1
|
Bansal S, Creed IF, Tangen BA, Bridgham SD, Desai AR, Krauss KW, Neubauer SC, Noe GB, Rosenberry DO, Trettin C, Wickland KP, Allen ST, Arias-Ortiz A, Armitage AR, Baldocchi D, Banerjee K, Bastviken D, Berg P, Bogard MJ, Chow AT, Conner WH, Craft C, Creamer C, DelSontro T, Duberstein JA, Eagle M, Fennessy MS, Finkelstein SA, Göckede M, Grunwald S, Halabisky M, Herbert E, Jahangir MMR, Johnson OF, Jones MC, Kelleway JJ, Knox S, Kroeger KD, Kuehn KA, Lobb D, Loder AL, Ma S, Maher DT, McNicol G, Meier J, Middleton BA, Mills C, Mistry P, Mitra A, Mobilian C, Nahlik AM, Newman S, O’Connell JL, Oikawa P, van der Burg MP, Schutte CA, Song C, Stagg CL, Turner J, Vargas R, Waldrop MP, Wallin MB, Wang ZA, Ward EJ, Willard DA, Yarwood S, Zhu X. Practical Guide to Measuring Wetland Carbon Pools and Fluxes. WETLANDS (WILMINGTON, N.C.) 2023; 43:105. [PMID: 38037553 PMCID: PMC10684704 DOI: 10.1007/s13157-023-01722-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 12/02/2023]
Abstract
Wetlands cover a small portion of the world, but have disproportionate influence on global carbon (C) sequestration, carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and aquatic C fluxes. However, the underlying biogeochemical processes that affect wetland C pools and fluxes are complex and dynamic, making measurements of wetland C challenging. Over decades of research, many observational, experimental, and analytical approaches have been developed to understand and quantify pools and fluxes of wetland C. Sampling approaches range in their representation of wetland C from short to long timeframes and local to landscape spatial scales. This review summarizes common and cutting-edge methodological approaches for quantifying wetland C pools and fluxes. We first define each of the major C pools and fluxes and provide rationale for their importance to wetland C dynamics. For each approach, we clarify what component of wetland C is measured and its spatial and temporal representativeness and constraints. We describe practical considerations for each approach, such as where and when an approach is typically used, who can conduct the measurements (expertise, training requirements), and how approaches are conducted, including considerations on equipment complexity and costs. Finally, we review key covariates and ancillary measurements that enhance the interpretation of findings and facilitate model development. The protocols that we describe to measure soil, water, vegetation, and gases are also relevant for related disciplines such as ecology. Improved quality and consistency of data collection and reporting across studies will help reduce global uncertainties and develop management strategies to use wetlands as nature-based climate solutions. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13157-023-01722-2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheel Bansal
- U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND USA
| | - Irena F. Creed
- Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, ON Canada
| | - Brian A. Tangen
- U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND USA
| | - Scott D. Bridgham
- Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR USA
| | - Ankur R. Desai
- Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA
| | - Ken W. Krauss
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA USA
| | - Scott C. Neubauer
- Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA USA
| | - Gregory B. Noe
- U.S. Geological Survey, Florence Bascom Geoscience Center, Reston, VA USA
| | | | - Carl Trettin
- U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis, CA USA
| | - Kimberly P. Wickland
- U.S. Geological Survey, Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center, Denver, CO USA
| | - Scott T. Allen
- Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV USA
| | - Ariane Arias-Ortiz
- Ecosystem Science Division, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA USA
| | - Anna R. Armitage
- Department of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University at Galveston, Galveston, TX USA
| | - Dennis Baldocchi
- Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA USA
| | - Kakoli Banerjee
- Department of Biodiversity and Conservation of Natural Resources, Central University of Odisha, Koraput, Odisha India
| | - David Bastviken
- Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
| | - Peter Berg
- Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA USA
| | - Matthew J. Bogard
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB Canada
| | - Alex T. Chow
- Earth and Environmental Sciences Programme, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR China
| | - William H. Conner
- Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson University, Georgetown, SC USA
| | - Christopher Craft
- O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN USA
| | - Courtney Creamer
- U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science Center, Menlo Park, CA USA
| | - Tonya DelSontro
- Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON Canada
| | - Jamie A. Duberstein
- Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson University, Georgetown, SC USA
| | - Meagan Eagle
- U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole Coastal & Marine Science Center, Woods Hole, MA USA
| | | | | | - Mathias Göckede
- Department for Biogeochemical Signals, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany
| | - Sabine Grunwald
- Soil, Water and Ecosystem Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA
| | - Meghan Halabisky
- School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA
| | | | | | - Olivia F. Johnson
- U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND USA
- Departments of Biology and Environmental Studies, Kent State University, Kent, OH USA
| | - Miriam C. Jones
- U.S. Geological Survey, Florence Bascom Geoscience Center, Reston, VA USA
| | - Jeffrey J. Kelleway
- School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences and Environmental Futures Research Centre, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW Australia
| | - Sara Knox
- Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - Kevin D. Kroeger
- U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole Coastal & Marine Science Center, Woods Hole, MA USA
| | - Kevin A. Kuehn
- School of Biological, Environmental, and Earth Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS USA
| | - David Lobb
- Department of Soil Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB Canada
| | - Amanda L. Loder
- Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
| | - Shizhou Ma
- School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK Canada
| | - Damien T. Maher
- Faculty of Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW Australia
| | - Gavin McNicol
- Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL USA
| | - Jacob Meier
- U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND USA
| | - Beth A. Middleton
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA USA
| | - Christopher Mills
- U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center, Denver, CO USA
| | - Purbasha Mistry
- School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK Canada
| | - Abhijit Mitra
- Department of Marine Science, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal India
| | - Courtney Mobilian
- O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN USA
| | - Amanda M. Nahlik
- Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessments, Pacific Ecological Systems Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR USA
| | - Sue Newman
- South Florida Water Management District, Everglades Systems Assessment Section, West Palm Beach, FL USA
| | - Jessica L. O’Connell
- Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO USA
| | - Patty Oikawa
- Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA USA
| | - Max Post van der Burg
- U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND USA
| | - Charles A. Schutte
- Department of Environmental Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ USA
| | - Changchun Song
- Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Environment, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, China
| | - Camille L. Stagg
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA USA
| | - Jessica Turner
- Freshwater and Marine Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA
| | - Rodrigo Vargas
- Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE USA
| | - Mark P. Waldrop
- U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy and Geophysics Science Center, Menlo Park, CA USA
| | - Marcus B. Wallin
- Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Zhaohui Aleck Wang
- Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA USA
| | - Eric J. Ward
- U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA USA
| | - Debra A. Willard
- U.S. Geological Survey, Florence Bascom Geoscience Center, Reston, VA USA
| | - Stephanie Yarwood
- Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD USA
| | - Xiaoyan Zhu
- Key Laboratory of Songliao Aquatic Environment, Ministry of Education, Jilin Jianzhu University, Changchun, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Matzek V, Lewis D, O'Geen A, Lennox M, Hogan SD, Feirer ST, Eviner V, Tate KW. Increases in soil and woody biomass carbon stocks as a result of rangeland riparian restoration. CARBON BALANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2020; 15:16. [PMID: 32737618 PMCID: PMC7395391 DOI: 10.1186/s13021-020-00150-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2019] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Globally, vegetation in riparian zones is frequently the target of restoration efforts because of its importance in reducing the input of eroded sediment and agricultural nutrient runoff to surface waters. Here we examine the potential of riparian zone restoration to enhance carbon sequestration. We measured soil and woody biomass carbon stocks, as well as soil carbon properties, in a long-term chronosequence of 42 streambank revegetation projects in northern California rangelands, varying in restoration age from 1 to 45 years old. RESULTS Where revegetation was successful, we found that soil carbon measured to 50 cm depth increased at a rate of 0.87 Mg C ha-1 year-1 on the floodplain and 1.12 Mg C ha-1 year-1 on the upper bank landform. Restored sites also exhibited trends toward increased soil carbon permanence, including an increased C:N ratio and lower fulvic acid: humic acid ratio. Tree and shrub carbon in restored sites was modeled to achieve a 50-year maximum of 187.5 Mg C ha-1 in the channel, 279.3 Mg ha-1 in the floodplain, and 238.66 Mg ha-1 on the upper bank. After 20 years of restoration, the value of this carbon at current per-ton C prices would amount to $US 15,000 per km of restored stream. CONCLUSION We conclude that revegetating rangeland streambanks for erosion control has a substantial additional benefit of mitigating global climate change, and should be considered in carbon accounting and any associated financial compensation mechanisms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Virginia Matzek
- Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA, 95053, USA.
| | | | | | | | - Sean D Hogan
- University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Davis, CA, USA
| | - Shane T Feirer
- University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Davis, CA, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Wilson BT, Woodall CW, Griffith DM. Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage. CARBON BALANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2013; 8:1. [PMID: 23305341 PMCID: PMC3564769 DOI: 10.1186/1750-0680-8-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2012] [Accepted: 01/09/2013] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
The U.S. has been providing national-scale estimates of forest carbon (C) stocks and stock change to meet United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting requirements for years. Although these currently are provided as national estimates by pool and year to meet greenhouse gas monitoring requirements, there is growing need to disaggregate these estimates to finer scales to enable strategic forest management and monitoring activities focused on various ecosystem services such as C storage enhancement. Through application of a nearest-neighbor imputation approach, spatially extant estimates of forest C density were developed for the conterminous U.S. using the U.S.'s annual forest inventory. Results suggest that an existing forest inventory plot imputation approach can be readily modified to provide raster maps of C density across a range of pools (e.g., live tree to soil organic carbon) and spatial scales (e.g., sub-county to biome). Comparisons among imputed maps indicate strong regional differences across C pools. The C density of pools closely related to detrital input (e.g., dead wood) is often highest in forests suffering from recent mortality events such as those in the northern Rocky Mountains (e.g., beetle infestations). In contrast, live tree carbon density is often highest on the highest quality forest sites such as those found in the Pacific Northwest. Validation results suggest strong agreement between the estimates produced from the forest inventory plots and those from the imputed maps, particularly when the C pool is closely associated with the imputation model (e.g., aboveground live biomass and live tree basal area), with weaker agreement for detrital pools (e.g., standing dead trees). Forest inventory imputed plot maps provide an efficient and flexible approach to monitoring diverse C pools at national (e.g., UNFCCC) and regional scales (e.g., Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation projects) while allowing timely incorporation of empirical data (e.g., annual forest inventory).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barry Tyler Wilson
- USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA
| | - Christopher W Woodall
- USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA
| | - Douglas M Griffith
- USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA
| |
Collapse
|