Anthropogenic and natural methane fluxes in Switzerland synthesized within a spatially explicit inventory

32Citations
Citations of this article
80Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We present the first high-resolution (500 m × 500 m) gridded methane (CH4) emission inventory for Switzerland, which integrates 90 % of the national emission totals reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and recent CH4 flux studies conducted by research groups across Switzerland. In addition to anthropogenic emissions, we also include natural and semi-natural CH4 fluxes, i.e., emissions from lakes and reservoirs, wetlands, wild animals as well as uptake by forest soils. National CH4 emissions were disaggregated using detailed geostatistical information on source locations and their spatial extent and process-or area-specific emission factors. In Switzerland, the highest CH4 emissions in 2011 originated from the agricultural sector (150 Gg CH4 yr-1, mainly produced by ruminants and manure management, followed by emissions from waste management (15 Gg CH4 yr-1) mainly from landfills and the energy sector (12 Gg CH 4 yr-1), which was dominated by emissions from natural gas distribution. Compared with the anthropogenic sources, emissions from natural and semi-natural sources were relatively small (6 Gg CH4 yr -1), making up only 3% of the total emissions in Switzerland. CH 4 fluxes from agricultural soils were estimated to be not significantly different from zero (between-1.5 and 0 Gg CH4 yr -1), while forest soils are a CH4 sink (approx.-2.8 Gg CH4 yr-1), partially offsetting other natural emissions. Estimates of uncertainties are provided for the different sources, including an estimate of spatial disaggregation errors deduced from a comparison with a global (EDGAR v4.2) and an European (TNO/MACC) CH4 inventory. This new spatially explicit emission inventory for Switzerland will provide valuable input for regional-scale atmospheric modeling and inverse source estimation.©Author(s) 2014.

Figures

  • Table 1. Existing high-resolution CH4 inventories that include Switzerland.
  • Table 2. Swiss CH4 emissions in 2011, uncertainty estimate, and changes from 1990 to 2011 for the major source categories listed by the official Nomenclature for Reporting (NFR) codes. The provided uncertainty estimates follow the Tier 1 methodology (IPCC, 2000), represent half of the 95 % confidence interval expressed in percent (IPCC, 1997), and account for uncertainties in emission factors (EFs) and activity data for the individual level or category. Total national emissions exclude the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector (LULUCF in italics) as well as International Bunkers (not shown), in accordance with the reporting requirements under the UNFCCC. Methods applied and EFs used are indicated (D= IPCC Default, T1= IPCC Tier 1, T2= IPCC Tier 2, T3= IPCC Tier 3, CR=CORINAIR, CS= countryspecific). All data for the anthropogenic sources are taken from the national Greenhouse Gas Inventory (FOEN, 2013), while CH4 fluxes from the natural categories are based on estimates presented in this study. The categories indicated with an asterisk are included in our spatially explicit inventory.
  • Fig. 1. Our spatially explicit Swiss CH4 emission inventory including both anthropogenic and natural CH4 sources.
  • Fig. 2. Individual layers of the inventory presented in Fig. 1. Note that the scale for anthropogenic fluxes of the agricultural sector (a), the waste sector (b) and the energy sector (c) are a factor 10 to 100 larger than that for natural and semi-natural fluxes from wetlands (d), wild animals (e), and forest soil and lakes (f).
  • Fig. 3. Total anthropogenic CH4 emissions over Switzerland according to the EDGAR v4.2 inventory for the year 2008 (a) and the TNO/MACC inventory for the year 2009 (b). Panels (c) and (d) are absolute differences from the total anthropogenic emissions in our inventory (Fig. 1).
  • Fig. 5. Semivariogram of the differences between the EDGAR v4.2 and TNO/MACC inventories and our inventory. Also shown are exponential fits to the data (see text for further details).
  • Fig. 4. Scatterplot between all pixel values in the EDGAR v42 and TNO/MACC inventories in Switzerland versus our inventory reduced to the respective resolution of the coarser inventory. Plots are shown for total emissions as well as for the sectors agricultural (EDGAR: IPCC_4A, IPCC4B and TNO/MACC: SNAP code 10), waste (EDGAR: IPCC_6A_6C, IPCC_6B and TNO/MACC: SNAP code 9) and energy (EDGAR: IPCC_1B2b and TNO/MACC: SNAP code 5) separately. The solid lines indicate the 1:1 relationship. The panels were scaled to show as much detail as possible and hence a few very large emissions were omitted.

References Powered by Scopus

Freshwater methane emissions offset the continental carbon sink

1196Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Methane emissions from lakes: Dependence of lake characteristics, two regional assessments, and a global estimate

965Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review

850Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Satellite observations of atmospheric methane and their value for quantifying methane emissions

264Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Gridded National Inventory of U.S. Methane Emissions

167Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The impact of long-term organic farming on soil-derived greenhouse gas emissions

123Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hiller, R. V., Bretscher, D., Delsontro, T., Diem, T., Eugster, W., Henneberger, R., … Brunner, D. (2014). Anthropogenic and natural methane fluxes in Switzerland synthesized within a spatially explicit inventory. Biogeosciences, 11(7), 1941–1960. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-1941-2014

Readers over time

‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 33

62%

Researcher 13

25%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Environmental Science 28

61%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10

22%

Chemistry 4

9%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 4

9%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0