the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Feb 2025
Ideas and Perspectives: Potentially Large but Highly Uncertain Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting from Peat Erosion
Abstract. Peatland erosion and resulting particulate organic carbon (POC) flux is an international problem that is causing loss of peat carbon to the atmosphere and contributing to climate change. Peatlands from around the world are eroding and losing carbon for a range of reasons, from overgrazing to climate change, and the POC is subsequently exposed to a diverse range of conditions, depending on the geographical context. The context, drivers of erosion and downstream environment will directly influence the rate at which POC is mineralised to CO2 by microbial communities. Despite the potential large carbon losses from POC and subsequent CO2 emissions the mechanisms for emissions reporting at international and national level are undeveloped. Here we highlight the key limitations for understanding and quantifying emissions that result from peat erosion and discuss the research that is required to address these limitations. We particularly consider quantification of direct CO2 emissions from bare peat and resedimentation and further turnover at different scales. By integrating biological and geomorphological process understanding we can work towards better quantification of peatland emissions and the emissions that can be avoided through peatland ecosystem restoration.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(828 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(828 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-287', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Apr 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Parker, 20 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-287/egusphere-2025-287-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Parker, 20 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-287', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2025
Generally the article is well written and does an effective job of synthesising research in an area of interest in peatland carbon cycling. I find the explanations to be clear and the estimations to be revealing and valid.
The problem for me is that it is unclear if the focus of the article is UK blanket bogs or peatlands globally. I initially read the introduction as being partly a call for more POC-erosion emission research internationally to match that in the UK. However, by the end of the article I was left unsure if the authors were interested outside of a blanket bog setting. I understand it is necessary to draw mostly on research from the UK where this has been a greater focus. Yet if a global outlook is part of the purpose of this article then some attempt needs to be made to relate those findings to other peatland types found globally, and this needs to be done consistently throughout the article not just acknowledged somewhere. The non-UK erosion examples provided are interesting but I would appreciate more conjecture from the authors on the prevalence, type and importance of erosion and POC transport for emissions in different biomes relating to their typical peatland types and topography.
In a similar fashion, the title uses “greenhouse gas emissions” but a text search finds exactly one mention of CH4 in parenthesis and none of N2O, as such I suggest the title is changed to CO₂.
I also think more discussion is needed on the role of human land use pressures in influencing peatland erosion. I have understood this may be relevant in UK blanket bog erosion. It is certainly relevant for peatland systems that do not naturally exhibit significant erosion.
In conclusion, there is a mismatch between the articles implied focus and it’s actual focus, as such one or the other needs to be altered. I suggest the authors attempt to relate the different aspects of emissions from peatland erosion discussed to other peatland types and settings internationally throughout the article. Or, if I have misunderstood and the article was always supposed to be blanket bog focussed, then I suggest that they edit the abstract, introduction and title to make this clearer.
Line 85 “maybe” should be “may be”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-287-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Parker, 20 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-287/egusphere-2025-287-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Parker, 20 Aug 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-287', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Apr 2025
This paper highlights the importance, but also the lack of knowledge around particulate organic carbon erosion from peatlands and the contribution this could make to CO2 emissions as these degrade. This is an interesting paper which will be of interest to a broad audience.
I am left wondering how the DOC pathway fits into this model of C loss and the relative importance of wasting, DOC and POC for C loss. Some discussion of how these are connected and an acknowledgement that POC is not the only fluvial C export would be helpful.
L29 I would remove particularly as this makes it seem a UK focused issue which is then contradicted by the paragraph starting l45
L55/56 a reference for the calculation of emissions from POC should be included here
L121 typo but -> by
L158 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706117317275 measures mass loss from litter bags in a UK peatland
Table 1 – the title is very long and repeats much of the text in paragraph starting line 144, I would suggest putting more detail in the main text and shortening the table caption. If you wish to highlight this calculation, then perhaps convert it into a workflow figure.
Concluding remarks – needs a statement between the two sentences linking POC erosion to CO2 emissions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-287-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Parker, 20 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-287/egusphere-2025-287-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Parker, 20 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-287', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2025
Generally the article is well written and does an effective job of synthesising research in an area of interest in peatland carbon cycling. I find the explanations to be clear and the estimations to be revealing and valid.
The problem for me is that it is unclear if the focus of the article is UK blanket bogs or peatlands globally. I initially read the introduction as being partly a call for more POC-erosion emission research internationally to match that in the UK. However, by the end of the article I was left unsure if the authors were interested outside of a blanket bog setting. I understand it is necessary to draw mostly on research from the UK where this has been a greater focus. Yet if a global outlook is part of the purpose of this article then some attempt needs to be made to relate those findings to other peatland types found globally, and this needs to be done consistently throughout the article not just acknowledged somewhere. The non-UK erosion examples provided are interesting but I would appreciate more conjecture from the authors on the prevalence, type and importance of erosion and POC transport for emissions in different biomes relating to their typical peatland types and topography.
In a similar fashion, the title uses “greenhouse gas emissions” but a text search finds exactly one mention of CH4 in parenthesis and none of N2O, as such I suggest the title is changed to CO₂.
I also think more discussion is needed on the role of human land use pressures in influencing peatland erosion. I have understood this may be relevant in UK blanket bog erosion. It is certainly relevant for peatland systems that do not naturally exhibit significant erosion.
In conclusion, there is a mismatch between the articles implied focus and it’s actual focus, as such one or the other needs to be altered. I suggest the authors attempt to relate the different aspects of emissions from peatland erosion discussed to other peatland types and settings internationally throughout the article. Or, if I have misunderstood and the article was always supposed to be blanket bog focussed, then I suggest that they edit the abstract, introduction and title to make this clearer.
Line 85 “maybe” should be “may be”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-287-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Parker, 20 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-287/egusphere-2025-287-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Parker, 20 Aug 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 882 | 95 | 27 | 1,004 | 37 | 54 |
- HTML: 882
- PDF: 95
- XML: 27
- Total: 1,004
- BibTeX: 37
- EndNote: 54
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Thomas C. Parker
Chris Evans
Martin G. Evans
Miriam Glendell
Richard Grayson
Joseph Holden
Changjia Li
Pengfei Li
Rebekka R. E. Artz
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(828 KB) - Metadata XML
This paper highlights the importance, but also the lack of knowledge around particulate organic carbon erosion from peatlands and the contribution this could make to CO2 emissions as these degrade. This is an interesting paper which will be of interest to a broad audience.
I am left wondering how the DOC pathway fits into this model of C loss and the relative importance of wasting, DOC and POC for C loss. Some discussion of how these are connected and an acknowledgement that POC is not the only fluvial C export would be helpful.
L29 I would remove particularly as this makes it seem a UK focused issue which is then contradicted by the paragraph starting l45
L55/56 a reference for the calculation of emissions from POC should be included here
L121 typo but -> by
L158 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706117317275 measures mass loss from litter bags in a UK peatland
Table 1 – the title is very long and repeats much of the text in paragraph starting line 144, I would suggest putting more detail in the main text and shortening the table caption. If you wish to highlight this calculation, then perhaps convert it into a workflow figure.
Concluding remarks – needs a statement between the two sentences linking POC erosion to CO2 emissions.