4.1 Article

Greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon sequestration

期刊

出版社

MUNKSGAARD INT PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0889.2001.530501.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon fixation under wetland anaerobic soil conditions provides unique conditions for longterm storage of carbon into histosols. However. this carbon sequestration process is intimately linked to methane emission from wetlands. The potential contribution of this emitted methane to the greenhouse effect can be mitigated by the removal of atmospheric CO2 and storage into peat. The balance of CH4 and CO2 exchange can provide an index of a wetland's greenhouse gas (carbon) contribution to the atmosphere. Here. we relate the atmospheric global warming potential of methane (GWP(M)) with annual methane emission carbon dioxide exchange ratio of wetlands ranging from the boreal zone to the near-subtropics, This relationship permits one to determine the greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands by their contribution to or attenuation of the greenhouse effect via CH4 emission or CO2 sink, respectively, We report annual measurements of the relationship between methane emission and net carbon fixation in three wetland ecosystems. The ratio of methane released to annual net carbon fixed varies from 0.05 to 0.20 on a molar basis. Although these wetlands function as a sink for CO2, the 21.8-fold greater infrared absorptivity of CH4 relative to CO2 (GWP(M)) over a relatively short time horizon (20 years) would indicate that the release of methane still contributes to the overall greenhouse effect, As GWP(M) decreases over longer time horizons ( 100 years), our analyses suggest that the subtropical and temperate wetlands attenuate global warming. and northern wetlands may be perched on the greenhouse compensation point. Considering a 500-year time horizon, these wetlands can be regarded as sinks for greenhouse gas warming potential, and thus attenuate the greenhouse warming of the atmosphere.

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

4.1
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