An official website of the United States government
Abstract. Wetlands and freshwater bodies (mainly lakes) are the largestnatural sources of the greenhouse gas CH4 to the atmosphere. Great effortshave been made to quantify these source emissions and their uncertainties.Previous research suggests that there might be significant uncertaintiescoming from “double accounting” emissions from freshwater bodies andwetlands. Here we quantify the methane emissions from both land andfreshwater bodies in the pan-Arctic with two process-based biogeochemistrymodels by minimizing the double accounting at the landscape scale. Twonon-overlapping dynamic areal change datasets are used to drive the models.We estimate that the total methane emissions from the pan-Arctic are 36.46 ± 1.02 Tg CH4 yr−1 during 2000–2015, of which wetlands andfreshwater bodies are 21.69 ± 0.59 Tg CH4 yr−1 and 14.76 ± 0.44 Tg CH4 yr−1, respectively. Our estimation narrows thedifference between previous bottom-up (53.9 Tg CH4 yr−1) andtop-down (29 Tg CH4 yr−1) estimates. Our correlation analysisshows that air temperature is the most important driver for methane emissionsof inland water systems. Wetland emissions are also significantly affected byvapor pressure, while lake emissions are more influenced by precipitation andlandscape areal changes. Sensitivity tests indicate that pan-Arctic lakeCH4 emissions were highly influenced by air temperature but less bylake sediment carbon increase.
more »
« less
Methane efflux from an American bison herd
Abstract. American bison (Bison bison L.) have recovered from the brink ofextinction over the past century. Bison reintroduction creates multipleenvironmental benefits, but impacts on greenhouse gas emissions are poorlyunderstood. Bison are thought to have produced some 2 Tg yr−1 of theestimated 9–15 Tg yr−1 of pre-industrial enteric methane emissions,but few measurements have been made due to their mobile grazing habits andsafety issues associated with measuring non-domesticated animals. Here, wemeasure methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from a bison herd on an enclosedpasture during daytime periods in winter using eddy covariance. Methaneemissions from the study area were negligible in the absence of bison(mean ± standard deviation = −0.0009 ± 0.008 µmol m−2 s−1) and were significantly greater than zero,0.048 ± 0.082 µmol m−2 s−1, with a positively skeweddistribution, when bison were present. We coupled bison location estimatesfrom automated camera images with two independent flux footprint models tocalculate a mean per-animal methane efflux of 58.5 µmol s−1 per bison, similar to eddy covariance measurements ofmethane efflux from a cattle feedlot during winter. When we sum theobservations over time with conservative uncertainty estimates we arrive at81 g CH4 per bison d−1 with 95 % confidence intervalsbetween 54 and 109 g CH4 per bison d−1. Uncertainty wasdominated by bison location estimates (46 % of the total uncertainty),then the flux footprint model (33 %) and the eddy covariance measurements(21 %), suggesting that making higher-resolution animal location estimatesis a logical starting point for decreasing total uncertainty. Annualmeasurements are ultimately necessary to determine the full greenhouse gasburden of bison grazing systems. Our observations highlight the need tocompare greenhouse gas emissions from different ruminant grazing systems anddemonstrate the potential for using eddy covariance to measure methaneefflux from non-domesticated animals.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10229940
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Biogeosciences
- Volume:
- 18
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1726-4189
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 961 to 975
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budgetis important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change.Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase,making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas interms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relativeimportance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorteratmospheric lifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations inatmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are stilldebated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmosphericgrowth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxylradicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established aconsortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the GlobalCarbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improvingand regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paperdedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-downstudies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modellingframework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models forestimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories ofanthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated byatmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximumestimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4 yr−1 or∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that isemissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is29 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009),and 24 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than the one reported in the previousbudget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost30 % larger global emissions (737 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 594–881)than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for naturalsources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geologicalsources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints onthe top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissionsare overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmosphericobservation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions(∼ 65 % of the global budget, < 30∘ N)compared to mid-latitudes (∼ 30 %, 30–60∘ N)and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90∘ N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methanebudget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlandsand other inland waters. Some of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previouslypublished budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 Tg CH4 yr−1 lower due toimproved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions fromgeological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 Tg CH4 yr−1 by 8 Tg CH4 yr−1, respectively. However, the overalldiscrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced byonly 5 % compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methanebudget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soilsand inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification ofdifferent types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development ofprocess-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification ofmethane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements)and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, andat regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrainatmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and therepresentation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/orco-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded fromhttps://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-CH4-2019 (Saunois et al., 2020) and from theGlobal Carbon Project.more » « less
-
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 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).more » « less
-
Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH4 continue to increase, maintaining CH4 as the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relative importance of CH4 compared to CO2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the factors explaining the well-observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multi-disciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise and update the global CH4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH4 emission estimates (based on in-situ and greenhouse gas observing satellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land-surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full datasets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better accounting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double accounting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double accounting that still exists (average of 23 Tg CH4 yr-1). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH4 yr-1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH4 yr-1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH4 yr-1 or ~65 % are attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH4 yr-1 or 63–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH4 yr-1 (range 9–40). Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH4 yr-1) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH4 yr-1, range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH4 yr-1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), respectively), and for the first time uncertainty in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. The latitudinal distribution from atmospheric inversion-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical and southern hemisphere emissions (~65 % of the global budget, <30° N) compared to mid (30° N–60° N, ~30 % of emissions) and high-northern latitudes (60° N–90° N, ~4 % of global emissions). This latitudinal distribution is similar in the bottom-up budget though the bottom-up budget estimates slightly larger contributions for the mid and high-northern latitudes, and slightly smaller contributions from the tropics and southern hemisphere than the inversions. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH4 budget: i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; iii) intensification of CH4 observations at local (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions, and v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture and landfills) to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GKQ9-2RHT (Martinez et al., 2024).more » « less
-
Browne, Eleanor (Ed.)Abstract. Agricultural emissions, including those from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for beef and dairy cattle, make up a large portion of the United States' total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, many CAFOs reside in areas where methane (CH4) from oil and natural gas (ONG) complicates the quantification of CAFO emissions. Traditional approaches to quantify emissions in such regions often relied on inventory subtraction of other known sources. We compare the results of two approaches to attribute the CAFO CH4 emission rate from the total CH4 emission rate derived from an aircraft mass balance technique. These methods make use of the mixing ratio data of CH4, ethane (C2H6), and ammonia (NH3) that were collected simultaneously in-flight downwind of CAFOs in northeastern Colorado. The first approach, the subtraction method (SM), is similar to inventory subtraction, except the amount to be removed is derived from the observed C2H6 to CH4 ratio rather than an inventory estimate. The results from this approach showed high uncertainty, primarily due to how error propagates through subtraction. Alternatively, multivariate regression (MVR) can be used to estimate CAFO CH4 emissions using the NH3 emission rate and an NH3 to CH4 ratio. These results showed significantly less uncertainty. We identified criteria to determine the best attribution method; these criteria can support attribution in other regions. The final emission estimates for the CAFOs presented here were 13 ± 3 g of CH4 per head per hour and 13 ± 2 g of NH3 per head per hour. These estimates are higher than the inventory of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and previous studies highlighting the need for more measurements of CH4 and NH3 emission rates.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-961-2021
