compared with those reported by Hooijer et al. [2011] and 

Hooijer et al. [2012]. This explains that generalized assumption of peat BD is not applicable. 

Therefore, I recommend that the value of peat BD that can be used by US-EPA should be in 

the range between 0.07 to 0.1 g cm-3 for peat soil at the start of drainage, and between 0.18 to 

0.22 g cm-3 for peat soil after drained peat developed, i.e. for cultivated peat for oil palm 

plantation, which means after subsidence started. 

Regarding the percent of subsidence due to oxidation, it should be noted that papers 

reviewed by Page et al. [2011] which is shown contrastingly different estimation of peat 

oxidation/subsidence ratio. Couwenberg et al. [2010] reviewed the papers to estimate 

oxidation/subsidence ratio, where they came to conclude it at 40%, Wösten et al. [1997] 

estimated it at 60%, and Hooijer et al. [2011] gave with a figure of 92%. However, Kool et al. 

[2006], based on their measurement of the changes of peat ash-content and peat subsidence in 

Central Kalimantan which was not reviewed by Page et al. [2011], concluded that oxidation was 

E-36
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

only a small portion of the subsidence while consolidation and compaction is the major one. 

As I have mentioned before that contribution of oil palm root respiration, which depends on age 

of cultivated crops, and specific location, ranged from 17% to 74% [Dariah et al. 2013; 

Sabiham et al. 2014]. These values could be used as another parameter for correcting the high 

ratio of oxidation/subsidence proposed by Hooijer et al. [2011]. Based on this information, I 

recommend that the most appropriate oxidation/subsidence ratio of peat soil under oil palm 

plantation is 44% which comparable with review result of Couwenberg et al. [2010]. 

3. Directionally of estimate 

Regarding the peat emission factor of 95 t CO2(eq) ha-1 yr-1 used by US-EPA which has 

referred to Hooijer et al. [2012], Hooijer et al. [2011], and Page et al. [2011], it is likely to 

overestimate of the average greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from peat soil drainage under oil 

palm plantation in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia. Several reasons are discussed here. 

The discussion is based on Research Triangle Institute (RTI) instruction. 

a. Variation in the type of peat soil 

One of the important parameter that causes variation in the type of peat soil is mineral 

content or ash content. In the upper layer of thick peat (>3 m thick), ash content is mostly low to 

very low (<5% of oven dried peat) compared to that in the bottom layer due to the influence 

of mineral soil underlying the peat. However, in some locations, ash content in the upper layer at 

the depth of 0-50 cm is often found in high level (5-6% of oven dried peat). Sedimentation 

during flooding is the cause of the increasing ash content in peat. Based on our experience, such 

condition could decrease the emission [Sabiham et al., 2012] (Figure D-4). 

Figure D-4. The Relationship Between Ash Content of Peat Soil Under Oil Palm Plantation 

at Several Locations in West and Kalimantan Provinces 

E-37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding org-C content, it clearly influences the total carbon stock of peat soil, meaning 

that org-C stock is one of the main parameters that should intensively be measured in order to 

meet an accurate estimation of the carbon loss through subsidence research technique. Org-C 

content of peat soil also depends on the type of peat soil. Peat soil with high content of mineral 

material (ash content) showed org-C content in low level [Kanaphaty, 1979; Tie, 1982]. 

Therefore, the assumption of peat org-C of 55% is to be overestimate. 

Not much information I found that thickness of peat soil under oil palm plantation is 

categorized as one of the main parameters which could influence the emission measured by 

using the closed chamber technique. Sabiham et al. [2012] reported that peat thickness had no 

correlation with CO2 emission measured by using such technique; they conclude that although 

peat soil has the thickness of >3 m, gas CO2 was emitted only from oxidized layers at a certain 

groundwater level. This means that water content at surface layer which has relationship with 

groundwater level and precipitation is also the important factor in relation to CO2 production. 

Hooijer et al. [2012] also reported that no statistically significant relation between subsidence 

rate and peat thickness (R2 = 

0.002), with being around 5 cm yr-1. Instead, Hooijer et al. [2010] used the change of the 

groundwater level depth, rather than the thickness of peat, for estimating the change of CO2 

emission. They then drew a linear relationship whereby the rate of the emission increases as 

much as 0.91 t CO2 ha-1 yr-1 with every 1.0 cm decrease in groundwater level depth. 

Regarding extent of peat swamp forest degradation, it has close relationship with aboveground biomass. In a peat area, significant amount of carbon stock is depending on available 

above- ground biomass. Default values of the carbon stock used as emission factor for oil palm 

plantation ranged from 23 to 60 t C ha-1, lower than that for undisturbed and disturbed swamp 

forest which has the range from 90 to 200 t C ha-1 and 42 to 82 t C ha-1, respectively [Agus et al., 

2013]. However, for determining the peat-oxidation-based emission in oil palm plantation, the 

extent of degradation is not the main factor. The extent of degradation is mostly not caused by 

expansion of plantations [see Pagiola, 2000], and it can only be used for determining the 

emission factor due to land use changes. 

b. Precipitation regime 

Regarding annual rainfall pattern, it clearly influences groundwater level in the drained 

peat soil. Nurzakiah [2014], based on her research during 2013 at peat soil under rubber garden 

in Central Kalimantan (2o 30’30” S; 114o 09’30” E), has been reported that during dry season 

E-38
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

groundwater level rapidly depleted in peat profile (Figure D-5). This groundwater level pattern 

was derived from piezometric time series data collected at the same year. Because the 

depletion of groundwater levels, the emission measured using the closed chamber technique 

was higher compared to that in rainy season (Figure D-5), but it was still much lower than the 

emission factor which has been used by US-EPA. 

Figure D-5. CO2 Flux (middle), Groundwater Level Fluctuation (below), and Annual 

Rainfall (above) Based on Observation Results During 2013 

Based on Figure D-5, therefore, water management in drained peat soil is important to be 

done for maintaining groundwater level and conserving as much water as possible for the 

incoming dry season through water control structures such as water gates/stop logs in order to 

reach a level of groundwater as same high as the level during rainy season. Because the 

plantation management could manage in maintaining groundwater at certain level following the 

RSPO Guideline, which could be able to decrease the emission, so the emission factor used by 

EPA, i.e. 95 t CO2(eq) ha-1 yr-1, seems to be overestimate. 

c. Differing water management practices at plantations 

Peat development approach for plantations is always based on high production of the 

planted crop(s). In order to meet the production in a high level, the management of plantations 

then developed the peat soil to change its ecosystem from anaerobic condition (swampy 

condition) into aerobic condition (an oxidized peat condition at the upper layers of <50 cm and 

E-39
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>50 cm during rainy and dry seasons, respectively) as drained peat soil through the 

construction of canals. According to RSPO Guideline, however, the drained peat soil under oil 

palm plantation is a condition of peat soil in which groundwater level should be maintained 

as deep as 60 cm below soil surface. This groundwater level has been considered by the 

management of oil palm plantation as the most representatives and recommended as the best 

management practice not only for maintaining the high production, but also for keeping the 

emission in low level. 

d.	 Different type of plantations 

Different type of plantations, such as Acacia and oil palm plantations, has a different 

system in water management and crop cultivation. Hooijer et al. [2012], based on their 

calculation of total cumulative carbon loss from Acacia and oil palm plantations, found that 

because both the very high loss in the first of 5 years, they then accounted the lower loss in 

the subsequent period. From their calculation, over 25 years period they found the high 

average carbon loss of 90 t CO2(eq) ha-1 yr-1 for the Acacia plantation and 109 CO2(eq) ha-1 

yr-1 for the oil palm plantation, and for over 50 years period the values become 79 and 94 

CO2(eq) ha-1 yr-1, respectively. 

However, to calculate the average carbon loss over 25 and 50 years period for Acacia 

and oil palm plantation which are respectively becomes 100 and 86 CO2(eq) ha

-1 yr-1, is not 

scientifically justifiable. 

e.	 The approach used by Hooijer et al. [2012] to estimate emission during the first five 

years after drainage 

Estimating emission during the first 5-years after drainage for oil palm plantation that 

based on an assumption of the same subsidence in Acacia plantation proposed by Hooijer et al. 

[2012] has several weaknesses particularly in using the data of peat BD and org-C as the main 

factors for calculation. As I have mentioned before, peat soil has high variation in terms of peat 

properties from one location to the others; therefore, using assumption on the subsidence of peat 

under oil palm plantation based on that under Acacia plantation is not correct. The other 

weakness is in determining a total of 0.86 m of the total subsidence of 1.42 m at the Acacia 

plantation over the first 5-years that was caused by a combination of compaction and oxidation; 

the question is how to differ exactly the subsidence due to compaction and oxidation in order 

to meet average peat oxidative CO2 emission? These are the main problems in estimating the 

emission from peat soil under oil palm plantation at the first five years cultivation after 

E-40
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

drainage that proposed by Hooijer et al. [2012], because some data for calculation were taken 

by them from different type of plantation. 

f. Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions 

Although, recent evidence shows that some methane (CH4) emissions occurred from the 

surface of drained peat soil and from the ditch networks constructed during drainage 

[Minkkinen and Laine, 2006; Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011; Hyvönen et al., 2013], but Melling et al. 

[2005] shows that CH4 emission from drained peat soil under oil palm plantation was zero. 

Therefore, I agree with Hooijer et al. [2012] assumption that no carbon is lost as CH4 from 

drained peat soil under oil palm plantation. 

Regarding the nitrous oxide (N2O) emission from peat soil under oil plantation, 

Hooijer et al. [2012] also assumed that no CO2(eq) in their calculation is lost as N2O. Melling 

et al. [2007] reported that N2O emission from drained peat soil under oil palm plantation was of 

only 0.0012 t N2O-N ha-1 yr-1 which could be categorized as very low even after converted to 

CO2 emission. Therefore, I convinced that the assumption of Hooijer et al. [2012] was valid. 

g. Omission of emission due to fire 

It is true that omission of this factor caused EPA’s emission to underestimate emission, if 

the management of oil palm plantation cultivated the peat by burning method. Instead, the 

emission due to fire (wildfire) was previously reported, but it mostly existed outside the 

plantations and it had very high uncertainty. So far, no burning method has been used by the 

management of oil palm plantation. On the Permentan (the Minister of Agriculture 

Regulation) No. 14, 2009 clearly instructed that cultivating peat soil for oil palm should be 

conducted by zero burning. Therefore, the emission due to fire should be neglected in the 

calculation to estimate the emission factor from peat soil under oil palm plantation. 

h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations 

EPA’s report stated that the previous decade over 50% of oil palm expansion grown 

on areas classified as the forest. Table 4 showed the result of Agus et al. [2011] analysis which 

is substantiated by the report of Pagiola [2000] that the expansion of oil palm plantation 

between 1990 and 2010 used only around 34%, in which about 28% was degraded forest. 

Recently, on the Inpres (the Presidential Instruction) No. 10, 2011 clearly stated the 

moratorium of new permit for using primary forest and peat soil for any kinds of alternative 

uses including oil palm plantation should be implemented. Therefore, EPA’s analysis in 

estimating significant indirect emissions from land uses changes is suggested to be exclusion. 

E-41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report 

It should be noted, why does the value of emission factor of 40 t CO(eq) ha-1 yr-1 for 

the Tier 1 not include the emission for the first 6 years after drainage? Firstly, it was not 

captured by Tier 1 methodology due to lack of data for deriving default emission factor 

measured by using closed chamber technique. Secondly, although there are studies based on the 

subsidence rate measurement that have been reported a pulse of higher emissions which occurs 

right after drainage, but the calculation in order to meet the average peat oxidative CO2 

emission was only based on peat consolidation and peat compaction. In fact, before drainage, 

the upper layer of peat under the forest vegetation was mostly fibric (immature) which having 

high porosity. So, the subsidence at the first 5-6 years after drainage would be very rapid due 

to the decrease of groundwater level. This means that carbon loss due to peat oxidation would 

not be easy to calculate using subsidence research, particularly at several years immediately after 

drainage. 

a.	 Would the emission factor of 40 t CO2 ha-1 

yr

-1 proposed by IPCC [2014] be appropriate 

for EPA? 

It would be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40 t 

CO2 ha-1 yr-1 from peat soil under oil palm plantation, for which groundwater level of peat soil 

should be maintained at the depth of ≤60 cm below soil surface. The value as high as 44 t CO2 

ha-1 yr-1, as I have already mentioned with detailed information, are proposed as the most 

appropriate for the Agency’s consideration to decide the appropriate emission factor, which 

is comparable with IPCC [2014]. 

b.	 Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emission pulse that occurs in 

the first several years immediately following drainage? 

Hooijer et al. [2012] applied the method for determining carbon stocks through 

subsidence studies at both peat soils under oil palm and Acacia plantations using the assumption 

that total subsidence of peat under oil palm plantation is the same subsidence with that under 

Acacia plantation, i.e. 1.42 m over the first 5 years after drainage. By this method, they then 

result a subsidence rate of 5 cm yr-1 in the subsequent 13 years, an equivalent average peat 

oxidative CO2 emission of 119 t ha-1 yr-1. However, this analyses may have confused different 

location based plantation, oil palm and Acacia plantations. Because of this weakness, which 

has consequence to the quality of the result of carbon loss, I suggest that EPA should be 

considered to exclude the emission pulse that occurs in the first several years after drainage (see 

also my argumentation in the points 4 and 5). 

E-42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c.	 Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? 

Regarding DOC (dissolved organic carbon), it is commonly the largest component of 

waterborne carbon loss or carbon export from the area of peat soil, which is categorized as one 

of off-site C emissions [Dawson et al., 2004; Jonsson et al., 2007; Dinsmore et al., 2010]. From 

the tropical Peat swamp forests (Indonesia and Malaysia), carbon exports with measured fluxes 

were of the range 0.47 to 0.63 t C ha-1 yr-1 [IPCC, 2014]; while from drained peat soil (from 

same countries), they were of the range 0.63 to 0.97 t C ha-1 yr-1 [Inubushi et al., 1998; Moore 

et al., 2013]. This means that DOC fluxes from both natural forest and drained peat soils is not 

much different. Because DOC fluxes belongs to the off-site C emission, where the fluxes 

from both different peat areas is very low, therefore, I suggest that EPA is no need to 

include DOC fluxes in the overall emission factor for peat soil under oil palm plantation. 

Regarding fire emission factor, as I have already stated before, it had very high 

uncertainty. If the fire exists it is mostly outside the plantations; no management of the 

plantations recommends to using fire during peat soil cultivation for oil palm. The Minister of 

Agriculture Regulation has been instructed to all managements of oil palm plantation through the 

Permentan No. 14, 2009 that cultivating peat soil should be carried out by zero burning. 

Therefore, I also suggest excluding fire emission factor in the overall emission factor for peat 

soil under oil palm plantation. 

d.	 Do you agree that the science on particulate organic carbon (POC) and the dissolved 

inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) is not sufficient for EPA to include in the 

peat soil emission factor? 

POC is generally a negligible component of the carbon balance of the natural peat soil; 

however, disturbance of peat soil through land use changes, including drainage, burning 

(managed burning and wildfire, conversion to arable land and peat extraction, yields a high rate 

of POC-loss via the waterborne and wind erosions [IPCC, 2014]. However, for drained peat soil 

under oil palm plantation that has been cultivated carefully by the management, which should 

follow regulations through the best management practices, such as zero burning method during 

land preparation and maintaining groundwater at certain level in order to avoid over dry of peat 

materials during dry season, POC should be at low level. Therefore, EPA is no need to 

include POC loss in the overall emission factor for peat soil under oil palm plantation. 

Regarding the dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from 

autotrophic and heterotrophic respirations, I agree that it still not sufficient for EPA to include in 

the peat soil emission factor. Research on these topics for tropical drained peat-soil under oil 

E-43
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

palm plantation is still rare, although from several research results [Dariah et al., 2013; 

Sabiham et al., 2014] indicate that the contribution of root respiration could be considered as 

the value for correction factor of the carbon emission, particularly for such emission measured 

by closed chamber technique. 

5. Additional Input 

Peat soil in the tropical regions, such as in Indonesia, is rather similar in peat 

composition, being very rich in wood, i.e. more or less decomposed trunks and branches derived 

from the former vegetation covers [Sabiham, 1988]. In relation to this peat composition, the 

Indonesian peat soils under the forest vegetation contain mostly fibric peat with have high total 

porosity that showed in the range of 88 to 93% based on the total volume [Sabiham, 2010] with 

the average total porosity of about 90%. This parameter is very important for calculation of the 

carbon loss using subsidence measurement technique, particularly for the first 5-years after 

drainage. Because fibric peat has very high total porosity, it causes that subsidence of peat in the 

first several years immediately after drainage is very rapid, so it would give confusion in the 

calculating subsidence rate due to peat oxidation. 

The other important factor that influenced the subsidence rate of peat is a critical water 

content (CWC). The value of the CWC could be resulted by calculation method based on the 

relationship between water content at certain levels and the proportion of irreversible 

drying of organic matter [Bisdom et al., 1993]. The irreversible drying is a condition of 

organic matter in which the organic materials could not be able to adsorbing water again. 

Based on our observation on the upper layer of peat soil in the first year immediately after 

drainage, fibric peat has higher average value of the CWC (364.9% w/w based on dried 

oven) compared to hemic and sapric peats which have the average values of 263.9% and 

253.6% w/w, respectively. Fibric peat needed a shorter period to reach an irreversible drying 

condition compared with hemic and sapric peats. Peats at the condition of irreversible drying 

are called as pseudo-sand, at which carbon loss (emission) due to peat oxidation could not 

exist, but it very easy to be fire. 

IV. Closing Remarks 

a.	 Emission factor of 95 t CO2 ha-1 

yr-1 derived from the results of subsidence 

measurement technique, not from CO2 flux measurement (carbon stock changes), had 

several weaknesses, although subsidence measurement at a long term period after 

drainage is the best method; some difficulties in getting data from the same sites under 

the same plantation crops were the main problem for subsidence measurement technique. 

E-44
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b.	 I suggest that US-EPA choose the emission factor as high as 44 t CO2 ha-1 

yr

-1 that 

represents direct measurements of CO2 flux using closed chamber technique from the 

location of Southeast Asia countries and thus at present it most appropriate peat soil 

emission. 

c.	 Although there are still lacks of information regarding dissolved inorganic carbon 

(CO2), I propose that US-EPA should consider to use root respiration value from peat 

soil under oil palm plantation as a correction factor for carbon emission. 

d.	 Omission of CH4 and N2O emission and omission of the emission due to fire (wildfire) 

from peat soil under oil palm plantation are valid. Because DOC and POC losses are 

very few, so US-EPA is no need to include them in the overall emission factor for peat 

soil under oil palm plantation. 

e.	 Subsidence research for the future should address the uncertainty emission factor; 

therefore, the measurement of subsidence rate in order to determine the change of 

carbon stock should include the direct measurement of BD, org-C content, and the total 

porosity and critical water content of peat at the same site for the long-term multilocation subsidence research. 

References 

Agus, F., I.E. Henson, B.H. Suhardjo, N. Harris, M. van Noordwijk, and T.J. Killen. 2013. 

Review of emission factors for assessment of CO2 emission from land used change to 

oil palm in Southeast Asia. Technical Panels of the 2nd Greenhouse Gas working Group 

of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). 

Agus, F., P. Gunarso, B.H. Sahardjo, K.T. Joseph, A. Rashid, K. Hamzah, N. Harris, and M. van 

Noordwijk. 2011. Strategies for CO2 emission reduction from land use changes to oil 

palm plantations in Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. RSPO, Kuala Lumpur. 

Presented at the Roundtable 9 of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Kota Kinabalu, 

Malaysia. (http://www. 

rt9.rspo.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/P6_3_Dr_Fahmuddin_Agus(2).pdf 

Agus, F., E. Handayani, M. van Noordwijk, K. Idris, and S. Sabiham. 2010. Root respiration 

interferes with peat CO2 emission measurement. pp. 50-53 In Proceedings 2010 19th 

World Congress of Soil Science, 1–6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia. Published on 

DVD. 

Agus, F. and W. Wahdini. 2008. Assessment of carbon stock of peatland at Tripa, Nagan Raya 

District, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province of Indonesia. Indonesian Centre for 

Agricultural Land Resources Research and Development and World Agroforestry Centre 

(ICRAF). Bogor, Indonesia. 

Bisdom, E.B.A., L.W. Dekker, and J.F. Th. Schoute. 1993. Water repellency of sieve fraction 

from sandy soils and relationship with organic material and soil structure. Geoderma 

56:59-70. 

E-45
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couwenberg, J., R. Dommain, and H. Joosten. 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical 

peatlands in south-east Asia. Global Change Biology 16: 1715-1732. 

Dariah, A., S. Marwanto, F. Agus. 2013. Root- and peat-based CO2 emission from oil palm 

plantation. 

Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change. Published online. Springer. DOI 10.1007/s11027-013-

9515-6. 

Dawson, J.J.C., M.F. Billett, D. Hope, S.M. Palmer, and C.M. Deacon. 2004. Source and 

sinks of aquatic carbon in a peatland stream continuum. Biogeochemistry. 70:71-92. 

Delft Hydraulics. 2006. Peat-CO2, Assessment of CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in 

Southeast Asia (Report Q3943). Delft, The Netherlands: A. Hooijer, M. Silvius, H. 

Wösten, and S. Page. 

Dinsmore, K.J., M.F. Billett, U.M. Skiba, R.M. Rees, J. Drewer, and C. Helfter. 2010. Role 

of the aquatic pathway in the carbon and greenhouse gas budget of a peatland catchment. 

Global Change Biology 16:2750-2762. 

Hyvönen, N.P., J.T. Huttunen, N.J. Shurpali, S.E. Lind, M.E. Marushchak, L. Heitto, and P.J. 

Martikainen. 2013. The role of drainage ditches in greenhouse gas emission and surface 

leaching losses from a cutaway peatlands cultivated with a perennial bioenergy crop. 

Boreal Environment Research 18:109-126. 

Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land clearing and the 

biofuel carbon debt. Science 319: 1235-1238. 

Gunarso, P., M.E. Hartoyo, and Y. Nugroho. 2013. Analysis of land-cover changes to oil 

palm in 

Indonesia (in Indonesian, Analisis penutupan lahan dan perubahannya menjadi kelapa sawit 

di Indonesia). Universitas Negeri Jakarta. Indonesia 

Holmes, D. 2000. Deforestation in Indonesia: A review of the situation in Sumatra, 

Kalimantan, and Sulawesi. Jakarta. World Bank. 

Hooijer, A., S. E. Page, J. Jauhiainen, W..A. Lee, X.X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2012. 

Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053-1071. 

Hooijer, A., S.E. Page, J. Jauhiainen, W.A. Lee, X.X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2011. 

Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatland: reducing uncertainty and 

implications for emission reduction options. Biogeosciences Discuss. 8:9311-9356. 

Hooijer, A., S.E. Page, J.G. Canadell, M. Silvius, J. Kwadijk, H. Wösten, and J. 

Jauhiainen. 2010. Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in 

Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences 7:1505-1514. 

E-46
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IOPRI, Indonesian Oil Palm Research Institute. 2009. CO2 emission on oil palm plantation: field 

observation. Paper presented on Indonesian Palm Oil Conference and price Outlook 

2010. Bali, December 1-4 2009. 

Inubushi, K., A. Hadi, M. Okazaki, and K. Yonebayashi. 1998. Effect of converting wetland 

forest to sago palm plantation on methane gas flux and organic carbon dynamics in 

tropical peat soil. Hydrological Processes 12:2073-2080. 

IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes. 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 

IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Task Force on 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. WHO-UNEP. 

Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S.E. Page. 2012. Carbon dioxide emission from an Acacia 

plantation on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9:617-630. 

Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S.E. Page. 2011. Carbon dioxide fluxes in an Acacia 

plantation on tropical peatland. Biogeosciences Discuss. 8:8269-8302. 

Jonsson, A., G. Algesten, A.K. Bergström, K. Bishop, S. Sebek, I.J. Tranvik, and M. 

Jansson. 2007. 

Integrating aquatic carbon fluxes in a boreal catchment carbon budget. Journal of Hydrologi 

334:141-150 

Kanapathy, K. 1976. Fertilizer requirement on peat soils. Malaysian Agric. J. 50:292-307 

Kool, D.M., P. Buurman, and D.H. Hoekman. 2006. Oxidation and compaction of a collapsed 

peat dome in Central Kalimantan. Geoderma 137:217–225. 

Marwanto, S. 2012. Contribution of oil palm roots on CO2 flux at peatland of Sungai Gelam 

Subdistrict, Muaro Bungo, Jambi (in Indonesian: Kontribusi perakaran kelapa sawit 

terhadap fluks CO2 di lahan gambut Kecamatan Sungai Gelam, Muaro Bungo, Jambi). 

Magister Thesis. Graduate School of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University. 

Maswar. 2011. Studies on carbon stock on tropical peatland drained for perennial crops (in 

Indonesian: Kajian cadangan karbon pada lahan gambut tropika yang didrainase untuk 

tanaman tahunan. Dissertation Doctor Program. Graduate School of Agriculture, Bogor 

Agricultural University. 

Minkkinen, K. and J. Laine. 2006. Vegetation heterogeneity and ditches create spatial variability 

in methane fluxes from peatlands drained for forestry. Plant and Soil 285:289-304. 

Melling, L., K.J. Goh, C. Beauvais, and R. Hatano. 2007. Carbon flow and budget in a young 

mature oil palm agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. In: Rieley J.O., C.J. Banks, and B. 

Radjagukguk (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on 

Tropical Peatland, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 

http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/carbopeat/media/pdf/yogyapapers/yogyaproceedings.pdf 

E-47
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Melling, L., R. Hatano, and K.J. Goh. 2005. Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical 

peatland of 

Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus 57B:1-11. 

Moore, S., C.D. Evans, S.E. Page, M.G. Garnett, T.G. Jones, C. Freeman, A. Hooijer, A. 

Wiltshire, S. Limin, and V. Gauci. 2013. Deep instability of deforested tropical 

peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon fluxes. Nature 493:660-664. 

Murayama, S., and Z.A. Bakar. 1996. Decomposition of Tropical Peat Soils. Japan Agricultural 

Research Quarterly, 30, 153-158. 

Murdiyarso, D., K. Hergoualc’h, and L.V. Verchot. 2010. Opportunities for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands, PNAS 107:19655-19660. 

Nurzakiah, S. 2014. Estimation of the potential carbon emission from acrotemic and catotelmis 

peats. J.Trop. Soil. (in press) 

Othman, H., A.T. Mohammed, F.M. Darus, M.H. Harun, and M.P. Zambri. 2011. Best 

management practices for oil palm cultivation on peat: Groundwater table maintenance in 

relation to peat subsidence and estimation of CO2 emissions at Sessang, Sarawak. 

Journal of Palm Oil Research 23:1078-1086. 

Othman, H. 2010. Best management practices (BMP) for oil palm planted in the field. 

Malaysian Palm Oil Board. 

Page, S., E.R. Morrison, C. Malins, A. Hooijer, J.O. Rieley, and J. Jauhiainen. 2011. Review 

of peat surface greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia. 

The International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC. 

Pagiola, S. 2000. Land use change in Indonesia. A background paper for Indonesia: 

Environment and natural resource management in a time of transition. World Bank. 

Reijnders L. and M.A.J. Huijbregts. 2008. Palm oil and the emission of carbon-based 

greenhouse gases. J. Cleaner Prod 16 477-482. 

Sabiham, S., S. Marwanto, T. Watanabe, S. Furukawa, U. Sudadi, and F. Agus. 2014. 

Estimating the Relative Contributions of Root Respiration and Peat Decomposition to 

the Total CO2 Flux from Peat Soil at an Oil Palm Plantation in Sumatra, Indonesia. J. 

Trop. Agric. Dev. (in press)/ 

Sabiham, S., S.D. Tarigan, Hariyadi, I. Las, F. Agus, Sukarman, P. Setyanto, and 

Wahyunto. 2012. 

Organic carbon storage and management strategies for reducing carbon emission from peatlands: 

A case study in oil palm plantations in West and Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. 

Pedologist 55(3):426-434 

E-48
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sabiham, S. 2010. Properties of Indonesia peats in relation to chemistry of carbon emission. 

Proceedings of the International Workshop on Soil Carbon organized by Food and Fertilizer 

Technology Center (FFTC) and the Indonesian Soil Research Institute, Bogor-Indonesia, 

September 2010. 

Sabiham, S. 1988. Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and Borneo. PhD 

Dissertation. Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. 

Schrier-Uijl, A.P., A.J. Veraart, P.J. Leffelaar, F. Berendse, and F.M. Veenendaal. 2011. Release 

of CO2 and CH4 from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry 

102:265-279 

Suhardjo, H., and I.P.G. Widjaja-Adhi. 1977. Chemical characteristics of the upper 30 cm of 

peat soils from Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. In, Final Report, Agricultural Technical 

Assistance Programme (Indonesia-The Nederlands 1974-1977. pp.: 74-92. Lembaga 

Penelitian Tanah, Bogor, Indonesia. Tie, Y.L. 1982. Soil classification in Sarawak. 

Technical Paper No. 6. Department of Agriculture, Sarawak. 86p. 

Tjondronegoro, S. M. P. 2004. From colonization to transmigration: Changing policies in 

population resettlement. In, Furukawa, H. et al. (eds.), Destruction, Health, and 

Development: Advancing Asian Paradigms. Kyoto University Press and Trans Pacific 

Press. 638p. 

Werth, M., and Y. Kuzyakov. 2008. Root-derived carbon in soil respiration and microbial 

biomass determined by 14C and 13C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40: 625–637 

Wicke, B., V. Dornburg, M. Junginger, and A. Faaij. 2008. Different palm oil production 

systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass and 

Bioenergy, 32, 1322-1337. 

Wösten, J.M.H., A.B. Ismail, and A.L.M. van Wijk. 1997. Peat subsidence and its practical 

implications: A case study in Malaysia. Geoderma 78:25-36 

E-49
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peer Review Response from Dr. Arina Schrier, CEIC (Climate & Environment 

International Consultancy) 

Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation 

1. Overarching charge question 

For now, EPA chose the most appropriate value for the peat emission factor for oil palm 

on peat. Given the literature that is currently available (annex 1) for drained peat soils in tropical 

regions, the CO2 EF for oil palm on peat given by Hooijer et al. 2012 (calculated for the first 30 

years) is within the uncertainty range at the high end of published EF’s. Hooijer et al. 2012 

included the emissions in the first years of development. Emissions directly after and during 

plantation development are higher compared to the emissions of later years (Page et al., 2011; 

Hooijer et al., 2012). These elevated emissions are potentially driven by rapid consumption of a 

limited labile (readily decomposable) carbon pool, leaving behind a greater fraction of 

recalcitrant carbon in later years (Hooijer et al. 2012). By using the soil subsidence method for 

carbon loss estimates, Hooijer (2012) automatically included the losses of carbon transported by 

rivers, ditches and streams. 

However, it is recommended to evaluate this value each year since more research 

becomes available and EF’s for CH4 and DOC emissions as well as initial pulse emissions are 

currently very uncertain although EF’s are provided by IPCC. In fact, Hooijer et al. 2012 did not 

discuss in detail the separation between CO2-C and CH4-C emissions related to drainage of peat 

(ditch emissions) and given the assumptions made for the oxidation, compaction and 

consolidation components of soil subsidence (including the uncertainties and discussions around 

bulk density and carbon fraction of the peat) the following is recommended for the near future: 

1.	 Consider a separation between ‘base emissions’ (the continues, long term emissions 

following land use change, and resulting from the continues drainage of peat soil for 

agriculture) from ‘initial pulse emissions’. The reason is that the ‘base EF’ can be 

established with a small uncertainty range, while initial emissions, including CO2 and 

CH4 are much more uncertain and make the EF less strong in terms of uncertainty. It is 

recommended to add the initial pulse emissions as a ‘multiplication factor’ for the first 

five years based on the literature available. Hooijer et al. (2012) found that for the first 1-

4 years after draining, average rate of carbon loss from Acacia plantation sites was 178 

tons CO2 ha-1 yr-1 at an average water depth of 70 cm, 262% greater than carbon loss 5-8 

years after drainage. Until more studies are able to contribute information about the 

magnitude of these initial emissions within oil palm and similar plantation ecosystems, 

multiplying the base emissions rate (based on water table depth) by 2.6 offers a potential 

emissions estimate during the first five years after peat draining. It has to be noted that 

E-50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this modification is highly uncertain. These results are strictly applicable only to peat 

with low mineral content and low bulk density (Hooijer et al. 2012). 

2.	 Consider a cross-check with a meta-analysis of all available literature that fulfills strict 

(quality and method) criteria, and includes chamber-based research. The soil subsidence 

methods has advantages, but nonetheless it is an ‘indirect’ measure, or ‘proxy’ for the 

actual emissions and includes certain assumptions in the calculations (e.g. carbon fraction 

and bulk density) and besides, it cannot separate between carbon losses released as CO2 

and CH4. Since CH4 emissions are important in the consideration of the total warming 

potential (it is a 24 times stronger GHG) it is important to consider the height of these 

emissions. The chamber based method is used to measure the gas exchange between the 

soil and atmosphere ‘directly’. By using this method the different GHG’s (CO2, CH4 and 

N2O) can be measured separately if done properly on land and on water (e.g. Jauhiainen 

et al. 2012). For fulfilling the criteria set by EPA for chamber based research, the total 

carbon cycle shall be considered and therefore also losses through water should be added 

(DOC losses, CH4 from ditches, CO2 from ditches (with no double counting)) as well as 

the initial pulse emissions directly after drainage. In all cases fire based emissions 

resulting from drainage should be added (either by using the new IPCC EF’s provided or 

by using numbers that are and will be published for specific areas). In summary the metaanalysis should include: 

■	 Soil subsidence research: CH4 and CO2 should be separated and it is recommended to 

establish a separate multiplication factor for the first five years after drainage. 

■	 Chamber based research: DOC should be considered as well as ditch fluxes (avoiding 

overlap between DOC transported to the oceans and carbon released from drainage 

ditches and rivers) as well as the initial pulse emissions. 

■	 Research on fire emissions 

a.	 IPCC provides DOC TIER 1 values for drained tropical peat (Baum et al. 

2008; Alkhatib et al. 2007; Yule et al. 2009; Moore et al. 2003) 

b.	 IPCC provides TIER 1 values for CH4 released from ditches in tropical 

regions (0.449 t CH4-C ha-1 yr-1 for drained abandoned tropical peat and 

2.939 t CH4-C for drained tropical pulp wood plantations on peat). 

c.	 IPCC provides default values for the initial pulse emissions following 

drainage, as well as Hooijer et al. 2012. 

Note that currently Carlson et al. (Union of Concerned Scientists and University of 

Minnesota) prepare a manuscript that involves a meta-analysis of current available peer 

reviewed and grey literature for the EF for oil palm on peat. This manuscript is in the 

second round of review and will be published approximately mid- 2014. 

E-51
 
 

 

 

 

3.	 Recommended is to update the EF based on the crosschecks with available literature and 

based on the most recent publications and new knowledge on the different components of 

the total balance. A large part of the currently available research is too short term, or is 

concept research. Although the research of Hooijer et al. 2012 is robust, large scale and 

long term and perhaps currently the best study to base the EF on, there are still 

uncertainties around this study (initial pulse, the contribution of CH4, DOC) that need to 

be updated by recent and new studies and it is better to have a broader spatial coverage of 

different peats and climate zones. The main issue with soil subsidence studies is that the 

different components of the total GHG and carbon balance cannot be separated and 

therefore also chamber based studies shall be considered in the establishment of a robust 

EF. 

4.	 It is recommended for EPA to establish, besides a fixed EF for drained peat, also a water 

table dependent EF. Previous work suggests that the relationship between drainage depth 

and C loss is non-linear, especially at high (>80 cm) or low (<20 cm) water table depths 

(Jauhiainen et al. 2008, Verwer et al. 2008, Couwenberg et al. 2009, Hirano et al. 2009, 

Jauhiainen et al. 2012a). Note that currently, in many plantations in SE Asia the water 

table is varying between 100 cm and 50 cm (average around 75 cm) below field level. 

Therefore a linear least squares model relating emissions (CO2OP>4yrs, tons CO2 ha-1 yr-1) 

to water table level (WT, cm) could be established at least for the range 20-80 cm. Like a 

few previous models (Wosten et al. 1997, Couwenberg et al. 2009, Hooijer et al. 2010). 

Given the relation between water table and CO2 emissions, lower emission can be 

expected at higher water tables. The main question will be if a zero intercept can be 

assumed and besides if drains are not spaced properly and dams have not been built in the 

right way, and also because of the large seasonal variation of rainfall in Indonesia, overor under-drainage is a common problem. 

a.	 Note that RSPO has launched its Best Management Practices in 2012, and the 

Malaysian Palm Oil Board has launched its Best Management Practices in 

2011. RSPO advises to keep the water table between 40 and 60 cm below 

field level, or 50 – 70 cm in collection drains. MPOB advices in their 

management practices a water table of 30-50 cm below the peat surface in the 

field or 40 and 50 cm in the collection drain. Given the water table – emission 

relation of Hooijer and Couwenberg, reducing the average drainage depth to 

50 cm compared to the current 75 cm could potentially lead to a future 

reduction of over 20 t CO2 ha-1 yr-1 or even almost 30 tons CO2 ha-1 yr-1 if a 

water table of 45 cm could be maintained. The reality is that maintaining the 

water table at 40-50 cm in a large plantation is generally not feasible with 

most current drainage lay outs. Therefore, RSPO and MPOB encourage 

plantation owners to optimize their drainage systems. 

E-52
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012) 

My recommendation would be to NOT use different values for organic carbon content 

and peat bulk density and oxidation percentage in the study of Hooijer et al. (2012), unless the 

authors of the publication agree on this. 

Related to oxidation: The value of 92% oxidative contribution as proposed by Hooijer et 

al. (2012) is on the high end of published values, but until now it is the most robust study that 

was specifically designed to determine the contribution of oxidation to soil subsidence since 

drainage started. Note that in the method set out by Couwenberg & Hooijer (2013) an estimate of 

the oxidative component is not needed to determine emissions. Only subsidence rate, bulk 

density and carbon content of the peat below the water table have to be known. Nevertheless, the 

authors did calculate an oxidative contribution to subsidence of 80%. Jauhianen et al. (2012) 

calculated that around 80% of subsidence was a result of oxidation in a stabilized situation. 

Other, more short term studies calculated between 40 and 80% oxidative loss. It is clear that 

more research is needed to establish (if needed) a correction factor. Future research should focus 

on disentangling these different processes that result in soil subsidence and under what 

conditions they are different (rain fall, length of dry/wet period, peat type, mineral content). 

Related to Carbon fraction: Page et al, 2011 (white paper) quotes carbon densities of 

0.068 and 0.138 g C cm-3. Couwenberg et al. (2010) gives a value of 0.068, who later corrected 

this value to 0.061 for C-Kalimantan and 0.044 for coastal peat swamp forests (Dommain et al. 

2011). Note that this value would be applicable to the peat below the water table only and is 

(very) conservative when applied to the upper peat layer. The value of 0.138 g C cm-3 is taken 

from Ywih et al. (2009); this value is caused by very high peat bulk densities of ~0.300 g cm-3 . 

In summary, carbon concentration values on a dry weight basis of around 55% were found 

representative for hemic and fibric tropical peat in SE Asia. Similar values were reported by 

Couwenberg et al. (2010), Wösten et al. (1997), Warren et al. (2012), Hooijer et al. (2012), 

Dommain et al. (2011), Page et al. (2004) and Yulianto et al. (2007). Hergoualch and Verchot 

(2011) used a value of 50% (IPCC, 2003) if no C concentration was provided in a publication. 

Overall, carbon content of tropical peat ranges between 40% and 60% depending on the nature, 

mineral content and location of the peat. Lower values of 40% (Sajarwan et al., 2002), 23.8% 

(Jaya, 2007) and 26.0% (Sajarwan et al., 2002) are associated with samples taken near to the 

underlying mineral substrate or for peaty soils with a large proportion of inorganic material. 

Lower values that have been found in the past can be attributed to the method that was used to 

determine the carbon fraction. The basic principle for the quantification of soil organic carbon 

relies on the destruction of organic matter, which can be performed chemically (which was often 

E-53
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

used in the past) or via heat (which is currently used). In studies where chemical destruction was 

used the carbon fraction was underestimated with reported values of 20-30% in tropical peat. 

Currently, the method with elevated temperatures (loss-on ignition) is most common to 

determine the C fraction. Warren et al. (2012) suggest using values established by element 

elemental analysers only. 

Related to peat bulk density: Page et al., 2011 (white paper) presented a comprehensive 

overview of bulk density (BD) values of tropical peat. In the given overview, only the study of 

Melling et al. (2007) provides values for BD in oil palm plantations (mean 0.20 g cm-3, SD 0,007 

g cm-3). The lowest average bulk density values below the water table reported for large 

plantation areas are those in Hooijer et al. (2012) and Couwenberg & Hooijer (2013) which vary 

from 0.073 to 0.078 g cm-3 and are well within the range suggested by Page et al. (2011). 

Overall, in many studies a BD of around 0.1 g cm-3 is being assumed the most comprehensive 

value for the BD of tropical, drained peat. Note that plantation development on peat requires 

compaction before planting of trees to create optimal conditions to anchor the roots of palm 

trees. The compaction by heavy machinery starts after removing the vegetation and is in many 

cases practiced over a period of years before planting starts. Therefore, the density of the upper 

soil is higher in plantations compared to undisturbed peat soils. Othman et al. (2011) reported 

BD values before and after land development for oil palm of 0.14 - 0.09 g cm-3 and 0.26 -

0.16 g cm3, respectively. 

It is recommended to EPA to not amend or correct the study of Hooijer et al. (2012) with 

other numbers and/or defaults and/or multiplication factors for oxidation fraction, Bd or C 

fraction of the peat. Instead, the recommendations described under Charge Question 1 should be 

considered. It is recommended in the near future to not base the EF for oil palm on peat on 1 

study, but to do a meta-analyses including soil subsidence based research and chamber based 

research added with values for the ‘missing’ components of the total C- and GHG balance. 

3. Directionality of estimate 

In summary: the EF for drained tropical peat provided by EPA (based on Hooijer et al. 

2012) is an underestimation of the reality. The number provided by EPA excludes non-CO2 

emissions, it excludes emissions related to fire and off-site impacts. 

a.	 Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of 

degradation, etc.). 

b.	 Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc.). 

E-54
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Add a+b. See earlier suggestion for performing a meta analyses to capture the spatial and 

temporal variability. The results of the meta analysis (including variations in peat soil and 

variations in climate) will result in a similar or slight overestimation of the EF provided by EPA 

(Hooijer et al., 2012). 

c. Differing water management practices at plantations. 

Add c. See earlier comments and discussion on the water table dependency of CO2 and 

CH4 emissions for tropical peats. 

d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia). 

Add d. The Wetlands Supplement of IPCC provides in its current and first version EF’s 

for both oil palm and Acacia. However, the cited references do not support the numbers provided 

(see also discussion under Question 4). 

The significant difference between the established EFs for oil palm and Acacia on peat 

provided by IPCC in the new Wetlands Supplement (11 vs 20 t C ha-1 yr-1) is in sharp contrast 

with the EFs given in available (scientific) literature. Available information suggests an almost 

similar EF for oil palm and Acacia. Hooijer et al. 2012 was the only study available in December 

2013 that reported on EF’s for oil palm and Acacia in the same study site: 

Oil palm: 21.2 t C ha-1 yr-1 

Acacia: 18.5 t C ha-1 yr-1 

Husnain et al. (2014) is the second study that reports on the difference between oil palm 

and Acacia in the same area, which was not published at the time of writing of Chapter 2 of the 

Wetlands Supplement, but is now available: 

Oil palm: 18 t C ha-1 yr-1 

Acacia: 16.1 t C ha-1 yr-1 

In conclusion: the only studies that measured in the same area on both oil palm and 

Acacia do not report a major difference between the EFs for oil palm and Acacia plantations on 

peat, but the slight difference reported indicates actually a higher EF for oil palm than for Acacia 

on peat. Tropical peat experts and government reviewers have expressed disagreement with 

IPCC on the large difference in IPCC report for oil palm and Acacia on peat. However, no 

explanation or scientific justification has been provided for the discrepancy yet. If the TIER 1 

E-55
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

numbers of IPCC are going to be used, the Hooijer et al. numbers and thus EPA EF for oil palm 

is overestimated. However, I argue that the IPCC number is a wrong interpretation of the 

available literature (see discussion under Charge Question 4). 

e.	 The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first five 

years after drainage. 

f.	 Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. 

Add e+f. See discussion earlier. The recommendation to EPA is to include IPCC TIER 1 

default values for 

■	 N2O (from drained peatlands): IPCC Wetlands Supplement, Table 2.5: summary of 

TIER 1 EF’s for drained tropical peat 

■	 CH4 (from drained peatlands): IPCC Wetlands Supplement, Table 2.3: summary of 

TIER 1 EF’s for drained tropical peat 

■	 CH4 (from drainage ditches in plantations): IPCC Wetlands Supplement, Table 2.4: 

summary of EF’s for drainage ditches in drained tropical peats 

■	 DOC (in plantation peat areas): IPCC Wetlands Supplement, Table 2.2: Default DOC 

emission factors for drained organic soils in tropical peatlands. 

g.	 Omission of emissions due to fire. 

Add g. Emissions due to fire 

IPCC provides TIER 1 information for the EF directly to drainage related peat- and forest 

fires. 

Although it is known that ‘wet’ peats do not burn, it is uncertain what part of the peat 

fires are directly related to drainage for oil palm and/or Acacia and what part is a direct result of 

the severe droughts that are a result of climate change. Given the fact that a main part of the peatand forest fires is a direct result of drainage, the EF used by EPA is underestimated in this 

respect. EPA could indeed use the IPCC value provided in the Wetlands Supplement which later 

could be updated by more recent and more focused research. 

The increased human interventions such as drainage of peat and the changes in climate 

(increase in temperature and droughts) are two main reasons that in many areas peat starts drying 

and becomes very susceptible to fire. Peat drainage is expected to continue at a high rate in the 

future since more and more peatland is developed for agricultural or excavation purposes. The 

E-56
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from peat drainage and peat fires might entail 

positive feedbacks such as accelerating climate changes because of the increase in radiative 

forcing. In other words, negative impacts that arise from peat fires are expected to increase in the 

future since future climate change scenarios predict drought events of greater severity and 

frequency in many areas, including those with the potential for peat fires to occur. Emissions 

from peat fires currently have been estimated at roughly 15% of human induced emissions 

(Poulter et al., 2006; Hadden et al., 2013). 

Since the 1980s, large scale fires in the peatlands of Indonesia have increased in 

frequency and intensity and have caused serious damage (Page et al., 2002). The largest peat 

fires registered took place in Indonesia during the El Niño dry season of 1997-1998 (previous 

severe fire events occurred in 1982, 1991, and 1994, and later in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 

2010) and lasted for several months, destroyed over 104 km2 of peat swamp with a loss of peat 

layers between 0.2 and 1.5 m in depth (Reins et al., 2009). Studies have shown that there is a 

direct link between the peat and forest fires and the peat drainage needed for the development of 

oil palm and timber plantations. Although burning for land clearing is forbidden by law in 

Indonesia, fire is commonly used in oil palm and timber plantations because it is cheap and 

effective (Tomich et al., 1998). By removing or disturbing the peat swamp forest, the risk of 

large-scale fires increases because such disturbances dry peat and leave much plant debris, which 

is flammable (Page et al., 2002). Also in Brunei, peat soils make up 18% of the land area and fire 

has been identified as a major threat. Studies show that fires in the dry El Niňo years started 

easily in accessible degraded peat areas, especially those close to roads and other infrastructure 

developments in peat swamp forest areas. 

Estimates of carbon losses during peat fires differ, but are within a certain range per 

climate zone. It has been estimated that for example the 1997-1998 fires in Indonesia released 

between 0.8 to 2.6 Gton of carbon into the atmosphere in total, equivalent to 13–40% of the 

global fossil fuel emissions of that year (Page et al., 2002). Specified per square meter area of 

burn, Couwenberg (2010) estimated a release of 26 kg C m-2 yr-1 during the 1997 peat fires in 

Southeast Asia. Heil (2007) estimated that the mean burn depth and rate of fire related peat loss 

amounted to 34 cm per fire event and 26,1 kg C m-2 yr-1 averaged for the years 1997, 2001 and 

2002 in an abandoned, degraded peat area in tropical SE Asia. 

Some sources report that fire is not a dominant source of methane (CH4) (e.g., Forster et 

al., 2007; Dlugokencky et al., 2011). Others report that CH4 represents a significant contributor 

to the seasonal variability of atmospheric methane (e.g., Bousquet et al., 2006) and vd Werf et al. 

(2004) concluded in their study that over the period 1997-2001, Central America, South 

E-57
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America, Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, Canada and the Russian Far East where substantial 

contributors to the emissions of both CO2 and CH4. Van de Werf et al. (2004) concluded also 

that although previous studies have identified wetlands as the primary source of methane during 

the 1997-1998 anomaly in the tropics, all of the CH4 anomalies observed in this period in SE 

Asia can be attributed to fires. This finding is confirmed by Worden et al. (2013) for the year 

2006 based on methane observations over Indonesia. 

Knowledge of peat fires and their huge impacts has increased in recent years, however, 

available scientific research is scattered and for the purpose of understanding and tackling the 

main problems related to peat fires, there is a need for a summary of this information. The just 

launched Wetlands Supplement of IPCC for the first time reports on the carbon impacts of fire 

for tropical peat: 

Lfire = A * Mb * Cf * Gef * 10-3 

Lfire = amount of CO2 or non-CO2 emissions, e.g., CH4 from fire, tonnes 

A = total area burned annually, ha 

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

default values in Table 2.6) 

Cf = combustion factor, dimensionless 

Gef = emission factor for each gas, g kg-1 dry matter burnt 

With Gef for Tropical peat (Christian et al., 2003): 

464 g per kg dry matter (CO2-C) 

210 g per kg dry matter (CO-C) 

21 g per kg dry matter (CH4-C) 

and MB for tropical peat 

Tropical 

Wildfire (undrained peat): No literature found 

Wildfire (drained peat): 353 (mean in t dry matter per ha peatland burnt) 

Prescribed fire (agricultural land management): 155 (mean in t dry matter per ha peatland burnt) 

h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations. 

Add h. Off-site impacts of drainage (e.g. hydrological leakage impacts) are not yet 

included in EPA’s EF. This is conservative (underestimation of emissions). The recommendation 

to EPA is to wait with amending the EF with off-site impacts until research becomes available. 

However, the conservativeness of omitting these emissions should be clearly mentioned. 

E-58
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4. IPCC report (Wetlands Supplement). 

a. Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40 

tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more 

detailed information? 

Add a. NO. There are major concerns regarding the IPCC emissions factor for oil palm 

on peat. 

1.	 The emissions factor (EF) for oil palm on peat is not consistent with the emissions 

reported in literature for the drainage depths that are required for oil palm plantations on 

peat. No scientific or other justification is provided for the established EF. 

2.	 This low EF for oil palm on peat also results in a large difference between the EFs for oil 

palm and Acacia on tropical peatland, which is not supported by literature and which is 

very unlikely. No scientific justification is provided for the large discrepancy. 

It is not possible to track down how the final EF for oil palm on peat was established, or 

to follow the logic/rationale behind the chosen EF. The EF options for oil palm reported in the 

first order draft and the second order draft and the EF published in the final draft (resp. FOD, 

SOD and FD) of Chapter 2 all differed substantially: the EF for Oil palm shifted from 5.24 in the 

FOD, to 11 OR 14 with ‘no consensus’ in the second order draft (in the Annex of this SOD), to 

11 t C ha-1 yr-1in the FD with no specification of water table /drainage depth (see Annex 2 for an 

overview of the process) and lacking a scientific justification or substantiated explanation. 

Detailed concerns: 

The significant difference between the established EFs for oil palm and Acacia on peat 

(11 vs 20 t C ha-1 yr-1) is in sharp contrast with the EFs given in available (scientific) literature 

(see earlier comments and discussion on this issue) 

Many (tropical) peat experts raised concerns on the first order and second order draft, and 

have independently expressed their deep concerns on the robustness of the EF for oil palm on 

peat. 

Many expert reviewers raised the concern that recent literature was not considered and 

some (tropical) peat experts have responded that the EF for oil palm on peat shall be in the range 

16-25 t C ha-1 yr-1 given the available literature. Many reviewers have provided useful 

comments, suggestions and references. The selection of literature used in the analyses is not clear 

E-59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the second order draft, experts expressed their deep concerns, because the ‘options’ 

given for the EF for oil palm on peat were not supported by scientific literature, nor explained; 

and moreover, it was stated in the SOD that there was no consensus between the authors. 

Process: 

The writing process of the IPCC Wetlands Supplement was carried out in 2011-2013 

over four Lead Author meetings and two rounds of expert review followed by a round of written 

comments by governments. 

The IPCC Government and Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD) started 17-4-

2012 and of the Second Order Draft (SOD) 11-2-2013. The final round of submission of written 

comments by Governments on the Final Draft of the Wetlands Supplement was 12 August - 8 

September 2013. 

Below a description is provided for how the EF’s for oil palm and Acacia on peat 

changed in a very intransparent way during the various writing and review stages. 

1.	 First Order Draft of Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement. 

Reported EFs in table 2.1 in the 1st order draft, establishment unclear. 

o	 Cropland 9.11 t C ha-1 yr-1 

o	 Oil palm Plantation 5.24 t C ha-1 yr-1 

o	 Plantation, e.g. Acacia 11.67 t C ha-1 yr-1 

 First Round of expert review on the FOD 

2.	 Second Order Draft, EF’s for oil palm and Acacia reported in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands 

Supplement, with NO CONSENSUS. 

Emissions factors ‘under discussion’ reported by IPCC in the 2nd order draft in the Appendix 

2a.2 (CO2 emission factors for drained tropical peatlands: Basis for future methodological 

development) 

o Acacia Plantation	 Alternative 1: 22 or Alternative 2: 19 t C ha-1 yr-1 

o Oil palm Plantation	 Alternative 1: 11 or Alternative 2: 14 t C ha-1 yr-1 

o Cropland, Drained Alternative 1: 21 or Alternative 2: 16 t C ha-1 yr-1 

 Second Round of expert review on the SOD 

3. Final Draft, EF’s for oil palm and Acacia in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement. 

E-60
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emissions factors reported by IPCC in final draft in Table 2.1, establishment unclear 

o	 Forest plantation 20 t C ha-1 yr-1 

o	 Oil palm Plantation 11 t C ha-1 yr-1 

o	 Cropland, Drained 14 t C ha-1 yr-1 

 Round of governments review 

Batumi meeting for acceptance by governments of the final draft of the Wetlands 

Supplement. 

b.	 Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the 

first several years immediately following drainage? 

Add b. No. Its more robust to have an additional multiplication factor for the first 5 years 

after drainage and is increased the certainty of EF for the continues emissions related to 

cultivation of peat. 

c.	 Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so, 

are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA’s 

purpose? 

Add c. Yes, as well as non-CO2 emissions (expressed in warming potential impacts 

(CO2-equivalents)). It is recommended to use IPCC defaults and EF’s until more research 

becomes available. 

d.	 There are also erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and waterborne 

transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from 

autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded 

that at present the science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on 

CO2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you 

agree that the science on these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC 

and dissolved inorganic carbon in its peat soil emission factor? 

Add d. Yes. Science related to this issue is not sufficient yet. It should be omitted from 

the EF. 

5. Additional input: 

All additional scientific information that I believe EPA should consider is mentioned in 

the former text. The meta analysis of Carlson et al. (in prep) should be considered as soon as it 

becomes available. 

E-61
 
 

 

 

Annex 1. Available literature related to the EFs of oil palm and Acacia 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Couwenberg, J. and A. Hoosier. 2013. 

Towards robust subsidence based and soil 

carbon factors for peat soils in South-East 

Asia, with special reference to oil palm 

plantations. Mires and Peat 12:1-13. Peer Review oil palm, Acacia Jambi, Riau Subsidence not applicable 2007-2012 every 2-4 weeks 

Dariah, A., S. Marwanto and F. Agus. 2013. 

Root- and peat-based CO2 emissions from oil 

palm plantations. Mitigation and Adaptation 

Strategies for Global Change 18. Peer Review oil palm Jambi 

Closed 

Chamber yes 2011-2012 8 times 

Hooijer, A., S. Page, J. Jauhianen, W. A. Lee, 

X. X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2012. 

Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical 

peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053-1071. Peer Review 

Acacia and oil 

palm 

Riau and 

Jambi Subsidence not applicable 2007-2010 variable 

Othman, H., A. T. Mohammed, F. M. Darus, 

M.H. Harun, and M.P. Zambri. 2011. Best 

management practices for oil palm cultivation 

on peat: ground water-table maintenance in 

relation to peat subsidence and estimation of 

CO2 emissions at Sessang, Sarawak. Journal 

of Oil Palm Research 23: 1078-1086. Peer Review oil palm Sarawak Subsidence not applicable 2001-2008 

Comeau, L. P., K. Hergoualc'h, J. U. Smith 

and L. Verchot. 2013. Conversion of intact 

peat swamp forest to oil palm plantation -

effects on soil CO2 fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra. 

Working Paper 110, CIFOR. White Paper 

primary forest, 

logged forest, 

oil palm Jambi 

Closed 

Chamber yes Jan-Sept 2012 

monthly, 9:00-

14:00 

Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S.E. Page. 

2012. Carbon dioxide emissions from an 

Acacia plantation on peatland in Sumatra, 

Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9: 617-630. Peer Review 

Acacia 

plantation Riau 

Closed 

Chamber yes 

Apr 1997 to Apr 

2009 

2-weekly to 

monthly 

Agus, F., E. Handayani, M. van Noordwijk, K. 

Idris, and S. Sabiham. 2010. Root respiration 

interferes with peat C02 emission 

measurement. 19th World Congress of Soil 

Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. 

1-6 Aug 2010. Brisbane. 

Conference 

Proceedings oil palm Aceh 

Closed 

Chamber yes Nov-Oct 2008 

E-62
 

 

 

 

 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Ali, M., D. Taylor, and K. Inubushi. 2006. 

Effects of environmental variations on CO2 

efflux from a tropical peatland in Eastern 

Sumatra. Wetlands26: 612-618. Peer Review 

logged forest, 

cleared forest, 

agriculture 

(banana, 

cassava, 

coconut, rice) Jambi 

Closed 

Chamber no Mar-Aug 2001 

5-7 am, 11-2 pm, 

4-6 pm 

Chimner, R. 2004. Soil respiration rates of 

tropical peatlands in Micronesia and Hawaii. 

Wetlands 24: 51-56. Peer Review 

forest, shrub, 

taro 

Micronesia, 

Hawaii 

Closed 

Chamber no 2001-2002 2-4 times 

Chimner, R. and K. Ewel. 2004. Differences in 

carbon fluxes between forested and cultivated 

Mironesian tropical peatlands. Wetlands 

Ecology and Management 12: 419-427. Peer Review 

secondary 

forest, taro Micronesia 

Closed 

Chamber no 

May 2001-June 

2002 4 times 

Dariah, A., F. Agus, E. Susanti and Jubaedah. 

2012. Relationship between sampling distance 

and carbon dioxide emission under oil palm 

plantation. Journal of Tropical Soils 18: 125-

130. Peer Review oil palm Jambi 

Closed 

Chamber no 2011 

7 times, before 

and after 

fertilizer 

Darung. 2005. The effect of forest fire and 

agriculture on CO2 emission from tropical 

peatlands, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. 

Proceedings of the International Workshop on 

Human Dimension of Tropical Peatland Under 

Global Environmental Change. 8-9 Dec 2004. 

Bogor, Indonesia. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

annual crops, 

natural forest, 

burnt forest 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no Mar 2002-2004 monthly 

Furukawa, Y., K. Inubushi, M. Ali, A.M. Itang 

and H. Tsuruta. 2005. Effect of changing 

groundwater levels caused by land-use 

changes on greenhouse gas fluxes from 

tropical peat lands. Nutrient Cycling in 

Agroecosystems 71: 81-91. Peer Review 

drained forest, 

cassava, paddy Jambi 

Closed 

Chamber no 

Oct 2000-Mar 

2002 monthly 

Hadi, A., K. Inubushi, E. Purnomo, F. Razie, 

K. Yamakawa and H. Tsuruta. 2000. Effect of 

land-use change on nitrous oxide emission 

from tropical peatlands. Chemosphere - Global 

Change Science 2: 347-358. Peer Review 

secondary 

forest, converted 

paddy, upland 

cassava, 

converted 

uplands 

South 

Kalimantan not applicable 1998-1999 December 

E-63
 

 

 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Hadi, A., K. Inubushi, Y. Furukawa, E. 

Purnomo, M. Rasmadi and H. Tsuruta. 

Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical 

peatlands in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Nutrient 

Cycling in Agroecosystems 71:73-80. Peer Review 

secondary 

forest, paddy, 

upland crop, 

fallow, rice-soy 

South 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 

Dec 1998, Dec 

1999, Nov 2000 

Hadi, A., L. Fatah, Syaiffudin, Abdullah, D. N. 

Affandi, R. A. Bakar and K. Inubushi. 2012 

greenhouse gas emissions from peat soils 

cultivated to rice field, oil palm, and vegetable. 

Journal of Tropical Soils 17: 105-114. Peer Review 

oil palm, 

vegetable field, 

rice field 

South 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no July-Nov 2009 weekly 

Hadi, A., M. Haridi, K. Inubushi, E. Purnomo, 

F. Razie, H. Tsuruta. 2001. Effects of land-use 

change in tropical peat soil on the microbial 

population and emission of greenhouse gases. 

Microbes and Environments 16: 79-86. Peer Review 

secondary 

forest, paddy 

field, paddy-soy 

South 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no Nov-99 once 

Hirano, T., H. Segah, K. Kusin, S. Limin, H. 

Takahashi and M. Osaki. 2012. Effects of 

disturbances on the carbon balance of tropical 

peat swamp forests. Global Change Biology 

18: 3410-3422. Peer Review 

intact forest, 

drained forest, 

drained burnt 

forest 

Central 

Kalimantan C02 no 2004-2008 half hour 

Hirano, T., H. Segah, S. Limin, H. Takahashi 

and M. Osaki. 2007. Comparison of CO2 

balance among three disturbed ecosystems in 

tropical peatlands. Proceedings of 

International Workshop on Advanced Flux 

Network and Flux Evaluation, 19-22 Oct 2007. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

swamp forest 

and drained cut 

area 

Central 

Kalimantan C02 not applicable 2004-2005 unknown 

Hirano, T., H. Segah, T. Harada, S. Limin, T. 

June, R. Hirata and M. Osaki. 2007. Carbon 

dioxide balance of a tropical peat swamp 

forest in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Global 

Change Biology 13: 412-425. Peer Review forest 

Central 

Kalimantan C02 no 

Nov 2001-Jan 

2005 1 min 

Hirano, T., J. Jauianen, T. Inoue and H. 

Takahashi. 2009. Controls on the carbon 

balance of tropical peatlands. Ecosystems 12: 

873-887. Peer Review 

forest, drained 

forest, 

agricultural land 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 2002-2005 

Hirano, T., K. Kusin, S. Limin and M. Osaki. 

2014. Carbon dioxide emissions through 

oxidative peat decomposition on a burnt 

tropical peatland. Global Change Biology 20: 

555-565. Peer Review burned peat 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 2004-2009 half hour 

E-64
 

 

 

 

 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Inubushi, K. and A. Hadi. 2007. Effect of 

land-use management on greenhouse gas 

emission from tropical peatlands- carbonclimate-human interaction on tropical 

peatland. Proceedings of the International 

Symposium and Workshop on Tropical 

Peatland, 27-29 Aug 2007. Yogyakarta, 

Indonesia. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

secondary 

forest, paddy 

field, ricesoybean rotation 

South 

Kalimantan; 

Jambi 

Closed 

Chamber no 

Inubushi, K., Y. Furukawa, A. Hadi, E. 

Purnomo, and H. Tsurata. 2005. Factors 

influencing methane emission from peat soils: 

comparison of tropical and temperate 

wetlands. Nutrient Cycling in 

Agroecosystems71:93-99. Peer Review 

crop, abandoned 

paddy, 

abandoned crop, 

drained forest 

South 

Kalimantan; 

Jambi not applicable Nov 2001 once 

Inubushi, Kazuyuki et al. 2003. Seasonal 

changes of CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes in 

relation to land-use change in tropical 

peatlands located in coastal area of South 

Kalimantan. Chemosphere 52: 603-608. Peer Review 

secondary 

forest, paddy 

field, upland 

field 

South 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 

November 1999; 

Jan 2001 monthly 

Ishida, T., S. Suzuki, T. Nagano, K. Osawa, K. 

Yoshino, K. Fukumara and T. Nuyim. 2001. 

CO2 emission rate from a primary peat swamp 

forest ecosystem in Thailand. Environ Control 

Biol 39: 305-312. Peer Review primary forest 

Southern 

Thailand 

Closed 

Chamber yes unknown unknown 

Ismail, A.B., M. Zulkefli, I. Salma, J. 

Jamaludin and M.J. Hanif. 2008. Selection of 

land clearing technique and crop type as 

preliminary steps in restoring carbon reserve in 

tropical peatland under agriculture. 

Proceedings of the 13th International Peat 

Congress, June 2008, Tullamore, Ireland. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

oil palm, 

jackfruit, 

pineapple Sarawak 

Closed 

Chamber no 

June 2002 - Sept 

2004 unknown 

Jauhiainen, J. 2002. Carbon fluxes in pristine 

and developed Central Kalimantan peatlands. 

Peatlands for people: natural resource 

functions and sustainable management. 

Proceedings of the international symposium on 

tropical peatlands, 22-23 August 2001, Jakarta. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

peat swamp 

forest, clear cut 

peat drained for 

agriculture 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 1999-2001 

four month-long 

measurements 

E-65
 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Jauhiainen, J., H. Silvennoinen, R. 

Hamalainen, K. Kusin, R.J. Raison and H. 

Vasandres. 2012. Nitrous oxide fluxes from 

tropical peat with different disturbance history 

and management. Biogeosciences 9: 1337-

1350. Peer Review 

undrained forest, 

drained forest, 

drained 

recovering 

forest, drained 

burned, drained 

for ag 

Central 

Kalimantan no 2001-2007 variable 

Jauhiainen, J., H. Takahashi, J. E. P. Heikken, 

P. J. Martikainen and H.Vasandres. 2005. 

Carbon fluxes from a tropical peat swamp 

forest floor. Global Change Biology 11: 1788-

1797. Peer Review 

mixed-type peat 

swamp forest 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 

wet and dry 

season, 1999, 

2000, 2001 3-5 weeks 

Jauhiainen, J., S. Limin, H. Silvennoinen and 

H. Vasander. 2008. Carbon dioxide and 

methane fluxes in drained tropical peat before 

and after hydrological restoration. Ecology 89: 

3503-3514. Peer Review 

peat swamp 

forest and 

deforested 

burned area 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 

April 2004 to 

April 2006 frequent 

Kwon, M. J., A. Haraguchi and H. Kang. 

2013. Long-term water regime differentiates 

changes in decomposition and microbial 

properties in tropical peat soils exposed to 

short-term drought. Soil Biology & 

Biochemistry 60: 33-44. Peer Review 

intact and 

degraded peat 

forest 

Central 

Kalimantan Other no ?? 28 day incubation 

Kyuma, K. 2003. Soil degradation in the 

coastal lowlands of Southeast Asia. Taipei 

City, Taiwan: Asian and Pacific Council. Peer Review 

degraded swamp 

forest, 

agriculture 

Johore, 

Malaysia 

Closed 

Chamber yes 

Kyuma, K., N. Kaneko, A.B. Zahari and K. 

Ambak. 1992. Swamp forest and tropical peat 

in Johore, Malaysia. Proceedings of the 

International Symposium on Tropical 

Peatland. 6-10 May 1991. Kuching, Sarawak, 

Malaysia. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

forest, reclaimed 

field 

Johore, 

Malaysia Other yes 

Sep 1988-Aug 

1989 every 2 weeks 

Lovelock, C., R. Ruess and I. C. Feller. 2011. 

CO2 efflux from cleared mangrove peat. 

PLOSone 6. Peer Review 

cleared 

mangrove Belize 

Closed 

Chamber no 

Feb 2004 and Jan 

2007 once 

Marwanto, S. and F. Agus. 2013. Is CO2 flux 

from oil palm plantations controlled by soil 

moisture and or soil and air temperatures? 

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for 

Global Chang. DOI: 10.1007/s11027-013-

9518-3. Peer Review 

oil palm 

plantation Jambi 

Closed 

Chamber 

no, but 

minimizes root 

interference 2010 

E-66
 

 

 

 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Melling, L., A. Chaddy, K. J. Goh and R. 

Hatano. 2013. Soil CO2 fluxes from different 

ages of oil palm in tropical peatland of 

Sarawak, Malaysia as influenced by 

environmental and soil properties. Act 

Horticult 982. Peer Review oil palm Sarawak 

Closed 

Chamber no 

July 2006-June 

2008 monthly 

Melling, L., K. J. Goh, C. Beauvais and R. 

Hatano. 2008. Carbon flow and budget in 

young mature oil palm agroecosystem on deep 

tropical peat. The Planter. Peer Review oil palm Sarawak 

Closed 

Chamber yes one year monthly 

Melling, L., R. Hatano and K. J. Goh. 2005. 

Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in 

tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus 

57:1-11. Peer Review 

mixed forest, oil 

palm plantation, 

sago plantation Sarawak 

Closed 

Chamber no 

August 2002 to 

July 2003 monthly 

Melling, L., R. Hatano, K.J. Goh. 2005. Global 

warming potential from soils in tropical 

peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Phyton 

(Austria) 45: 275-284. Peer Review 

mixed forest, oil 

palm plantation, 

sago plantation Sarawak 

Closed 

Chamber no 

August 2002 to 

July 2003 monthly 

Mezbahuddin, M., R.F. Grant and T. Hirano. 

2013. Modelling effects of seasonal variation 

in water table depth on net ecosystem CO2 

exchange of a tropical peatland. 

Biogeosciences Discussions 10: 13353-13398) 

Peer Review 

(undergoing) 

degraded peat 

forest 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Murayama, S. and Z.A. Bakar. 1996. 

Decomposition of tropical peat soils 2. 

estimation of in situ decomposition by 

measurement of CO2 flux. Agricultural 

Research Quarterly 30: 153-158. Peer Review 

forest, oil palm, 

maize, okra, 

fallow 

Peninsular 

Malaysia 

Closed 

Chamber no 1991-1992 unknown 

Sumiwinata, B. 2012. Emission of CO2 and 

CH4 from plantation forest of Acacia 

crassicarpa on peatlands in Indonesia. 

Proceedings of the 14th International Peat 

Conference. 3-8 June 2012. Stockholm, 

Sweden. 

Conference 

Proceedings Acacia Riau, Jambi 

Closed 

Chamber no one year every 1-2 weeks 

Sundari, S., T. Hirano, H. Yamahada, M. 

Kamiya, and S. H. Limin. 2012 effect of 

groundwater level on soil respiration in 

tropical peat swamp forests. Journal of 

Agricultural Meteorology68: 121-134. Peer Review 

undrained and 

drained peat 

forests 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 

July 2004-April 

2006 daily 

E-67
 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Suzuki, S, T. Ishida, T. Nagano and S. 

Wahharoen. 1999. Influences of deforestation 

on carbon balance in a natural tropical peat 

swamp forest in Thailand. Environmental 

Control in Biology 37: 115-128. Peer Review 

peat swamp 

forest, 

secondary forest Thailand C02 not applicable 1995-1996 unknown 

Takakai, F., T. Morishita, Y. Hashidoko, U. 

Darung, K. Kuramochi, S. Dohong, S. Limin 

and R Hatano. 2006. Effects of agricultural 

land-use change and forest fire on N

2O 

emission from tropical peatlands, Central 

Kalimantan. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 

52:662-674. Peer Review 

grassland, 

cropland, forest, 

burned forest, 

regenerated 

forest 

Central 

Kalimantan not applicable 

March 2002 to 

March 2004 1 to 3 monthly 

Takakai. 2005. The effect of forest fire and 

agriculture on CH4 and N

2O emission from 

tropical peatlands, Central Kalimantan, 

Indonesia -Proceedings of the International 

Workshop on Human Dimension of Tropical 

Peatland Under Global Environmental 

Change. 8-9 Dec 2004. Bogor, Indonesia. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

arable, natural 

forest, burnt 

forest 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Toma, Y., F. Takakai, U. Darung, K. 

Kuramochi, S. Limin, S. Dohong and R. 

Hatano. 2011. Nitrous oxide emission derived 

from soil organic matter decomposition from 

tropical agricultural peat soil in Central 

Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Science and Plant 

Nutrition 57: 436-451. Peer Review 

cropland, bare, 

grassland 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Closed 

Chamber no 

April 2004 to 

March 2007 

1 to 2 x per 

month 

Ueda, S., C. S. U. Go, T. Yoshioko, N. 

Yoshida, E. Wada, T. Miyajama, A. Sugimoto, 

N. Boontanon, P. Vijarnsorn, S. Boonprakub. 

2000. Dynamics of dissolved O

2, CO2, CH4, 

and N

2O in a tropical coastal swamp in 

southern Thailand. Biogeochemistry 49: 191-

215. Peer Review 

swamp forest, 

reclaimed, 

paddy, tidal 

gate, arable 

land, Thailand 1990 to 1993 

dry and wet 

season 

E-68
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Vien, D.M., N.M. Phoung, J. Jauhianen and 

V.T. Guong. 2008. Carbon dioxide emissions 

from peatland in relation to hydrology, peat 

moisture, humidification at the Vodoi National 

Park, Vietnam. Carbon-climate-human 

interaction on tropical peatland. Proceedings 

of the International Symposium and Workshop 

on Tropical Peatland. 7-29 August 2007. 

Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

secondary peat 

swamp forest 

Vodoi Nat 

Park Vietnam 

Closed 

Chamber yes 

Oct 2006 to July 

2007 once 

Wantanabe, A., B. H. Purwanto, H. Ando, K. 

Kakuda and F. Jong. 2009. Methane and CO2 

fluxes from an Indonesian peatland used for 

sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.) 

cultivation: effects of fertilizer and 

groundwater level management. Agriculture, 

Ecosystems & Environment 134: 14-18. Peer Review sago Riau 

Closed 

Chamber no 2004 to 2007 various 

Warren, M.W. 2012. A cost-efficient method 

to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil. 

Biogeosciences 9:4477-4485. Peer Review 

Wosten, J.H.M., A.B. Ismail and A.L.M. van 

Wijk. 1997. Peat subsidence and its practical 

implications: A case study in Malaysia. 

Geoderma78: 25-36. Peer Review 

drained peat 

(agriculture) 

Western 

Jorhore 

Malaysia Subsidence not applicable 21 years various 

Wright, E., C. R. Black, B. L. Turner and S. 

Sjogersten. 2013. Environmental controls of 

temporal and spatial variability in CO2 and 

CH4 fluxes in a neotropical peatland. Global 

Change Biology 19: 3775-3789. Peer Review intact peat Panama 

Closed 

Chamber no 2007 each month 

Chin, K. K. and H.L. Poo. 1992. The 

Malaysian experience of water management in 

tropical peat. Proceedings of the International 

Symposium on Tropical Peatland, 6-10 May 

1991, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

oil palm, 

pineapple, rice, 

agriculture 

Peninsular 

Malaysia, 

Sarawak Subsidence 1980s n/a 

Husen, E., S. Salma and F. Agus. 2013. Peat 

emission control by groundwater management 

and soil amendments: evidence from 

laboratory experiments. Mitigation and 

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18. Peer Review oil palm Riau Other no 

E-69
 

 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Jauhiainen, J., H. Silvennoinen, R. 

Hamalainen, K. Kusin, R.J. Raison and H. 

Vasandres. 2012. Nitrous oxide fluxes from 

tropical peat with different disturbance history 

and management. Biogeosciences 9: 1337-

1350. Peer Review 

undrained forest, 

drained forest, 

drained 

recovering 

forest, drained 

burned, drained 

for ag 

Central 

Kalimantan no 2001-2008 

Lamade, E. and J.P. Bouillet. 2005. Carbon 

storage and global change: the role of oil palm. 

Oléagineux, Corps Gras, Lipides 12: 154-160. Peer Review oil palm multiple 

Lamade, E., N. Djegui and P. Leterme. 1996. 

Estimation of carbon allocation to the roots 

from soil respiration measurements of oil 

palm. Plant and Soil 181: 329-339. Peer Review oil palm Benin 

Lim, C.H. 1992. Reclamation of peatland for 

agricultural development in West Johor -

Proceedings of the International Symposium 

on Tropical Peatland, 6-10 May 1991, 

Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia 

Conference 

Proceedings 

oil palm, 

pineapple, 

others 

Peninsular 

Malaysia Subsidence not applicable 

12 years of 

measurement unknown 

Melling, L., R. Hatano and K. J. Goo. 2005. 

Methane fluxes from three ecosystems in 

tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil 

Biology & Biochemistry 37: 1445-1454 Peer Review 

mixed forest, oil 

palm plantation, 

sago plantation Sarawak not applicable 

August 2002 to 

July 2003 monthly 

Melling, L., R. Hatano and K. J. Goo. 2007. 

Nitrous oxide emissions from three 

ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak, 

Malaysia. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 53: 

792-805. Peer Review 

mixed forest, oil 

palm plantation, 

sago plantation Sarawak not applicable 

August 2002 to 

July 2003 monthly 

Melling, L., R. Hatano, K. J. Goo. 2006. 

Short-term effect of urea on CH4 flux under 

the oil palm (elaeis guineensis) on tropical 

peatland in Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Science 

and Plant Nutrition52: 788-792. Peer Review oil palm Sarawak not applicable 

August 2002 to 

July 2003 monthly 

Mutalib, A.A, J.S. Lim, M.H. Wong and L. 

Koonvai. 1992. Characterization, distribution, 

and utilization of peat in Malaysia -

Proceedings of the International Symposium 

on Tropical Peatland. 6-10 May 1991. 

Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia 

Conference 

Proceedings oil palm, others 

Peninsular 

Malaysia Subsidence not applicable unknown unknown 

E-70
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Wosten, J.H.M. and H.P. Ritzema. 2001. Land 

and water management options for peatland 

development in Sarawak, Malaysia. 

International Peat Journal. Peer Review Sarawak 

Dradjad, M. 2003. Subsidence of peat soils the 

tidal swamplands of Barambai, South 

Kalimantan. Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan 

Lingkungan4: 32-40. Peer Review 

Hadi, A., I. Kazuyuki, P. Erry, F. Yuchiro and 

T. Haruo. 2002. Emission of CH4 and CO2 

from tropical peatland and factors affecting 

them. Proceedings of the 17th World Congress 

on Soil Sciences, Bangkok. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

Hooijer, A. 2008. Master plan for the 

conservation and development of the ex-mega 

rice project area in Central Kalimantan, cluster 

3 - hydrology and peatland water management. 

Euroconsult MottMacDonald/Deltares. White Paper 

Jauhiainen, J. 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions 

from a plantation on thick tropical peat. 14th 

International Peat Congress. 3–8 June 2012. 

Stockholm, Sweden. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

Jauhiainen, J., H. Silvennoinen, S.H. Limin 

and H. Vasander. 2008. Effect of hydrological 

restoration on degraded tropical peat carbon 

flux. Proceedings 13th International Peat 

Congress. Dec 2008. Tullamore, Ireland. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

Jauhiainen, J., H. Vasander, J. Heikkinen and 

P. J. Martikainen. 2004. Carbon balance in 

managed tropical peat in Central Kalimantan, 

Indonesia. Proceedings of the 12th 

International Peat Congress. Tampere. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

4 three week 

periods 

Jauhiainen, J., J. Heikkinen, P. J. Martikainen 

and H. Vasander. 2001. CO2 and CH4 fluxes in 

pristine peat swamp forest and peatland 

converted to agriculture in Central 

Kalimantan. International Peat Journal 11. Peer Review 

4 month-long 

periods with 

measurements 1-

5 times a week 

E-71
 

 

Citation Pub Type LU Loc (s) 

Measures 

CO2 

Autotrophic 

respiration 

correction 

Period of 

Measurement 

Frequency of 

Measurement 

Maswar, M. 2010. Kajian cadangan karbon 

pada lahan gambut tropika yang didrainase 

untuk tanaman tahunan. Bogor, Indonesia. 

Sekolah Pasca Sarjana Institut Pertanian 

Bogor. Dissertation 

Melling, L. 2008. Characteristics of natural 

tropical peatland and their influence on C flux 

on Loaan Bunut National Park, Sarawak, 

Malaysia. Proceedings of 13th International 

Peat Congress. Dec 2008. Tullamore, Ireland. 

Conference 

Proceedings 

Rumbang, N. 2008. Emission of CO2 from 

tropical peat soil under different land use 

types. Proceedings 13th International Peat 

Congress. Dec 2008. Tullamore, Ireland 

Conference 

Proceedings 

Taylor, D. and M. Ali. 2001. Biogeochemical 

responses to land cover changes in coastal 

peatland catchments: spatial and temporal 

fluxes in greenhouse gas emissions and peat 

subsidence, Jambi Province, Sumatra. 

SARCS/UNOP Final Report: GLO/92/G31-CENV-PS609. White Paper 

Western Johore Integrated Agricultural 

Development Project. 1996. Peat soil 

management study. Department of Irrigation 

and Drainage, Kuala Lumpur and Land and 

Water Research Group, Wageningen. White Paper 

E-72