the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ecosystem-scale greenhouse gas fluxes from actively extracted peatlands: water table depth drives interannual variability
Abstract. Peat extraction substantially alters a peatland’s surface-atmosphere exchange of carbon (C). The sites are drained, their vegetation is removed, and then the peat is vacuum harvested for use as a horticultural growing medium. Despite this disturbance covering only a small percentage of Canadian peatlands, the shift from being a net sink to a net source of C during the typical 15–40 plus years of active extraction makes it an important system to study. Ours is the first study in Canada to conduct ecosystem scale measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) exchange using eddy covariance from actively extracted peatlands. In order to understand environmental drivers of seasonal and interannual patterns of CO2, and seasonal patterns of CH4 fluxes, daytime ecosystem scale measurements of CO2 and CH4, along with average hourly water table depth (WTD) and soil temperature, were conducted from March to October in 2020, 2021 and 2022 at a Western Site (near Drayton Valley, Alberta), and from May to October in 2020 and 2022 at an Eastern Site (near Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec). In contrast to the positive linear relationship observed in my studies, we observed a unimodal CO2 – WTD relationship, with fluxes peaking at WTDs of 47 cm. Water table depth drove interannual variability, suggesting that in deeply drained peatlands, we must consider that insufficient surface moisture conditions can reduce soil respiration. Soil temperature had a significant interaction with WTD with positive relationships during moderate and wet periods (WTD < 50 cm) and weakly positive to negative relationships during dry periods (WTD > 50 cm) with lower explanatory power. Thus, process-based models using soil temperature alone may overestimate fluxes from drained peatlands during dry periods. The sites were small sources of CH4 compared to natural boreal bogs, though we were not able to capture freeze-thaw periods. After making assumptions for missing nighttime and wintertime data, we estimated an annual CO2-C of 112 to 174 g C m-2 yr-1, which is considerably lower than Canada’s current Tier 2 emission factor. This research will aid in updating emission factors for peat extraction in Canada, and will help guide industry site management practices.
- Preprint
(1096 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2089 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1111', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Apr 2025
reply
The authors present eddy covariance (EC) based CO2 and CH4 fluxes from two actively harvested peatlands in Quebec and Alberta Canada. The authors show that daytime CO2 fluxes are controlled by an interactive factor of water table depth (WTD) and temperature, with the strongest positive temperature relationship during moderately wet conditions (WTD between 25-50 cm) and they found an overall unimodal relationship with WTD. For methane, the authors present data from the Alberta site for one year from May-August. Monthly methane fluxes increased throughout the season, with a small but significant positive relationship with soil temperature (11% of variation explained). They estimate that the total net ecosystem carbon balance for the two peatlands is between 112-174 g C m-2 yr-1, which is currently lower than the emissions factor assigned by the Canadian government.
Overall, the authors present a well-constructed manuscript that I found easy to follow and enjoyable to read. Flux data from these systems are still relatively rare, and the data will be of high importance to many users, making this manuscript of high value upon publication.
One major suggestion I have is to improve the EC-based analysis of the contribution of fluxes from ditches. The authors mention that what makes their study unique is the inclusion of ditches at active harvest sites. Throughout the manuscript, they refer to a chamber-based study that showed high fluxes from ditches, compared to the field. But for methane, the total CH4 fluxes from the tower and the combined ditch and field fluxes from the chambers are off by an order of magnitude. The authors do not mention how much of the tower footprints are comprised of ditch area which I think is important to know in this context. Furthermore, the authors should consider disaggregating the ditch and field flux components as is being increasingly done in many heterogeneous footprint analyses (Ludwig et al. 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-1301-2024; and Pirk et al. 2024 https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL109283 as two examples). An unmixing approach has the potential to clarify some of the more confusing aspects in the manuscript related to ditch contribution and mismatch with chamber measurements. This approach could also strengthen some of the relationships between temperature and wtd for the field fluxes. If ditches are a major component of the tower flux as suggested by the authors, then the soil temperature and water table relationships with the field fluxes would be dampened by the over-powering signal from the ditches, which are likely to have a different relationship with env. variables as is common for aquatic ecosystems.
Below I outline some minor comments to help improve the clarity of the manuscript.
Line 41. Can the authors provide some context for how significant 2.1 Mt Co2 equivalents is? How does this compare to other sources? Some sort of context will help the reader interpret the potential significance of harvested peat site C emissions, as mentioned in the preceding sentence.
Line 48. I am confused what the 15-40 year range is referring to. How long the method has been used in Canada? How long the sites are extracted for? Later on in the paper the authors use a different year range for how long sites are extracted.
Lines 66-67. Here the authors should provide some more details on Canada’s Tier emissions system. Those outside of Canada might not be familiar. How are the Tiers used? Is Tier 2 high or low compared to other Tiers? This topic comes up again in the discussion so I think it would be very helpful to provide more information here.
Line 67. The sentence on methane suggests the authors will present annual fluxes in this paper. Some indication of summertime methane fluxes from other studies could be of value here.
Line 73. Many folks present WTD positive and negative signs differently. Perhaps clarify here what it means to have a “positive relationship”
Line 75. “was less than 50 cm below the surface” (this will help clarify water table direction)
Line 123. Can the authors provide a comparison with available air temperature data too?
Line 128. Please describe how the instruments were placed in the peat
Line 153. Please describe what a u* threshold is for those who might not be as familiar with EC methods :)
Line 158-159. This would be a good section to add more information about the average percentage of ditch area in the footprints.
Lines 164-174. Either here or elsewhere in the manuscript, the authors should describe the limitations of not having nighttime data. Do daytime fluxes over estimate total daily fluxes? Underestimate? Do any of the European sites include night-time data that could help provide rational for applying the daytime fluxes across the 24-hour period as done here (line 185) ?
Lines 183-184. It is a bit unclear why the authors chose to combine the data, especially since later on in their results they state that site was a significant factor for CO2 fluxes.
Line 189-190. A sensitivity analysis of the non-growing season month contribution could be beneficial here. How much does the total annual budget change as this value is adjusted? Some studies from natural peatlands suggest upwards of 50% of the annual flux could be from the non-growing season (Treat et al. 2018 GCB).
Line 339. Does this mean there were no significant relationships at 10cm for AB and 20 cm for QC?
Line 343-344. It would be helpful to add sampling sizes here for each water table group
Lines 381-384. What is the field:ditch ratio in AB? Some of the mismatches between EC and chamber methods mentioned here could be resolved by unmixing the EC fluxes, as mentioned previously.
Lines 398-399. I am not quite sure I am convinced by the authors' suggestion that their findings conflict with previous results as this section is currently written. The authors go on to say that the WTDs for the other studies are much shallower (line 411). Do the results actually conflict, or is it a matter of differences in relative changes in WTD between the sites? Providing the WTD ranges for the other studies mentioned here could help clarify the magnitude of “conflicting” results.
Lines 443-444. Many natural peatland studies also show deeper soil temperature is a better predictor in general. See Heffernan et al. 2024 Global Change Biology as an example.
Lines 483-485. What is the rational for including negative fluxes when ecologically speaking, there should be no uptake? How do the authors know this is not an instrument or analysis error? It is unclear what the reasons are for including negative fluxes if there is no biological explanation.
Lines 490-493. I found this section confusing to follow. Perhaps it could be clarified by also including what the ditch-only chamber flux values were. Also refer to my main comment about separating fluxes for the ditch and field components.
Line 532-533. Just flagging this sentence as a reminder to provide more information about the Canadian Tier emission factors and their relevance/importance to this study, as mentioned in the introduction earlier.
Line 547. Does "fluxes" refer to CO2 fluxes here or CO2 and CH4 fluxes?
Line 544. Can the authors provide references for existing process-based models that use C-temperature relationships? That would be a good addition here.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1111-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
94 | 28 | 6 | 128 | 9 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 94
- PDF: 28
- XML: 6
- Total: 128
- Supplement: 9
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1