skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Accepted Manuscript: Monthly gridded data product of northern wetland methane emissions based on upscaling eddy covariance observations
Title: Monthly gridded data product of northern wetland methane emissions based on upscaling eddy covariance observations
Abstract. Natural wetlands constitute the largest and most uncertain sourceof methane (CH4) to the atmosphere and a large fraction of them are found in the northern latitudes. These emissions are typically estimated using process (“bottom-up”) or inversion (“top-down”) models. However, estimates from these two types of models are not independent of each other since the top-down estimates usually rely on the a priori estimation of these emissions obtained with process models. Hence, independent spatially explicit validation data are needed. Here we utilize a random forest (RF) machine-learning technique to upscale CH4 eddy covariance flux measurements from 25 sites to estimate CH4 wetland emissions from the northern latitudes (north of 45∘ N). Eddy covariance datafrom 2005 to 2016 are used for model development. The model is then used to predict emissions during 2013 and 2014. The predictive performance of the RF model is evaluated using a leave-one-site-out cross-validation scheme. The performance (Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency =0.47) is comparable to previous studies upscaling net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide and studies comparing process model output against site-level CH4 emission data. The global distribution of wetlands is one major source of uncertainty for upscaling CH4. Thus, three wetland distribution maps are utilized in the upscaling. Depending more » on the wetland distribution map, the annual emissions for the northern wetlands yield 32 (22.3–41.2, 95 % confidence interval calculated from a RF model ensemble), 31 (21.4–39.9) or 38 (25.9–49.5) Tg(CH4) yr−1. To further evaluate the uncertainties of the upscaled CH4 flux data products we also compared them against output from two process models (LPX-Bern and WetCHARTs), and methodological issues related to CH4 flux upscaling are discussed. The monthly upscaled CH4 flux data products are available athttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2560163 (Peltola et al., 2019). « less
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more » ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; « less
Award ID(s):
1636476 1702797
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10133784
Journal Name:
Earth System Science Data
Volume:
11
Issue:
3
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1263 to 1289
ISSN:
1866-3516
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Earth System Science Data)
    Abstract. Methane (CH4) emissions from the boreal and arcticregion are globally significant and highly sensitive to climate change.There is currently a wide range in estimates of high-latitude annualCH4 fluxes, where estimates based on land cover inventories andempirical CH4 flux data or process models (bottom-up approaches)generally are greater than atmospheric inversions (top-down approaches). Alimitation of bottom-up approaches has been the lack of harmonizationbetween inventories of site-level CH4 flux data and the land coverclasses present in high-latitude spatial datasets. Here we present acomprehensive dataset of small-scale, surface CH4 flux data from 540terrestrial sites (wetland and non-wetland) and 1247 aquatic sites (lakesand ponds), compiled from 189 studies. The Boreal–Arctic Wetland and LakeMethane Dataset (BAWLD-CH4) was constructed in parallel with acompatible land cover dataset, sharing the same land cover classes to enablerefined bottom-up assessments. BAWLD-CH4 includes information onsite-level CH4 fluxes but also on study design (measurement method,timing, and frequency) and site characteristics (vegetation, climate,hydrology, soil, and sediment types, permafrost conditions, lake size anddepth, and our determination of land cover class). The different land coverclasses had distinct CH4 fluxes, resulting from definitions that wereeither based on or co-varied with key environmental controls. Fluxes ofCH4 from terrestrial ecosystems were primarily influenced by watertable position, soil temperature,more »and vegetation composition, while CH4fluxes from aquatic ecosystems were primarily influenced by watertemperature, lake size, and lake genesis. Models could explain more of thebetween-site variability in CH4 fluxes for terrestrial than aquaticecosystems, likely due to both less precise assessments of lake CH4fluxes and fewer consistently reported lake site characteristics. Analysisof BAWLD-CH4 identified both land cover classes and regions within theboreal and arctic domain, where future studies should be focused, alongsidemethodological approaches. Overall, BAWLD-CH4 provides a comprehensivedataset of CH4 emissions from high-latitude ecosystems that are usefulfor identifying research opportunities, for comparison against new fielddata, and model parameterization or validation. BAWLD-CH4 can bedownloaded from https://doi.org/10.18739/A2DN3ZX1R (Kuhn et al., 2021).« less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al ( , Earth System Science Data)
    Abstract. Methane (CH4) emissions from natural landscapes constituteroughly half of global CH4 contributions to the atmosphere, yet largeuncertainties remain in the absolute magnitude and the seasonality ofemission quantities and drivers. Eddy covariance (EC) measurements ofCH4 flux are ideal for constraining ecosystem-scale CH4emissions due to quasi-continuous and high-temporal-resolution CH4flux measurements, coincident carbon dioxide, water, and energy fluxmeasurements, lack of ecosystem disturbance, and increased availability ofdatasets over the last decade. Here, we (1) describe the newly publisheddataset, FLUXNET-CH4 Version 1.0, the first open-source global dataset ofCH4 EC measurements (available athttps://fluxnet.org/data/fluxnet-ch4-community-product/, last access: 7 April 2021). FLUXNET-CH4includes half-hourly and daily gap-filled and non-gap-filled aggregatedCH4 fluxes and meteorological data from 79 sites globally: 42freshwater wetlands, 6 brackish and saline wetlands, 7 formerly drainedecosystems, 7 rice paddy sites, 2 lakes, and 15 uplands. Then, we (2) evaluate FLUXNET-CH4 representativeness for freshwater wetland coverageglobally because the majority of sites in FLUXNET-CH4 Version 1.0 arefreshwater wetlands which are a substantial source of total atmosphericCH4 emissions; and (3) we provide the first global estimates of theseasonal variability and seasonality predictors of freshwater wetlandCH4 fluxes. Our representativeness analysis suggests that thefreshwater wetland sites in the dataset cover global wetland bioclimaticattributes (encompassing energy, moisture, and vegetation-relatedparameters) in arctic, boreal, and temperate regions but only sparselycovermore »humid tropical regions. Seasonality metrics of wetland CH4emissions vary considerably across latitudinal bands. In freshwater wetlands(except those between 20∘ S to 20∘ N) the spring onsetof elevated CH4 emissions starts 3 d earlier, and the CH4emission season lasts 4 d longer, for each degree Celsius increase in meanannual air temperature. On average, the spring onset of increasing CH4emissions lags behind soil warming by 1 month, with very few sites experiencingincreased CH4 emissions prior to the onset of soil warming. Incontrast, roughly half of these sites experience the spring onset of risingCH4 emissions prior to the spring increase in gross primaryproductivity (GPP). The timing of peak summer CH4 emissions does notcorrelate with the timing for either peak summer temperature or peak GPP.Our results provide seasonality parameters for CH4 modeling andhighlight seasonality metrics that cannot be predicted by temperature or GPP(i.e., seasonality of CH4 peak). FLUXNET-CH4 is a powerful new resourcefor diagnosing and understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems andclimate drivers in the global CH4 cycle, and future additions of sitesin tropical ecosystems and site years of data collection will provide addedvalue to this database. All seasonality parameters are available athttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4672601 (Delwiche et al., 2021).Additionally, raw FLUXNET-CH4 data used to extract seasonality parameterscan be downloaded from https://fluxnet.org/data/fluxnet-ch4-community-product/ (last access: 7 April 2021), and a completelist of the 79 individual site data DOIs is provided in Table 2 of this paper.« less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Environmental Research Letters)
    Abstract

    The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the global mean. This warming could further stimulate methane (CH4) emissions from northern wetlands and enhance the greenhouse impact of this region. Arctic wetlands are extremely heterogeneous in terms of geochemistry, vegetation, microtopography, and hydrology, and therefore CH4fluxes can differ dramatically within the metre scale. Eddy covariance (EC) is one of the most useful methods for estimating CH4fluxes in remote areas over long periods of time. However, when the areas sampled by these EC towers (i.e. tower footprints) are by definition very heterogeneous, due to encompassing a variety of environmental conditions and vegetation types, modelling environmental controls of CH4emissions becomes even more challenging, confounding efforts to reduce uncertainty in baseline CH4emissions from these landscapes. In this study, we evaluated the effect of footprint variability on CH4fluxes from two EC towers located in wetlands on the North Slope of Alaska. The local domain of each of these sites contains well developed polygonal tundra as well as a drained thermokarst lake basin. We found that the spatiotemporal variability of the footprint, has a significant influence on the observed CH4fluxes, contributing between 3% and 33% of the variance, depending on site, time period,more »and modelling method. Multiple indices were used to define spatial heterogeneity, and their explanatory power varied depending on site and season. Overall, the normalised difference water index had the most consistent explanatory power on CH4fluxes, though generally only when used in concert with at least one other spatial index. The spatial bias (defined here as the difference between the mean for the 0.36 km2domain around the tower and the footprint-weighted mean) was between ∣51∣% and ∣18∣% depending on the index. This study highlights the need for footprint modelling to infer the representativeness of the carbon fluxes measured by EC towers in these highly heterogeneous tundra ecosystems, and the need to evaluate spatial variability when upscaling EC site-level data to a larger domain.

    « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al ( , Geoscientific Model Development)
    Abstract. In the global methane budget, the largest natural sourceis attributed to wetlands, which encompass all ecosystems composed ofwaterlogged or inundated ground, capable of methane production. Among them,northern peatlands that store large amounts of soil organic carbon have beenfunctioning, since the end of the last glaciation period, as long-termsources of methane (CH4) and are one of the most significant methanesources among wetlands. To reduce uncertainty of quantifying methane flux in theglobal methane budget, it is of significance to understand the underlyingprocesses for methane production and fluxes in northern peatlands. A methanemodel that features methane production and transport by plants, ebullitionprocess and diffusion in soil, oxidation to CO2, and CH4 fluxes tothe atmosphere has been embedded in the ORCHIDEE-PEAT land surface modelthat includes an explicit representation of northern peatlands.ORCHIDEE-PCH4 was calibrated and evaluated on 14 peatland sites distributedon both the Eurasian and American continents in the northern boreal andtemperate regions. Data assimilation approaches were employed to optimizedparameters at each site and at all sites simultaneously. Results show thatmethanogenesis is sensitive to temperature and substrate availability overthe top 75 cm of soil depth. Methane emissions estimated using single siteoptimization (SSO) of model parameters are underestimated by 9 g CH4 m−2 yr−1 on average (i.e., 50 % higher thanmore »the site average ofyearly methane emissions). While using the multi-site optimization (MSO),methane emissions are overestimated by 5 g CH4 m−2 yr−1 onaverage across all investigated sites (i.e., 37 % lower than the siteaverage of yearly methane emissions).« less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al ( , Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society)
    This paper describes the formation of, and initial results for, a new FLUXNET coordination network for ecosystem-scale methane (CH 4 ) measurements at 60 sites globally, organized by the Global Carbon Project in partnership with other initiatives and regional flux tower networks. The objectives of the effort are presented along with an overview of the coverage of eddy covariance (EC) CH 4 flux measurements globally, initial results comparing CH 4 fluxes across the sites, and future research directions and needs. Annual estimates of net CH 4 fluxes across sites ranged from −0.2 ± 0.02 g C m –2 yr –1 for an upland forest site to 114.9 ± 13.4 g C m –2 yr –1 for an estuarine freshwater marsh, with fluxes exceeding 40 g C m –2 yr –1 at multiple sites. Average annual soil and air temperatures were found to be the strongest predictor of annual CH 4 flux across wetland sites globally. Water table position was positively correlated with annual CH 4 emissions, although only for wetland sites that were not consistently inundated throughout the year. The ratio of annual CH 4 fluxes to ecosystem respiration increased significantly with mean site temperature. Uncertainties in annual CH 4more »estimates due to gap-filling and random errors were on average ±1.6 g C m –2 yr –1 at 95% confidence, with the relative error decreasing exponentially with increasing flux magnitude across sites. Through the analysis and synthesis of a growing EC CH 4 flux database, the controls on ecosystem CH 4 fluxes can be better understood, used to inform and validate Earth system models, and reconcile differences between land surface model- and atmospheric-based estimates of CH 4 emissions.« less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email