4.8 Article

Phenology is the dominant control of methane emissions in a tropical non-forested wetland

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27786-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. UK Natural Environment Research Council [NE/N015746/1, NE/N015746/2]
  2. Methane Observations and Yearly Assessments (MOYA) project [NE/N015916/1]
  3. National Centre for Earth Observation - National Environment Research Council [NE/R016518/1]
  4. NERC [NE/N015746/1, NE/N015746/2] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tropical wetlands are an important source of atmospheric methane, but their contribution to the global methane budget is uncertain. This study reveals that phenology, specifically vegetation cycles, controls the net methane emissions from a vegetated tropical swamp in the Okavango Delta. The study highlights the importance of including vegetative processes in methane emission budgets for wetlands.
Tropical wetlands are a significant source of atmospheric methane (CH4), but their importance to the global CH4 budget is uncertain due to a paucity of direct observations. Net wetland emissions result from complex interactions and co-variation between microbial production and oxidation in the soil, and transport to the atmosphere. Here we show that phenology is the overarching control of net CH4 emissions to the atmosphere from a permanent, vegetated tropical swamp in the Okavango Delta, Botswana, and we find that vegetative processes modulate net CH4 emissions at sub-daily to inter-annual timescales. Without considering the role played by papyrus on regulating the efflux of CH4 to the atmosphere, the annual budget for the entire Okavango Delta, would be under- or overestimated by a factor of two. Our measurements demonstrate the importance of including vegetative processes such as phenological cycles into wetlands emission budgets of CH4.

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