The use of the GEST method to estimate greenhouse gases uptake or emissions in the absence of data for a raised bog

• Autorzy: Cieśliński Roman

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/jwld.2023.148460

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The paper is designed to present a method to estimate greenhouse gases (GHG) uptake or emissions in the absence of data for peat bog areas (GEST method). The paper presents the research results produced by a project on “Limiting CO2 emissions via the renaturalisation of peat bogs on the Eastern and Central European Plain”. The study area consisted of three peat bogs: Kluki, Ciemińskie Błota, and Wielkie Bagno (Słowiński National Park). The GEST method relies on the estimation of gas emissions on the basis of vegetation and water levels and greenhouse gas coefficients for each given habitat type provided in the research literature. The greenhouse gas balance was calculated for a baseline scenario assuming the lack of human impact and for a scenario taking into account human impact in the form of peat bog preservation. Initial research results indicate that there is a total of 41 GESTs in the studied bog areas and that a reduction in CO2 emissions of approximately 12% will occur following what is known as renaturalisation by raising the groundwater level, felling of trees across the bog, and making changes in habitats.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

estimation greenhouse gases; GHG; uptake; emission; GEST method; habitat; peat bog; water content

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo ITP
• Czasopismo: Journal of Water and Land Development
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: no. 60
• Strony: 59--64
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 25 poz., mapy

Twórcy

autor

Cieśliński Roman

• University of Gdańsk, Department of Hydrology, Bażyńskiego St, 4, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5313-1923

Bibliografia

• Couwenberg, J. et al. (2011) “Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands using vegetation as a proxy,” Hydrobiologia, 674, pp. 67–89. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0729-x.
• Glenk, K. et al. (2021) “The opportunity cost of delaying climate action: Peatland restoration and resilience to climate change,” Global Environmental Change, 70, 102323. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102323.
• Gumbricht, T. et al. (2017) “An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor,” Glob Change Biology, 2017, pp. 1–19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13689.
• Haapalehto, T.O. et al. (2011) “The effects of peatland restoration on water-table depth, elemental concentrations, and vegetation: 10 years of changes,” Restoration Ecology, 19(5), pp. 587–598. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00704.x.
• Haxtema, Z. (2014) First assessment report for the “Baseline and monitoring methodology for the rewetting of drained peatlands used for peat extraction, forestry or agriculture based on GESTs. Verified Carbon Standard Methodology, version 3”. Emeryville, CA: SCS Global Services. Available at: https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/VM0036-First-Assessment-Report-SCS.pdf (Accessed: July 15, 2023).
• Herrmann, A. et al. (2018) First GEST GHG balance scenarios. Reduction of CO 2 emissions by restoring degraded peatlands in Northern European Lowland. Report of LIFE Peat Restore, LIFE15 CCM/DE/000138. Available at: https://life-peat-restore.eu/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/04/first-gest-ghg-balance-scenar-ios-comp.pdf (Accessed: June 14, 2023).
• Hiraishi, T. et al. (eds.) (2013) Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands, Methodological Guidance on Lands with Wet and Drained Soils, and Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Switzerland IPPC.
• Hopple, A.M. et al. (2020) “Massive peatland carbon banks vulnerable to rising temperatures,” Nature Communications, 11(1), pp. 1–7. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16311-8.
• Joosten, H., Tapio-Biström, M.L. and Tol, S. (eds.) (2012) Peatlands – guidance for climate change mitigation through conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Series, 5. FAO & Wetlands International.
• Kleinen, T., Brovkin, V. and Munhoven, G. (2016) “Modelled interglacial carbon cycle dynamics during the Holocene, the Eemian and Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11,” Climate of the Past, 12, pp. 2145–2160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-12-2145-2016.
• Lamentowicz, M. et al. (2019) “Unveiling tipping points in long-term ecological records from Sphagnum-dominated peatlands,” Biology Letters, 15(4), 20190043. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0043.
• Lehosmaa, K. et al. (2017) “Does habitat restoration enhance spring biodiversity and ecosystem functions?,” Hydrobiologia, 793, pp. 161–173. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2760-4.
• Lipińska, Z. et al. (2023) “Human impact on water circulation patterns in raised bogs of the Baltic type, Northern Poland,” Sustainability, 15, 12277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612277.
• Lode, E., Küttim, M. and Kiivit, I.K. (2017) “Indicative effects of climate change on groundwater levels in Estonian raised bogs over 50 years,” Mires Peat, 19(15), pp. 1–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.255.
• Martens, M. et al. (2021) “The greenhouse gas emission effects of rewetting drained peatlands and growing wetland plants for biogas fuel production,” Journal of Environmental Management, 277, 111391. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111391.
• Mikhaylov, A. et al. (2020) “Global climate change and greenhouse effect,” Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), pp. 2897–2913. Available at: https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.4(21).
• Morris, P.J. et al. (2019) “Controls on near-surface hydraulic conductivity in a raised bog,” Water Resources Research, 55(2), pp. 1531–1543. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024566.
• Panai, A. et al. (2017) “Hydrological conditions and carbon accumulation rates reconstructed from a mountain raised bog in the Carpathians: A multi-proxy approach,” CATENA, 152, pp. 57–68. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.12.023.
• Premrov, A. et al. (2021) “CO 2 fluxes from drained and rewetted peatlands using a new ECOSSE model water table simulation approach,” Science of The Total Environment, 754, 14243. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142433.
• Ratcliffe, J.L. et al. (2020) “Recovery of the CO 2 sink in a remnant peatland following water table lowering,” Science of The Total Environment, 718, 134613. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134613.
• Renou-Wilson, F. et al. (2019) “Rewetting degraded peatlands for climate and biodiversity benefits: Results from two raised bogs,” Ecological Engineering, 127, pp. 547–560. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.02.014.
• Swenson, M.M. et al. (2019) “Carbon balance of a restored and cutover raised bog: implications for restoration and comparison to global trends,” Biogeosciences, 16(3), pp. 713–731. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2018-350.
• Taminskas, J. et al. (2018) “Climate change and water table fluctuation: Implications for raised bog surface variability,” Geomorphology, 304, pp. 40–49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.12.026.
• Tuittila, E.S., Vasander, H. and Laine, J. (2004) “Sensitivity of C sequestration in reintroduced Sphagnum to water-level variation in a cutaway peatland restoration,” Restoration Ecology, 12(4), pp. 483–493. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00280.x.
• Yang, P. et al. (2018) “Effect of drainage on CO 2 , CH 4 , and N2 O fluxes from aquaculture ponds during winter in a subtropical estuary of China,” Journal of Environmental Sciences, 65, pp. 72–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2017.03.024.