the conservation of peatlands · 2014. 5. 21. · the conservation of peatlands a win-win...

The conservation of peatlandsa win-win opportunity for fighting climatechange, protecting water and maintaining

biodiversity

Dr. Matthias Drösler

Technische Universität MünchenFreising – Germany

[email protected]+49 8161 713715

Brussels23.09.2010

Drösler - TUM

structure

Drösler - TUM

1. Introduction: peatlands and climate2. Assessment of GHG-exchange of European peatlands3. In-depth study: GHG-exchange of German peatlands4. Synergies with other conservation goals: water and

biodiversity5. Conclusions and outlook

outline

wetland

fen(minero-trophic)

bog(ombro-trophic)

usednaturalused

mire

marshnon-peatformingmostly salt-water

influencedswamp

non-peatformingfresh-water

…..

peatland

Peatland definition

up to 550 PgC in peatlands (Parish et al. 2008)

ca. 30 % soil organic carbonca. 3 % land surface

(Lappalainen 1996)

Drösler - TUM

Peatland distribution worldwide

• Carbon in ecosystems

• Peatlandimportance

(Parish et al. 2008)

Peatlanddistribution in Europe

Montanarella et al. (2006)

Small scale variability of peat-depth

Drösler - TUM

for the to day climate-effect of peatlands the C-pool is less importantthan the exchange of climatic relevant trace gases

pool dimension vs. pool change rate makes stock change monitoring uncertain

CO2-uptakeGPP

CH4- N2O-emission

CO2-balanceNEE

CO2-emissionRespiration

Drösler - TUM

GHG-exchange in peatlands

Aerobic

Anaerobic

Production

Water table

Capillaryfringe

ConsumptionSoil surface

CO2N2OCH4

Relative gas fluxes – different scales per gas!

Soil profile

Processes of GHG-exchange in peatlands

Greenhouse gases in peatlandsCO2N2OCH4

Relative gas fluxes – different scales per gas!

Water table

Drainedpeatland

SourceSink

Water table

Naturalpeatland

Processes of GHG-exchange in peatlands

measurement techniques for GHGmeasurement techniques for GHG--exchange exchange of of COCO22, CH, CH44 and Nand N22OO

Eddy-Covariance automatic chambers manual chambers1 ha continuously 1 m2 continuously 1 m2 episodic

Net Ecosystem Exchange CO2-C (NEE)

CH4-C balanceC- exportC- import

Carbon-balance

CH4-C balance x GWPN2O-N balance x GWP

Climaticrelevance

GWP: CO2=1, CH4=21, N2O=310

plus plus

Nature conservation

Climate protectio

n

outline

Drösler - TUM



Peatland use

EU-27 Peatland Area

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Bogs Fens

Area

[M h

a]

DegradedCropGrassForestMire

Adapted from Joosten & Clarke 2002

Median EFs for temperate peatlands

-10-505

1015202530354045

MireDrai

ned f

orest

Grassla

ndCrop

land

Degrad

edRes

tored

bog

Restor

ed fe

nt C

O2-

equi

v. h

a-1 a

-1

CO2 CH4 N2O

Freibauer, Drösler et al. in prep.

European peatlands: GHG budget

GHG Budget

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Mire Forest Grass Crop Degraded

Gg

C-e

quiv

alen

ts a

-1

Fen BogSource

Sink

Net source: 31,800 Gg C-equ. a-1


N2O

MireForestGrassCropDegraded

CH4


C uptake

NEP


C uptake

GHG emissions from peatlands in EU-27

C-equivalents


C uptake

Area


84 TgCO2-eq a-1

11.3 TgCO2-eq a-1

21.5 TgCO2-eq a-1

117 TgCO2-eq a-1


-1000

100200300400500600700800900

Finlan

dSwed

enNorw

ayBela

rus

United

King

dom

German

yPola

ndIre

land

Estonia

1000

km

2

UnknownPeat cut CroplandGrasslandForestryMires

GHG emissionsfrom peatlands

by country

(emission factors:Drösler et al. 2008)

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Finlan

dSwed

enNorw

ayBela

rus

United

King

dom

German

yPola

ndIre

land

Estonia

GH

G b

alan

ce [G

g C

O 2-e

qu]

UnknownPeat cut CroplandGrasslandForestryMires


outline

Drösler - TUM



peatland synthesis: detailed objectives

1

3

24

5

9

7

6

8

10

11

German input: Nationally funded sites

Blue sites BMBF-project2006-2010

Blue and purple sites vTI-project2009-2012

Research partners – BMBF project

Vegetationsökologie

TUM-VÖK Matthias Drösler, Wolfram Adelmann, Lindsey Bergmann, Christoph Förster,Julia Hermann

IÖW Ulrich Petschow, Alexandra Dehnhardt, Stefan Görlitz, Philipp Schägner

LBEG Heinrich Höper, Colja Beyer, Horst Liebersbach

MPI-BGC Annette Freibauer, Catharina DonMaria-Hahn Schöfl, Angelika Thuille

TUM-WDL Jochen Kantelhardt, Lena Schaller, Rico Hübner

ZALF-BLF Michael Sommer, Marc Wehrhahn, Franz Zinnecker

ZALF-LSD Jürgen Augustin, Madlen Pohl, Elisabeth Boraz, Michael Giebels, Merten Minke, Maarten Schmid,

peatland study: representative selection of sites

Climatic water balance

GHG-balance - German bogs

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Acker

Grünlan

d inte

nsiv

/ mitte

l

Grünlan

d exte

nsiv

trock

en

Grünlan

d exte

nsiv

nass

Hochm

oor tr

ocke

n

Naturna

h/Ren

aturie

rtÜbe

rstau

t CO

2-Ä

qu. h

a-1 a

-1Alle TGs Hochmoor

Fehlerbalken: Minimum - Maximum der Messungen

All sites Peat bogs

Farm

land

Gra

ssla

nd in

tens

ive

Gra

ssla

nd

exte

nsiv

e dr

y

Gra

ssla

nd

exte

nsiv

e w

et

Hea

th

Nat

ural

/ res

tore

d

Floo

ded

Drösler et al. in prep.

-75 -50 -25 0 25 50WT-mean total [cm]

-250

0

250

500

750

1000G

WP

-bal

ance

GH

Gs

[g C

O2-

C-e

qu. m

-2

-

2

GH

G-b

alan

ce[g

CO

2-C

Äqu

iv. m

-2a-

1] r2=0.6

p=<0.01

Mean WT: dominating but not single explainingfactor

GHG-balance vs. WT - German bogs

FarmlandGL int. /meanGL ext. dryGL ext. wetheath/unused dryrestored / naturalflooded


-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Acker

Grünlan

d inte

nsiv

/ mitte

l

Grünlan

d exte

nsiv

trock

en

Grünlan

d exte

nsiv

nass

Hochm

oor tr

ocke

n

Naturna

h/Ren

aturie

rtÜbe

rstau

t CO

2-Ä

qu. h

a-1 a

-1

Alle TGs NiedermoorFehlerbalken: Minimum - Maximum der Messungen

GHG-balance - German fens

Farm

land

Gra

ssla

nd in

tens

ive

Gra

ssla

nd

exte

nsiv

e dr

y

Gra

ssla

nd

exte

nsiv

e w

et

Hea

th

Nat

ural

/ res

tore

d

Floo

ded

All sites

fens


-100

1020304050607080

Acker

Grünland intensiv

/ mitte

l

Grünland exte

nsiv tro

cken

Grünland exte

nsiv nass

Hochmoor

trock

enNatu

rnah/Renaturie

rt

Überst

au

t CO

2-Ä

qu. h

a-1 a

-1

THGs CH4 N2OFehlerbalken: Minimum - Maximum der Messungen

GHG-balances - German fens

Farm

land

Gra

ssla

nd in

tens

ive

Gra

ssla

nd

exte

nsiv

e dr

y

Gra

ssla

nd

exte

nsiv

e w

et

Hea

th

Nat

ural

/ res

tore

d

Floo

ded


-150 -100 -50 0 50WT-mean total [cm]

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000G

WP

-bal

ance

GH

Gs

[g C

O2-

C-e

qu. m

-2

Wasserstand –Jahresmittel [cm]

r2=0.52p=<0.01

GH

G-b

alan

ce[g

CO

2-C

Äqu

iv. m

-2a-

1]

Mean WT: dominating but not single explainingfactor

GHG-balance vs. WT - German fens

FarmlandGL int. /meanGL ext. dryGL ext. wetheath/unused dryrestored / naturalflooded


02.5

57.5

10

C-export:t_C ha-1a-1

-150-100-500

WT-mean total [cm]

-10

-100

010

1020

2030

3040

4050

5060

60E

F-G

WP

:t_C

O2-

aequ

iv h

a-1a

-1

EF-

GW

P:t_

CO

2-ae

quiv

ha-

1a-1

GHG vs. WT vs. land use intensitybogs and fens

C-Exp

ort [t

C ha-1 a-

1 ]

r2=0.72p=<0.01

Clim

ate

prot

ectio

n

Rising water tablerestorationLand use change

Extensificatio

n


extensivication land usechange

farmlandintensive grasslandextensive

Management level

restoration

GWP-balance [g CO2-C-equ. m-2 a-1]

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

11 9 2 8 1 (07) 7 4 5 3 6 1 (08) 13_1 13_2

Freisinger Moos 2007*

Extensification ca. 15 t CO2 equiv./ha*a

Restorationca. 30 t CO2equiv./ha*a

Farmland to Grassland10 t CO2 equiv./ha*a

1. extensive grasing*2. inten. meadow3. ext. meadow4. ext. meaow with sedges5. tall sedges6. former extensive meadow

7 former extensive meadow8 inten. meadow9 inten. meadow11 farmland13.1 small sedges (restored) MW 22 cm13.2 small sedges (restored) MW 14 cm

GHG-reduction potential –fen area example FS-Moos

C-pool in German peatlands 1200 – 2400 Mio t

Emissions from German peatlands up to 45 Mio t CO2 equiv/a (NIR2010)

peatlands are among the biggest single sources4.5 % of the overall climate impact of Germany

30 % ot the emissions of the whole farming sectorfrom peatland agriculture unless just 8 % of farmland on organic soils

big emission-reduction potentials at small land proportion

GHG-Balances German peatlands

Drösler - TUM



outline

(Colias palaeno)

species conservation vs. climate protecion?

-75 -50 -25 0 25 50WT-mean total [cm]

-250

0

250

500

750

1000

GW

P-b

alan

ce G

HG

s [g

CO

2-C

-equ

. m-2

2

habitat

methane-source

species conservation vs. climate protecion?

-75 -50 -25 0 25 50WT-mean total [cm]

-250

0

250

500

750

1000

GW

P-b

alan

ce G

HG

s [g

CO

2-C

-equ

. m-2

2

monitoring: bog vegetation as indicator for restoration succes

restored

drained

1996 1999 2003

1996 1999 2003

Vegetation dynamic after restoration

Mooswachstumsmessflächen und Messmethode

Peat moss development after restoration

Peat moss growth rates

peat moss growth 2004-2008 : site1r^2=0.9426922; a=-2.91363051; b=0.009204884

250 750 1250 1750julian day continous

-5

0

5

10

15

heig

ht re

lativ

e to

sta

rt [c

m]

peat moss growth 2004-2008 : site 2y=a+bx^2; r^2=0.96003833, a=-0.23329591, b= 3.39448e-06

250 750 1250 1750julian day continuous

-5

0

5

10

15

heig

ht re

lativ

e to

sta

rt [c

m]

growth rate3.4 cm/year

growth rate2.7 cm/year

-75 -50 -25 0 25 50WT-mean total [cm]

-250

0

250

500

750

1000

GW

P-b

alan

ce G

HG

s [g

CO

2-C

-equ

. m-2

2

Peat moss development after restoration

Drösler in prep.

Rank 3 Eqn 1 y=a+bxr^2=0.64809873 DF Adj r^2=0.57771848 FitStdErr=1.4280136 Fstat=20.258768

a=9.4472667 b=-0.013894889

0 100 200 300 400 500GWP-Balance [g C-eq. m-2 a-1]

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5S

peci

es n

umbe

r

plant biodiversity vs. GHG-balance

bog-vegetationr2=0.65p<0.05

Drösler in prep.

Rank 3 Eqn 1 y=a+bxr^2=0.64809873 DF Adj r^2=0.57771848 FitStdErr=1.4280136 Fstat=20.258768

a=9.4472667 b=-0.013894889

0 100 200 300 400 500GWP-Balance [g C-eq. m-2 a-1]

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5S

peci

es n

umbe

r r2=0.65p<0.05

plant biodiversity vs. GHG-balance

bog-vegetationfen-vegetationr2=0.69p<0.05

-50-40-30-20

-100

10

-50-40-30-20-10

010

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52

-50-40-30-20-10

010

degraded: former peat cut area

restored Sphagnum-lawn

natural hummock-hollow complex

Water table dynamics at bog sites

Drösler 2005

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

DOY

Tair

[°C

], R

ain

[mm

], W

T [c

m],

TA200_maxRAIN_mmWT_13.1WT_13.2

RECO_TG5 _ site 13.1_2007

05

101520253035

1 907 1813 2719 3625 4531 5437 6343 7249 8155 9061 9967

Year 2007 (0.5h steps)

CO

2-C

µm

ol m

-2 s

-1

Adaptation to climate variablity

Freisinger Moos

droughtApril 2007

outline

Drösler - TUM



PeatlandPeatlandconservationconservation

restorationrestoration

Biodiversity

ClimateprotectionWater regulation

Synergies between BiodiversityBiodiversity--,WaterWater-- and ClimateClimate protectionprotection

Development of sitesite--specificspecificPeatlandPeatland managementmanagement strategiesstrategies(land-use, land-tenure, hydrological setting,costs and goals)

ChallengesChallenges and and potentialspotentials

ApplicationApplication of of newnew peatlandpeatland managementmanagement strategiesstrategies(stakeholder participation, permanence, commitment, costs)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Fläche [ha]

Geb

iets

emis

sion

en [t

CO2 /

Jahr

]

Farmland to grassland

Extensification of grassland Water rising

Agricultural use of wetmeadows

optimalrestoration

Water risingNature conservation

Reduction of area emissions FS-Moos

reduction: 12.000 t CO2-equiv a-1

CO2-abatement costs: 9 – 64 Euro /t CO2

Wiss. Beirat Agrarpolitik beim BMELV, 2007

Climate mitigation via peatland conservation

Mitigation potential via peatland restoration

Estimated emission reductionsCa. 30 t CO2 equiv. / ha a in fensCa. 15 t CO2 equiv. / ha a in bogs

Abatement costs

PeatlandPeatlandconservationconservation

restorationrestoration

Biodiversity

ClimateprotectionWater regulation

Integration of Integration of ecologicalecological servicesservices ((climateclimate, , biodiversitybiodiversity, , waterwater) ) in in agriculturalagricultural fundingfunding schemesschemes withinwithin CAP CAP paypay land land usersusers on on organicorganic soilssoils forfor producingproducing ecologicalecological servicesservices

ButBut: : MonitoringMonitoring & & modellingmodelling of of thethe effectseffects neededneeded! !

conclusionsconclusions

Synergies between BiodiversityBiodiversity--,WaterWater-- and ClimateClimate protectionprotection

Development of sitesite--specificspecificPeatlandPeatland managementmanagement strategiesstrategies(land-use, land-tenure, hydrological setting,costs and goals)

ApplicationApplication of of newnew peatlandpeatland managementmanagement strategiesstrategies(stakeholder participation, permanence, commitment, costs)

EU-FP7 Project (2010-2013)GHG-Europe (coord. vTI)

Greenhouse gas management in European land use systems

activity 2.1: peatland synthesis (TUM-VÖK)

Annette Freibauer vTI-AK Seminar 27.04

Thanks for your attention

Thanks to all contributers in the running GHG-exchange projects

Thanks to the funding institutions: EU, BMBF, vTI, LfU, BStMWK, BFN

the conservation of peatlands · 2014. 5. 21. · the conservation of peatlands a win-win...

Documents