Call Girls Talegaon Dabhade Call Me 7737669865 Budget Friendly No Advance Boo...
Soil GHG emission factors for tropical peatlands: An update for forests and oil palm plantations
1. Kristell Hergoualc’h, J van Lent, R Bhomia, N Dezzeo, J Grandez, M Lopez
LV Verchot
Degradation of palm swamp peatlands in
the Peruvian Amazon severely raises
emissions of greenhouse gases
11th INTECOL, 14th October 2021
2. Peruvian peatlands
Key contributor tropical peatlands
Gumbricht et al (201
Amazonian peatlands mainly Mauritia
flexuosa-dominated forests (Draper et al. 2014)
C-dense ecosystems (850 Mg C ha-1) (Draper et al. 2014)
Recurrent degradation over 30 years: M. flexuosa
palms cut for fruit collection (Horn et al. 2018)
73% M. flexuosa-dominated stands degraded in
pilot area (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017)
3. Objectives
How do peat N2O and CH4 fluxes and
the components of the peat CO2
budget vary spatially at the
microscale and macroscale and
temporally under undegraded and
degraded conditions?
How do environmental variables
control the spatial and temporal
variation of the fluxes?
How are the peat CO2 and peat GHG
budgets affected by degradation?
Caballero Rodriguez
4. Experiment
Highly
deg.
Medium
deg.
Intact
Iquitos, Northern Peruvian
Amazon
Degradation gradient
I: Intact
mD: medium degradation
hD: high degradation
3 years (including El Niño/La Niña episodes) monthly monitoring of:
→ Soil fluxes of CH4, N2O, CO2 (total & heterotrophic respiration), and
peat C inputs (litterfall, root mortality)
→Environmental variables (rainfall, temperature, moisture, soil
mineral N content and dynamic)
5. Experiment
Disaggregation by microtopography (hummock vs. hollow), and palm
status (live vs. cut)
Degradation impacts on forest structure & soil microtopography
considered for site-scale assessments
0
50
100
150
200
250
Intact mDeg hDeg
M.
flexuosa
(#
ha
-1
)
Cut
Live
Live M. flexuosa Cut M. flexuosa
Hummock
size reduced
by 30%
6. Soil N2O fluxes
Microscale
b, 2
a
0
2
4
6
8
10 Intact
b, 1
a
b
a
0
2
4
6
8
10 Medium Degradation
Live hummock Live hollow
Cut hummock Cut hollow
b, 2
a a
a
0
2
4
6
8
10 High Degradation
N2O hummock > N2O hollow (except for cut palms at hDeg)
N2O mDeg < N2O Intact, N2O hDeg for hummock live palm
Macroscale
Site-scale emissions relatively steady over years
N2O mDeg (0.5) < N2O Intact (1.3), N2O hDeg (1.1) (kg N ha-1 y-1)
=> Heterogeneous soil WFPS fluctuations along the forest complex
7. Controls of soil N2O fluxes
Water-filled pore space (WFPS)
Water table level (WT)
WT and Net
nitrification
8. Soil CH4 fluxes
a, 1
b, 2
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
Intact
b, 2
a, 1
b
a
Medium Degradation
Live hummock Live hollow
Cut hummock Cut hollow b, 2
a, 1
b
a
High Degradation
Microscale
CH4 hummock < CH4 hollow at the Intact, opposite at degraded sites
CH4 Intact < CH4 degraded for hummock, opposite for hollow
Macroscale
Site-scale emissions increased with
precipitation
No diff. in CH4 annual emissions among
sites (161-226 kg C ha-1 y-1)
9. Controls of soil CH4 fluxes
Water table level (WT)
Air temperature
Soil net nitrification rate
10. Soil heterotrophic respiration
No difference between microtopographies
Sh hDeg > Sh Intact, mDeg
Macroscale
Sh hDeg (9.0) > Sh Intact (5.9), Sh mDeg (6.2) (Mg C ha-1 y-1)
Sh: St ratio hDeg, mDeg (0.95) > Sh: St Intact (0.60)
2
2
2
0
20
40
High Degradation
1
0
20
40
Intact
1
1 1
0
20
40
Medium Degradation
Live hummock Live hollow
Cut hummock Cut hollow
Microscale
11. Controls of soil heterotrophic respiration
Water-filled pore space (WFPS)
Sh = -0.2 x WFPS + 37.8
R² = 0.46
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5 55 105
Sh
(kg
C
ha
-1
d
-1
)
WFPS (%)
12. Soil C inputs (Mg C ha-1 y-1)
Litterfall
Dominated by tree leave fall (80%)
Litterfall hDeg (2.3) < Litterfall Intact (5.2), LitterfallmDeg (6.0)
Root mortality
Root hDeg (1.5) ≈ RootmDeg (2.0)
≈ Root Intact (3.4)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-40 10
Mortality
(Mg
C
ha
-1
y
-1
)
WT from previous month (cm)
Y= -0.01 × WT+ 0.12
R²= 0.27
High tolerance of tree species to
high water saturation
13. Peat C budget
Computed in year 2 when all components were monitored
Dissolved organic C: Default value from Southeast Asia
Peat C budget = (Sh + DOC) – (Litterfall + Root mortality) (IPCC)
Soil C functioning
-2 ± 1 0 ± 1 6 ± 1
-10.0
-6.0
-2.0
2.0
6.0
10.0
Intact mDeg hDeg
Mg
C
ha
-1
y
-1
Root Mort Litterfall Sh DOC
Intact: Sink of C
mDeg: Neither a sink nor a source of C
hDeg: Large source of C
14. Peat GHG budget
→ CH4 contributes importantly to the peat GHG budget
→ In its natural state, the soil in palm swamp peatlands act as a net
source of GHG
→ High degradation more than doubles the peat GHG budget due to
CO2 emissions
In CO2 equivalent (GWP of 86
& 268 for CH4 & N2O)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Intact mDeg hDeg
Mg
CO2eq.
ha
-1
y
-1
CO2 budget CH4 N2O
18 ± 8 42 ± 4
20 ± 8
15. Concluding remarks
Impacts forest degradation on GHG emissions in tropical peatlands
→ Complex to monitor: Micro- to macro-scale & specific to degradation
type
→ Not significant on site-scale N2O and CH4 emissions
→ Suppression of the C sink in mDeg, turned the sink into a large
source in hDeg
→ Ecosystem-level losses (Vegetation + soil) remain to be addressed
Climate change impacts?
Projected greatest precipitation in the study area may foster CH4
emissions which is not considered in current modeling efforts (Wang et
al 2018)