4.7 Article

Peatland drainage - a missing link behind increasing TOC concentrations in waters from high latitude forest catchments?

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 774, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145150

关键词

Brownification; Dissolved organic carbon; Peatlands; Total organic carbon; Water quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that drainage of peatlands in forested catchments contributed to increased TOC concentrations in stream waters in high latitudes, with tree stand volume correlating with the increasing trends of TOC concentrations.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentrations in stream waters from peat-covered catchments have increased over the last 15-25 years, resulting in large-scale brownification of lakes and rivers in high latitudes. While this increase has primarily been attributed to decreased acid deposition and climatic warming in most regions, we studied whether peatland drainage in forested catchments has contributed to the increasing TOC concentrations. We analysed the spatial variability of average TOC concentrations from a total of 133 peatland dominated catchments in Sweden and Finland, of which 62 were pristine and 71 were drained during the last century. In addition, we performed a trend analysis on 37 catchments for which long-term data were available. We found about 14 mg l(-1) higher TOC concentrations in streams discharging from drained than undrained sites in southern latitudes, and about 8 mg l(-1) higher concentrations from drained sites in northern latitudes. Trend analysis did not indicate significant differences in TOC concentration trends between drained and undrained catchments but indicated that tree stand volume correlated with increasing trends. This supports earlier findings in that the general increase in forest cover and biomass that has occurred in high latitudes during the last decades is another factor that has contributed to brownification. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据