4.5 Article

Comparison of greenhouse gas fluxes and nitrogen budgets from an ombotrophic bog in Scotland and a minerotrophic sedge fen in Finland

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages 640-650

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01267.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. European Commission [017841]
  2. UK Natural Environment Research Council
  3. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010023] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Northern peatlands cover approximately 4% of the global land surface area. Those peatlands will be particularly vulnerable to environmental and climate change and therefore it is important to investigate their total greenhouse gas (GHG) budgets, to determine the feedback on the climate. Nitrogen (N) is known to influence the GHG budget in particular by affecting the methane (CH4) balance. At two peatland sites in Scotland and Finland GHG fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide (N2O) and nitrogen fluxes were measured as part of the European project 'NitroEurope'. The Scottish site, Auchencorth Moss, was a GHG sink of -321, -490 and -321 g CO2 eq m(-2) year(-1) in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively, with CO2 as the dominating GHG. In contrast, the dominating GHG at the Finnish site, Lompolojankka, was CH4, resulting in the site being a net GHG source of +485 and +431 g CO2 eq m(-2) year(-1) in 2006 and 2007, respectively. Therefore. Auchencorth Moss had a negative global warming potential (GWP) whilst Lompolojankka had a positive GWP over the investigated time period. Initial results yielded a positive N budget for Lompolojankka of 7.1 kg N ha(-1) year(-1), meaning the site was gaining nitrogen, and a negative N budget for Auchencorth Moss of -2.4 kg N ha year(-1), meaning the site was losing nitrogen.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available