4.8 Article

Permafrost collapse after shrub removal shifts tundra ecosystem to a methane source

Journal

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 67-70

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2446

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Darwin Center for Biogeosciences [1043, 3052]
  2. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (Vidi-project) [864.09.014]
  3. Wageningen Institute for Environment and Climate Research (WIMEK)
  4. Danish National Research Foundation [CENPERM DNRF100]
  5. EU

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Arctic tundra ecosystems are warming almost twice as fast as the global average(1). Permafrost thaw and the resulting release of greenhouse gases from decomposing soil organic carbon have the potential to accelerate climate warming(2,3). In recent decades, Arctic tundra ecosystems have changed rapidly(4), including expansion of woody vegetation(5,6), in response to changing climate conditions. How such vegetation changes contribute to stabilization or destabilization of the permafrost is unknown. Here we present six years of field observations in a shrub removal experiment at a Siberian tundra site. Removing the shrub part of the vegetation initiated thawing of ice-rich permafrost, resulting in collapse of the originally elevated shrub patches into waterlogged depressions within five years. This thaw pond development shifted the plots from a methane sink into a methane source. The results of our field experiment demonstrate the importance of the vegetation cover for protection of the massive carbon reservoirs stored in the permafrost and illustrate the strong vulnerability of these tundra ecosystems to perturbations. If permafrost thawing can more frequently trigger such local permafrost collapse, methane-emitting wet depressions could become more abundant in the lowland tundra landscape, at the cost of permafrost-stabilizing low shrub vegetation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available