Search

Drained organic soils are a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the atmosphere. Rewetting these soils may reduce GHG emissions and could also create suitable conditions for return of the carbon (C) sink function characteristic of undrained organic soils. In this article we expand on the work relating to rewetted organic soils that was carried out for the 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Wetlands Supplement. We describe the methods and scientific approach used to derive the Tier 1 emission factors (the rate of emission per unit of activity) for the full suite of GHG and waterborne C fluxes associated with rewetting of organic soils. We recorded a total of 352 GHG and waterborne annual flux data points from an extensive literature search and these were disaggregated by flux type (i.e. CO2, CH4, N2O and DOC), climate zone and nutrient status. Our results showed fundamental differences between the GHG dynamics of drained and rewetted organic soils and, based on the 100 year global warming potential of each gas, indicated that rewetting of drained organic soils leads to: net annual removals of CO2 in the majority of organic soil classes; an increase in annual CH4 emissions; a decrease in N2O and DOC losses; and a lowering of net GHG emissions. Data published since the Wetlands Supplement (n = 58) generally support our derivations. Significant data gaps exist, particularly with regard to tropical organic soils, DOC and N2O. We propose that the uncertainty associated with our derivations could be significantly reduced by the development of country specific emission factors that could in turn be disaggregated by factors such as vegetation composition, water table level, time since rewetting and previous land use history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Environmental Reviews is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Quantitative assessment of Canada's boreal forest mitigation potential is not yet possible, though the range of mitigation activities is known, requirements for sound analyses of options are increasingly understood, and there is emerging recognition that biogeophysical effects need greater attention. Use of a systems perspective highlights trade-offs between activities aimed at increasing carbon storage in the ecosystem, increasing carbon storage in harvested wood products (HWPs), or increasing the substitution benefits of using wood in place of fossil fuels or more emissions-intensive products. A systems perspective also suggests that erroneous conclusions about mitigation potential could result if analyses assume that HWP carbon is emitted at harvest, or bioenergy is carbon neutral. The greatest short-run boreal mitigation benefit generally would be achieved by avoiding greenhouse gas emissions; but over the longer run, there could be significant potential in activities that increase carbon removals. Mitigation activities could maximize landscape carbon uptake or maximize landscape carbon density, but not both simultaneously. The difference between the two is the rate at which HWPs are produced to meet society's demands, and mitigation activities could seek to delay or reduce HWP emissions and increase substitution benefits. Use of forest biomass for bioenergy could also contribute though the point in time at which this produces a net mitigation benefit relative to a fossil fuel alternative will be situation-specific. Key knowledge gaps exist in understanding boreal mitigation strategies that are robust to climate change and how mitigation could be integrated with adaptation to climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]