Loading…
The multi-annual carbon budget of a peat-covered catchment
This study estimates the complete carbon budget of an 11.4 km 2 peat-covered catchment in Northern England. The budget considers both fluvial and gaseous carbon fluxes and includes estimates of particulate organic carbon (POC); dissolved organic carbon (DOC); excess dissolved CO 2; release of methan...
Saved in:
Published in: | The Science of the total environment 2009-06, Vol.407 (13), p.4084-4094 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | This study estimates the complete carbon budget of an 11.4 km
2 peat-covered catchment in Northern England. The budget considers both fluvial and gaseous carbon fluxes and includes estimates of particulate organic carbon (POC); dissolved organic carbon (DOC); excess dissolved CO
2; release of methane (CH
4); net ecosystem respiration of CO
2; and uptake of CO
2 by primary productivity. All components except CH
4 were measured directly in the catchment and annual carbon budgets were calculated for the catchment between 1993 and 2005 using both extrapolation and interpolation methods. The study shows that: Over the 13 year study period the total carbon balance varied between a net sink of −
20 to −
91 Mg C/km
2/yr. The biggest component of this budget is the uptake of carbon by primary productivity (−
178 Mg C/km
2/yr) and in most years the second largest component is the loss of DOC from the peat profile (+
39 Mg C/km
2/yr). Direct exchanges of C with the atmosphere average −
89 Mg C/km
2/yr in the catchment. Extrapolating the general findings of the carbon budget across all UK peatlands results in an approximate carbon balance of −
1.2 Tg C/yr (±
0.4 Pg C/yr) which is larger than previously reported values. Carbon budgets should always be reported with a clear statement of the techniques used and errors involved as this is significant when comparing results across studies. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0048-9697 1879-1026 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.03.008 |