A dynamic model of wetland extent and peat accumulation: Results for the Holocene

118Citations
Citations of this article
181Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Substantial deposits of peat have accumulated since the last glacial. Since peat accumulation rates are rather low, this process was previously neglected in carbon cycle models. For assessments of the global carbon cycle on millennial or even longer timescales, though, the carbon storage in peat cannot be neglected any more. We have therefore developed a dynamic model of wetland extent and peat accumulation in order to assess the influence of peat accumulation on the global carbon cycle. The model is based on the dynamic global vegetation model LPJ and consists of a wetland module and routines describing the accumulation and decay of peat. The wetland module, based on the TOPMODEL approach, dynamically determines inundated area and water table, which change depending on climate. Not all temporarily inundated areas accumulate peat, though, but peat accumulates in permanently inundated areas with rather stable water table position. Peatland area therefore is highly uncertain, and we perform sensitivity experiments to cover the uncertainty range for peatland extent. The peat module describes oxic and anoxic decomposition of organic matter in the acrotelm, i.e., the part of the peat column above the permanent water table, as well as anoxic decomposition in the catotelm, the peat below the summer minimum water table. We apply the model to the period of the last 8000 years, during which the model accumulates 330 PgC as catotelm peat in the peatland areas north of 40° N, with an uncertainty range from 240 PgC to 490 PgC. This falls well within the range of published estimates for the total peat storage in high northern latitudes, considering the fact that these usually cover the total carbon accumulated, not just the last 8000 years we considered in our model experiments. In the model, peat primarily accumulates in Scandinavia and eastern Canada, though eastern Europe and north-western Russia also show substantial accumulation. Modelled wetland distribution is biased towards Eurasia, where inundated area is overestimated, while it is underestimated in North America. Latitudinal sums compare favourably to measurements, though, implying that total areas, as well as climatic conditions in these areas, are captured reasonably, though the exact positions of peatlands are not modelled well. Since modelling the initiation of peatland growth requires a knowledge of topography below peat deposits, the temporal development of peatlands is not modelled explicitly, therefore overestimating peatland extent during the earlier part of our experiments. Overall our results highlight the substantial amounts of carbon taken up by peatlands during the last 8000 years. This uptake would have substantial impacts on the global carbon cycle and therefore cannot be neglected. © 2012 Author(s).

Figures

  • Fig. 1. The LPJ soil carbon pools CX and fluxes FXY and Rk . (a) non-wetland soil, (b) wetland soil. Suffixes X, Y, k designate the carbon pools with B (biomass), L (Litter), S (Soil), A (Acrotelm) and C (Catotelm).
  • Table 1. Parameter values in peat module.
  • Table 2. Topmodel parameters f and χmax for LPJ soil classes.
  • Fig. 2. Zonal sums of modelled wetland extent (black), Prigent et al. (red), and GLWD (green). Upper panel (a): Summer (JJAS) maximum extent, middle (b): JJAS mean extent, and lower panel (c): JJAS minimum extent.
  • Fig. 3. Summer (JJAS) mean wetland extent at 0 ka. Upper panel (a): Wetland extent as grid cell fraction. Lower panel (b): Difference to remote sensing data by Prigent et al. 2007 .
  • Fig. 4. Summer (JJAS) mean wetland extent at 8 ka BP. Upper panel (a): extent as grid cell fraction. Middle panel (b): Difference to extent at 0 ka. Lower panel (c): As (a), but areas covered by ice sheet or below sea level masked (white).
  • Fig. 6. Peat carbon density increase, relative to grid cell (not wetland fraction), accumulated over the last 8 ka.
  • Fig. 5. Model catotelm peat accumulation rates compared to measured values. For model values, error bars are shown that span the uncertainty range in catotelm formation in the sensitivity experiments. Measurements are compiled from Yu et al. (2010), reporting accumulation rates, and Gorham et al. (2003); Kremenetski et al. (2003) and Beilman et al. (2009), where we converted basal date and peat height into accumulation rate. Averages are shown for grid cells containing multiple measurements. Mean values are shown in red.

References Powered by Scopus

A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology

5734Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation

4271Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

On the temperature dependence of soil respiration

3332Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles

0
2013Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The global methane budget 2000-2017

1649Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The global methane budget 2000-2012

866Citations
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

Kleinen, T., Brovkin, V., & Schuldt, R. J. (2012). A dynamic model of wetland extent and peat accumulation: Results for the Holocene. Biogeosciences, 9(1), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-235-2012

Readers over time

‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2505101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 80

58%

Researcher 52

37%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

4%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

1%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Environmental Science 54

41%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 49

37%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25

19%

Engineering 4

3%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0