4.7 Article

Impact of peatlands on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the Rajang River and Estuary, Malaysia

期刊

BIOGEOSCIENCES
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 17-32

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/bg-16-17-2019

关键词

-

资金

  1. Central Research Development Fund of the University of Bremen
  2. MOHE FRGS Grant [FRGS/1/2015/WAB08/SWIN/02/1]
  3. SKLEC Open Research Fund [SKLEC-KF201610]
  4. ARC [LP150100519]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tropical peat-draining rivers are known as potentially large sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere due to the high loads of carbon they receive from surrounding soils. However, not many seasonally resolved data are available, limiting our understanding of these systems. We report the first measurements of carbon dioxide partial pressure (pCO(2)) in the Rajang River and Estuary, the longest river in Malaysia. The Rajang River catchment is characterized by extensive peat deposits found in the delta region, and by human impact such as logging, land use and river damming. pCO(2) averaged 2540 +/- 189 mu atm during the wet season and 2350 +/- 301 mu atm during the dry season. Using three different parameterizations for the gas transfer velocity, calculated CO2 fluxes to the atmosphere were 1.5 (0.5-2.0) g Cm-2 d(-1) (mean, minimum - maximum) during the wet season and 1.7 (0.6-2.6) g Cm-2 d(-1) during the dry season. This is at the low end of reported values for Southeast Asian peat-draining rivers, but similar to values reported for Southeast Asian rivers that do not flow through peat deposits. In the Rajang River, peatlands probably do not contribute much to the CO2 flux due to the proximity of the peatlands to the coast, which limits the opportunity for degradation of organic C during transport. Thus, we suggest that peat coverage is, by itself, insufficient as the sole predictor of CO2 emissions from peat-draining rivers, and that other factors, like the spatial distribution of peat in the catchment and pH, also need to be considered.

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