Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Meteorology and Air Transport on CO2 Atmospheric Distribution over South Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Emission of Greenhouse Gases from Road Transport in Poland between 1990 and 2017
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Air Pollution in Urban Areas with Airviro Dispersion Model—A Case Study in the City of Sheffield, United Kingdom
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Atmosphere
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/atmos11030286
atmosphere-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantitative Fluxes of the Greenhouse Gases CH4 and CO2 from the Surfaces of Selected Polish Reservoirs

by
Renata Gruca-Rokosz
Department of Environmental and Chemistry Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture, Rzeszów University of Technology, 35-959 Rzeszów, Poland
Atmosphere 2020, 11(3), 286; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11030286
Submission received: 27 January 2020 / Revised: 12 March 2020 / Accepted: 13 March 2020 / Published: 15 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Greenhouse Gases Monitoring, Inventory, and Modelling Studies in Poland)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Research carried out in the years 2009–2011 and 2018–2019 sought to determine the magnitudes of fluxes of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the surfaces of three eutrophic reservoirs in SE Poland. The “static chamber” method was deployed at five or six stations located along the reservoirs, where the water column at its deepest slightly exceeds 2 m. Obtained values for the fluxes of CH4 varied across a wide (0–2513.48 mmol·m−2·d−1) range, with many of these values therefore exceeding those characteristics for large tropical reservoirs. The reservoirs studied were not found to differ significantly in terms of average CH4 flux, however. Where obtained values for CO2 fluxes in the range from −10.96 to 621.69 mmol·m−2·d−1 were concerned, most fell within the range given for temperate-zone reservoirs, while differences between reservoirs were noted for average values in this case.

1. Introduction

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the two main greenhouse gases (GHGs), and the atmospheric concentrations of both are increasing steadily, with the result that average air temperatures continue to rise globally [1]. The global warming problem is sufficient to motivate much research worldwide to identify the sources of GHGs in the atmosphere, and to quantify their emissions from environments both aquatic [2,3,4,5,6,7] and terrestrial [8,9,10,11]. Accurate estimates of GHG fluxes to and from the atmosphere are crucial to any understanding of the global carbon budget, as well as to predictions of climate change.
Among the various bodies of water, inland waters play a disproportionate role in the global dynamics of GHGs, and artificial reservoirs all the more so. As water is impounded, areas covered with land vegetation (trees, plants and dead plant organic matter) become flooded and experience decay. Then, once reservoirs are in existence, organic matter is produced via primary production (generating autochthonous matter), while also being augmented from the catchment (allochthonously). The organic material accumulating in these ways is in part deposited in sediments and, where aerobic conditions prevail, this mineralizes, with one of the end products being CO2. Alongside oxygen, other oxidants like NO3−, Mn4+, Fe3+, and SO42− may also participate in the mineralization process [12]. In contrast, in anaerobic conditions, organic matter is decomposed by fermentation, with the final products being CH4 as well as CO2.
The GHGs produced in reservoirs as organic matter decomposes are emitted to the atmosphere by diffusion from the water surface [3,13], the release of gas bubbles (ebullition) [4,14], advection through the roots of aquatic plants [15,16] and degassing below the dam [17]. The amount of CO2 and CH4 transferred to the atmosphere at the water–air interface do not usually equate to those actually produced, as the gases also undergo transformation in the reservoirs themselves (Figure 1). CO2 is consumed in the course of both methanogenesis (CO2 reduction) and primary production. The major supply of reservoirs with biogenic compounds and associated high levels of primary production ensure the dominance of photosynthesis over respiration, with amounts of CO2 left over to be emitted to the atmosphere reduced somewhat as a result [18]. Indeed, where the water–air interface features concentrations of dissolved, free CO2 below the equilibrium concentration, supplementation from the atmosphere may actually take place. In the case of CH4, a significant proportion of what is produced in sediments is available to be oxidized. Research on various freshwater ecosystems shows how oxidation by methanotrophs may consume from 50% to over 95% of the CH4 diffusing out from zones of production [4,19,20]. The main oxidant is O2, but recent research shows how alternatives present in freshwater sediments may include SO42−, NO3− or metals such as Mn4+ and Fe3+ [21,22,23,24,25,26].
According to preliminary estimates, emissions of GHGs from dam reservoirs account for about 7% of the total from anthropogenic sources [27]. However, these figures may be underestimates given the non-inclusion of releases below dams [28]. Other calculations show that the lakes and reservoirs constituting 2.2% of the Earth’s surface emit 0.32 Pg C into the atmosphere annually [29]. Reservoirs used in the generation of HEP (Hydroelectric Power) account for some 20% of the total, and each year emits 48 Tg C as CO2 and 3 Tg C as CH4. That represents 16% of emissions from artificial bodies of water, and 4% of global carbon emissions from freshwater ecosystems (natural and artificial taken together) [18].
Despite the relative abundance of data on CH4 and CO2 emissions from the world’s reservoirs and lakes, research remains a necessity if the role in the global carbon balance is to be assessed more precisely. Current analyses multiply average flux rates for a given gas obtained from local or regional measurements by the overall areas covered by given aquatic systems [30,31]. However, GHG emissions from reservoirs vary markedly, not only between systems located in different climate zones, but also within the same zone, from one reservoir—or even from one measuring station—to another [32]. Indeed, the literature seems especially poor in data on GHG emissions from temperate-zone (and especially European) reservoirs.
The work described here thus sought to determine fluxes of CH4 and CO2 from the surfaces of three eutrophic reservoirs located in SE Poland.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Periods and Sites

The research was carried out in the years 2009–2011 and 2018–2019, from spring through to autumn. Rzeszów, Maziarnia and Nielisz Reservoirs were the three artificial bodies of water in SE Poland selected for study.
Rzeszów Reservoir was established in 1974, with flood-control and recreational functions, and with a further use in raising the water level for the intake serving the city of Rzeszów. However, the Reservoir’s central part has now undergone such far-reaching siltation that areas are well-vegetated and inhabited by birds. The catchment has only limited forest cover, along with a 68% share of agricultural land, while there are built-up urban areas in the Reservoir’s immediate vicinity.
Founded in 1988, Maziarnia Reservoir also serves recreational functions, as well as both agriculture and fish farming. The catchment is predominantly arable, with mixed zones of cultivation and meadows accounting for some 70% of the area. A dominant role is played by individual-scale farming on highly fragmented holdings of land.
Nielisz Reservoir, commissioned in 2008, has as its main tasks protection against flooding, the safeguarding of limited fluctuations of the water table during the breeding season for birds, energy generation and use in recreation, leisure and angling. The reservoir is ringed by a strip of coniferous forests, while its dam supports a 362 kW hydropower plant.
In the years 2009–2011 each reservoir was studied at a pair of stations located in the upper part (R2, M4 and N2) and the lower part (R5, M5 and N4). However, the research done in 2018–2019 was of expanded scope, due to the establishment of further stations (R1–R5, M1–M6, and N1–N5). Other than R4, M6 and N5 (where depths were slightly over 2 m), measuring stations were in shallow water of depth around 1 m. Locations of both reservoirs and measuring stations are as shown in Figure 2.

2.2. Measurement of CH4 and CO2 Fluxes at the Water–Air Interface

CO2 and CH4 fluxes were measured using the “static chamber” method, with a steel chamber of dimensions 0.3 m × 0.3 m × 0.16 m fitted out with a battery-powered windmill and a valve sealed with a silicone septum to allow for gas sampling. Four or five gas samples were collected from the inside of the chamber into gas-tight syringes, at 10 min intervals. Samples transported to the laboratory were kept for no more than 4 h before being analyzed for CH4 and CO2 concentrations using a gas chromatograph.
Concentrations of the gases sampled through the 2009–2012 period were determined using a Pye Unicam gas chromatograph (model PU-4410/19) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a stainless steel column packed with a Haye Sep Q, 80/100 Mesh, 6 ft in length and of 2 mm ID. The GC was also equipped with a methanizer to detect low levels of carbon dioxide. This was packed with a nickel catalyst powder and heated to 380 °C. When the column effluent mixes with the FID hydrogen supply and passes through the methanizer, CO2 is converted to CH4. The carrier gas is helium supplied at a flow rate of 30 mL·min−1.
Where the 2018–2019 research was concerned, use was made of a Shimadzu GC-2010 Plus gas chromatograph equipped with a Barrier Discharge Ionization Detector (BID) and a Shin Carbon ST column (2 m, 1.00 mm ID, Mesh 100/120). Gas samples were injected into the GC apparatus with the detector operating at 250 °C. The carrier gas was helium, supplied at a 50 mL·min−1 flow rate.
Gas fluxes, expressed in mmol·m−2·d−1, were calculated from a linear regression with gas concentration change within the chamber versus time, having regard to the surface area and volume of the chamber. Positive values indicated emissions of gas from a reservoir, while negative ones indicated consumption.

2.3. Sediment Analysis

Organic matter (OM) content was determined as loss on ignition of the sediment dried for 4 h at 550 °C. Sediment pH was determined potentiometrically (MultiLine P4, WTW, Germany), in a suspension with 1 N KCl.
The contents of total organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN) were determined using a CN elemental analyzer (Flash EA 1112, ThermoQuest). A standard of the known composition of C and N (acetanilide) was used in quality control. Prior to the TOC determination, dried and comminuted samples of the sediment were maintained for 72 h in a desiccator with vapor of concentrated HCl to remove carbonates. Before analysis, the sediment sample was again dried at 60 °C to constant weight [33].

2.4. Statistical Calculations

Results were analyzed statistically by reference to minimum and maximum values, arithmetic means and standard deviations (SD). Calculations used Excel for Office 365. The non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test (for lack of homogeneity to the variance in groups) was used to assess differences between the mean values for several groups. The probability of error associated with confirmation of a hypothesis as to the existence of differences between mean values was set at 5% (p < 0.05). The Statistica 12 PL program was used in calculations.

3. Results

3.1. Sediment Characteristics

Maximum, minimum and mean values of parameters characterizing of the sediments are presented in Table 1, and detailed data in Figures S1–S3 (Supplementary Materials).
The studied reservoirs were characterized by relatively low OM contents in their sediments—a feature rather typical for Poland. OM contents ranged from 0.16% to 19.32% (Table 1), with differences present between stations as well as reservoirs. Mean contents of OM in sediments at the individual stations of Rzeszów Reservoir were in the 5.66–9.71% range. Corresponding values for Maziarnia and Nielisz Reservoirs were 0.82–14.57% and 0.95–5.96%. The lowest OM content characterized sandy sediments at stations M5 and N5.
TOC in the studied sediments represented some 30% of OM, with content in the 0.08–9.76% range (Table 1). In all cases, trends for TOC similar to those for OM could be observed.
Values for the TN content ranged from 0.01% to 0.67% (Table 1). As with OM and TOC, highest and lowest values for this indicator characterized Maziarnia Reservoir (respectively at station M6, as well as M2, M5 and N5).
pH values for sediment varied from 5.08 to 9.43 (Table 1). An acid reaction was most often recorded for Maziarnia Reservoir, while the Nielisz site had the most alkaline sediments.

3.2. CH4 and CO2 Fluxes at the Water–Air Interface

Characteristic flux rates for CH4 and CO2 at the water–air interface are as presented in Table 2, with temporal changes shown in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Rates of CH4 flux from the surface of Rzeszów Reservoir varied across a wide range from 0 (R2 and R5) to 1817.00 (R1) mmol·m−2·d−1 (Table 2, Figure 3). Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the stations: H(4, N = 48) =19.5563, p = 0.0006. The highest median values for fluxes characterized stations located in the Reservoir’s upper part (R1 and R2), with the median for station R1 about nine times as high as that applying in the case of R2. The lowest median of CH4 flux—of 2.55 mmol·m–2·d–1—was noted for station R3.
In turn, values for the flux of CO2 at the water–air interface varied from 6.06 (R2) to 621.69 (R1) mmol·m−2·d−1 (Table 2, Figure 3). As with CH4, it was R1 that reported the highest median value (155.25 mmol·m−2·d−1), in contrast to R3 with the lowest (22.28 mmol·m−2·d−1). In other cases, median values reported for the CO2 flux oscillated around 40 mmol·m−2·d−1. Such major differences in fluxes between the stations were confirmed as significant by statistical analysis, with H (4, N = 48) = 10.3476, p = 0.0350. At no point during the research period was it possible to note CO2 absorption from the atmosphere.
In Maziarnia Reservoir, recorded fluxes of CH4 at the water–air interface ranged from 0 (M5) to 758.18 (M4) mmol·m−2·d−1 (Table 2, Figure 4). The fluxes varied significantly between the stations: H (5, N = 39) = 25.7885, p = 0.0001. The median of the CH4 fluxes at the M4 station was much higher than at other stations (for example, 6 times higher than at the M1 station and 46 times higher than at the M2 station).
Fluxes of CO2 ranged from −10.96 (M2) to 138.33 mmol·m−2·d−1 (M4; Table 2, Figure 4). Negative values pointing to the absorption of this gas from the atmosphere were recorded three times—in July 2011 at station M5, in July 2018 at M6, and in September 2018 at M2. In June 2011, station M5 could be described as neither emitting nor absorbing CO2. In other cases, only emissions of gases from water were to be observed. As in the case of CH4, statistically significant differences in flux rates between the stations could be noted: H (5, N = 39) = 13.2522, p = 0.0211.
The CH4 fluxes recorded at the water–air interface in Nielisz Reservoir ranged from 0 (N4) to 2513.48 (N1) mmol·m−2·d−1 (Table 2, Figure 5). The fluxes differed significantly between measuring stations: H (4, N = 36) = 19.1495, p = 0.0007, and were found to be progressively lower along the reservoir.
CO2 fluxes in the analyzed period ranged from −4.63 mmol·m−2·d−1 at N3 to 495.35 mmol·m−2·d−1 at N2 (Table 2, Figure 5). The differences between CO2 flux rates between individual stations achieved statistical significance: H (4, N = 36) = 14.8133, p = 0.0051, being higher in the upper part of the Reservoir. Values at stations N3 and N5 proved very similar, however.
For comparison, 1 mmol CH4 and CO2 corresponds to approximately 25,000 ppm under normal conditions.
Comparing the reservoirs in terms of their CH4 fluxes revealed no statistically significant differences between them: H (2, N = 123) = 5.8920, p = 0.0526. However, statistically significant differences did apply in the case of CO2: H (2, N = 123) = 7.1818, p = 0.0276, with the highest and lowest fluxes recorded for Rzeszów and Maziarnia Reservoirs, respectively.

4. Discussion

While the literature does offer plentiful information on emissions of GHGs from various reservoirs, reports relate to large tropical (especially Brazilian) reservoirs, as opposed to those elsewhere, given that about 85% of Brazil’s energy comes from large hydropower plants [34]. Temperate-zone data on CH4 and CO2 fluxes are much less numerous, as Table 3 and Table 4 make clear. Equally obvious is the fact that emissions of the two gases from reservoir surfaces differ greatly from one climate zone to another. It is also typical for CO2 fluxes at the water–air interface to be greater are usually higher than the fluxes of CH4, though reservoirs sometimes take CO2 from the atmosphere. Tanks in boreal (as opposed to temperate or tropical) locations are only emitters of far smaller amounts of GHGs. However, notwithstanding the major differences in levels of GHG emissions between climate zones, significant differences between reservoirs in the same zone are also to be noted, as are differences in fluxes in the course of a single season, or even a single month [32,35,36]. This phenomenon indicates that, not only temperature, but also other factors regulate losses of GHGs to the atmosphere.
St. Louis et al. [27] found values for CH4 diffusion fluxes to the atmosphere from the surfaces of temperate reservoirs that ranged from 0.63 to 5 mmol·m−2·d−1 (mean 1.25 mmol·m−2·d−1), while corresponding figures for the tropical zone were 1.25–93.75 mmol·m−2·d−1 (mean 18.75 mmol·m−2·d−1). Against that background, CH4 fluxes measured for the reservoirs under study here (range 0–2513.48 mmol·m−2·d−1) were mostly significantly larger.
In the case of CO2, St. Louis et al. [27] reported mean temperate-zone fluxes to the atmosphere of 31.82 mmol·m−2·d−1 (range 17.05–70.45 mmol·m−2·d−1), as compared with a tropical-zone mean of 79.55 (range 10.23–231.82 mmol·m−2·d−1). This leaves most of the measured fluxes reported here for Polish reservoirs (ranging from −10.96 to 621.69 mmol·m−2·d−1) as within the cited range.
Of the many factors that may influence sizes of CH4 and CO2 fluxes from reservoirs, temperature is the one mentioned most frequently. This gains confirmation as data from Table 3 and Table 4 were analyzed, given that reservoirs located in the warmer tropics emit far more GHGs than do reservoirs in boreal regions.
Higher temperatures can raise the level of activity of microorganisms decomposing organic matter under anaerobic conditions, contributing to increased CH4 production in this way [37]. The optimal temperature for methanogenesis is approximately 25–30 °C [38,39], while a raising of temperature by 10 °C is shown to produce a fourfold acceleration in CH4 production [2]. Positive, linear or exponential correlations between temperature and CH4 emissions have gained regular description in a range of publications [40,41,42,43,44,45].
Temperature changes can also influence CO2 fluxes, given effects on the solubility of the gas in water [46], on primary production process and the rate of decomposition of organic carbon [47]. The literature reports positive effects of temperature on CO2 emissions to the atmosphere [43,48,49], but also negative ones [6,43,50].
However, analysis of the research results presented here reveals no relationship between temperature and values noted for CH4 and CO2 fluxes to the atmosphere, even as undoubtedly significant differences relating to the season of the year could be observed. The literature likewise reports cases of no significant correlations being found as the impact of season on GHG emissions to the atmosphere is studied [14,35,51].
A positive relationship between CH4 and CO2 fluxes and the content of organic matter or total organic carbon in sediment has also been described very often [48,51,52]. Both gases are end products of organic-matter decomposition, so a greater content of OM in sediment is likely to stimulate their production. For the reservoirs under study here, higher values for CH4 and CO2 fluxes were also observed at stations where sediments were characterized by higher OM content (and thus TOC). The lack of relationships between these variables can be explained by the focus on the impact of OM deposited in sediment on fluxes of the gases at the water–air interface, given that proportionality between CH4 and CO2 released to the atmosphere can change greatly under the influence of microbiological processes, ensuring a lack of correspondence with amounts of gases sediments produce. Oxidation processes consume a large amount of CH4 (either in sediments or the water column), while CO2 is transported to the atmosphere with a loss due to consumption in photosynthesis [53].
However, it is not only the quantity, but also the quality, of organic matter that affects the production of CH4 and CO2. More-readily decomposable matter of an autochthonous origin proves to be a better substrate for methanogenesis than a matter of terrigenous origin [5,54], because the algae that form a component of autochthonous organic matter decompose ten times faster than lignocellulose [55]. A high level of primary production raises the amount of substrate available for degradation [7], ensuring that eutrophic systems generally present high levels of emission of GHGs, especially CH4 [18,27]. The objects under analysis in the work detailed here are small, relatively shallow and eutrophic reservoirs, with past analysis regarding the impact of their trophic state on GHG emissions confirming a positive relationship that achieves statistical significance [56]. It can thus be supposed that the trophic state of the studied reservoirs is the main reason for emissions of CH4 that are very high (even exceeding the values characteristic for tropical tanks), along with the presence of high primary production as typically a negative source of CO2 [43], and hence a contributor to disproportionately more-limited fluxes of CO2.
Table
Table 3. Review of CH4 and CO2 fluxes from boreal and temperate reservoir/lakes; mean values are given in brackets.
Table 3. Review of CH4 and CO2 fluxes from boreal and temperate reservoir/lakes; mean values are given in brackets.
Reservoir/LakeCH4CO2Source
(mmol·m−2·d−1)(mmol·m−2·d−1)
Boreal Zone
Grand Rapids (Canada)−0.004–1.73 (0.036)−8.00–165.00 (14.00)[57]
Jenpeg (Canada)−0.004–0.68 (0.069)−21.00–48.00 (7.00)[57]
Kettle (Canada)−0.012–0.06 (0.000)−16.00–128.00 (12.00)[57]
McArthur (Canada)−0.002–0.45 (0.002)−24.00–81.00 (8.00)[57]
EM-1 (Canada)0.00–0.51 (0.048)0.00–447.00 (55.00)[57]
RDP (Canada)0–0.40 (0.031)−5.00–213.00 (15.00)[57]
LG-2 (Canada)0–0.16 (0.009)1.00–148.00 (15.00)[57]
Lokka (Finland)0.33–7.40 (1.44)11.00–73.00 (34.50)[3]
Porttipahta (Finland)0.16–0.30 (0.22)20.00–52.00 (35.00)[3]
Temperate Zone
Wohlen (Switzerland)(53.44) [44]
Gruyere (Switzerland)(0.009)(22.25)[58]
Lungern (Switzerland)(0.008)(5.50)[58]
Sihl (Switzerland)(0.013)(25.00)[58]
Luzzone (Switzerland)(0.008)(32.14)[58]
Solina (Poland) −20.78–14.73[59]
F. D. Roosevelt (USA)0.10–0.51 (0.20)−19.36–5.70 (−10.5)[35]
Dworshak (USA)0.04–0.93 (0.21)−51.77–−16.36 (−27.16)[35]
Wallula (USA)0.22–1.06 (0.56)−37.02–24.09 (−7.93)[35]
Shasta (USA)−0.09–1.83 (0.59)7.98–48.86 (28.34)[35]
Oroville (USA)0.07–0.66 (0.26)6.05–55.23 (23.32)[35]
Eagle Creek (USA)(0.66)(45.68)[60]
5 lakes (Netherlands)2.10–27.15 (5.85)−3.27–67.58 (33.60)[51]
Three Gorges (China)0–0.99 (0.24) [45]
Three Gorges (China)(0.08)(56.96)[48]
Three Gorges (China) (89.07)[61]
Shuibuya (China)(0.08)(85.00)[62]
Temperate reservoirs0.63–5.00 (1.25)17.05–70.45 (31.82)[27]
The impact of the pH of water and sediment on values for CH4 and CO2 fluxes was also analyzed. Maziarnia and Rzeszów Reservoirs displayed weak negative trends between CH4 fluxes and sediment pH. Zinder [63] regarded the pH range optimal for methanogenesis as 5–6, with higher CH4 fluxes at the water–air interface being observed where such acidity was characteristic. Earlier studies also showed how sediment pH could influence, not only the magnitude of CH4 production, but also the mechanism underpinning it. Lower pH values promote hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis [54]. A negative relationship between CO2 fluxes and the pH of water is also described often [35,42,48,49,51,64,65], given that an alkaline reaction of water can favor the formation of carbonates; in turn reducing water’s saturation with dissolved CO2, such that absorption of this gas from the atmosphere is observed, rather than release [64]. Analysis of the impact of water pH on CO2 fluxes to the atmosphere in the studied reservoirs reveals no relationship, even though fluxes were higher where values for the pH of water were lower.
Another factor affecting GHG emissions from reservoirs is the latter’s age [18]. It is believed that the flooding of land is followed by massive emissions of gases [66] that nevertheless decrease over time, to then remain relatively constant through the life of the reservoir. However, our reservoirs showed no relationship between age and CH4 or CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, with equally high fluxes of these GHGs recorded for both the oldest reservoir (Rzeszów), and the youngest (Nielisz). It should be noted that these two reservoirs were assigned to the same trophic state, with the waters of the youngest in fact manifesting the highest trophic level [32]. This therefore rules out an impact of reservoir age on GHG emissions.
Table
Table 4. Review of CH4 and CO2 fluxes from subtropical/tropical reservoir; mean values are given in brackets.
Table 4. Review of CH4 and CO2 fluxes from subtropical/tropical reservoir; mean values are given in brackets.
ReservoirCH4CO2Source
(mmol·m−2·d−1)(mmol·m−2·d−1)
Subtropical zone
Gold Creek (Australia)0.41–306.25 [67]
Tropical zone
Balbina (Brazil)(0.31)(36.36)[53]
Balbina (Brazil) 28.59–710.75 (314.66)[68]
Miranda (Brazil)1.25–296.72 (16.40)0.36–1390.51 (113.18)[69]
Tres Marias (Brazil)0.06–90.38 (23.89)−282.64–0.94 (-3.23)[69]
Barra Bonita (Brazil)0.19–3.13 (1.20)36.68–759.64 (146.23)[69]
Segredo (Brazil)0.00–5.81 (0.62)0.00–1064.98 (108.84)[69]
Xingó (Brazil)0.21–9.81 (1.87)0.66–2027.34 (223.57)[69]
Samuel (Brazil)0.31–152.63 (11.48)52.57–371.56 (183.80)[69]
Tucurui (Brazil)0.00–6.81 (12.84)29.86–3243.73 (237.11)[69]
Itaipu (Brazil)0.09–3.13 (0.81)−60.14–181.38 (27.39)[69]
Serra da Messa (Brazil)−0.24–63.21 (7.56)−14.34–134.14 (29.91)[69]
Funil (Brazil)0.04–13.50 (0.99) [34]
Santo Antonio (Brazil)0.33–72.10 (9.30) [34]
Petit Saut (French Guyana)0.31–237.50 (71.25)13.18–238.59 (101.36)[70]
Nam Ngum (Laos)0.10–0.60−21.20–−2.70[71]
Nam Leuk (Laos)0.80–11.90−10.60–38.20[71]
Tropical reservoir1.25–93.75 (18.75)10.23–231.82 (79.55)[27]

5. Summary

A key overall finding was that CH4 fluxes to the atmosphere reported on here for the reservoirs studied were very differed and often unusually high—to the extent that they exceeded the values quoted for large tropical reservoirs. CO2 fluxes were markedly lower, however, such that they only exceeded values described for temperate-zone reservoirs in some cases. This suggests that values present in the literature may be leading to underestimates of GHG emissions from reservoirs globally, given (as noted in the Introduction) that current analytical methods multiply up average flux rates for a given gas as obtained through local or regional measurements, by a global surface taken to be covered appropriately by water. This work has shown that differences in the values of fluxes can be very large, even within a single ecosystem. Many long-term research on more reservoirs would thus seem to be needed if their true role in global warming is to be determined accurately.
An attempt should also be made to explain precisely what factors are conducive to an increase in GHGs to the atmosphere (and to what extents). The production and emission of the gases under study prove to be very complex processes, making it impossible to identify any one most crucial factor—in line with actual dependence on many variables operating simultaneously. An additional difficulty is the very large spatial-temporal differences of the measured fluxes, especially in the case of CH4. The literature in fact continues to supply much contradictory information on this subject.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/11/3/286/s1, Figure S1: Organic matter (OM), total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN) contents and pH in studied sediments in Rzeszów Reservoir. Figure S2: Organic matter (OM), total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN) contents and pH in studied sediments in Maziarnia Reservoir. Figure S3: Organic matter (OM), total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN) contents and pH in studied sediments in Nielisz Reservoir.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Science Centre Poland, Grants numbers N N305 077836 and 2017/25/B/ST10/00981.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  2. Conrad, R. Control of microbial methane production in wetland rice fields. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2002, 64, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Huttunen, J.T.; Alm, J.; Liikanen, A.; Juutinen, S.; Larmola, T.; Hammar, T.; Silvola, J.; Martikainen, P.J. Fluxes of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in boreal lakes and potential anthropogenic effects on the aquatic greenhouse gas emission. Chemosphere 2003, 52, 609–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bergier, I.; Novo, E.M.L.; Ramos, F.M.; Mazzi, E.A.; Rasera, M.F.F.L. Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in the littoral zone of a tropical Savanna Reservoir (Corumba, Brazil). Oecologia Aust. 2011, 15, 666–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gruca-Rokosz, R.; Tomaszek, J.A.; Czerwieniec, E. Methane emission from the Nielisz Reservoir. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2011, 37, 101–109. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhao, Y.; Wu, B.F.; Zeng, Y. Spatial and temporal patterns of greenhouse gas emissions from Three Gorges Reservoir of China. Biogeosciences 2013, 10, 1219–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Sepulveda-Jauregui, A.; Walter Anthony, K.M.; Martinez-Cruz, K.; Greene, S. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from 40 lakes along a north–south latitudinal transect in Alaska. Biogeosci. Discuss. 2014, 11, 13251–13307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Borhan, M.S.; Capareda, S.C.; Mukhtar, S.; Faulkner, W.B.; McGee, R.; Parnell, C.B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in Dairy and Cattle Feedyard Operations. Atmosphere 2011, 2, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Różański, K.; Nęcki, J.; Chmura, Ł.; Śliwka, I.; Zimnoch, M.; Bielewski, J.; Gałkowski, M.; Bartyzel, J.; Rosiek, J. Anthropogenic changes of CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCl3, CF2Cl2, CCl2FCClF2, CHCl3, CH3CCl3, CCl4, SF6 and SF5CF3 mixing ratios in the atmosphere over southern Poland. Geol. Q. 2014, 58, 673–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sun, W.; Deng, L.; Wu, G.; Wu, L.; Han, P.; Miao, Y.; Yao, B. Atmospheric monitoring of methane in Beijing using a mobile observatory. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Belikov, D.; Arshinov, M.; Belan, B.; Davydov, D.; Fofonov, A.; Sasakawa, M.; Machida, T. Analysis of the diurnal, weekly, and seasonal cycles and annual trends in atmospheric CO2 and CH4 at Tower Network in Siberia from 2005 to 2016. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Froelich, P.N.; Klinkhammer, G.P.; Bender, M.L.; Luedtke, N.A.; Heath, G.R.; Cullen, D.; Dauphin, P.; Maynard, V. Early oxidation of organic matter in pelagic sediments of the eastern equatorial Atlantic: Suboxic diagenesis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1979, 43, 1075–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guérin, F.; Abril, G. Significance of pelagic aerobic methane oxidation in the methane and carbon budget of tropical reservoir. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, G03006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jędrysek, M.O.; Hałas, S.; Pieńkos, T. Carbon isotopic composition of early-diagenetic methane: Variations with sediments depth. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie Skłodowska 2014, LXIX, 29–52. [Google Scholar]
  15. Boon, P.I. Carbon cycling in Australian wetlands: The importance of methane. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 2000, 27, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, H.; Wu, N.; Yao, S.; Gao, Y.; Zhu, D.; Wang, Y.; Xions, W.; Yuan, X. High methane emissions from a littoral zone on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 4995–5000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fearnside, P.M. Greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric dams: Controversies provide a springboard for rethinking a supposedly “clean” energy source—An editorial comment. Clim. Chang. 2004, 66, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barros, N.; Cole, J.J.; Tranvik, L.J.; Prairie, Y.T.; Bastviken, D.; Huszar, V.L.M.; Del Giorgio, P.; Roland, F. Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude. Nat. Geosci. 2011, 4, 593–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Juutinen, S. Methane Fluxes and Their Environmental Controls in the Littoral Zone of Boreal Lakes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  20. Narvenkar, G.; Naqvi, S.W.A.; Kurian, S.; Shenoy, D.M.; Pratihary, A.K.; Naik, H.; Patil, S.; Sarkar, A.; Gauns, M. Dissolved methane in Indian freshwater reservoirs. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 6989–6999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schubert, C.J.; Vazquez, F.; Lösekann-Behrens, T.; Knittel, K.; Tonolla, M.; Boetius, A. Evidence for anaerobic oxidation of methane in sediments of a freshwater system (Lago di Cadagno). FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 76, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Sivan, O.; Adler, M.; Pearson, A.; Gelman, F.; Bar-Or, I.; John, S.G.; Eckert, W. Geochemical evidence for iron-mediated anaerobic oxidation of methane. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2011, 56, 1536–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. He, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Feng, Y.; Luo, H.; Pan, X.; Gadd, G.M. Microbiological and environmental significance of metal-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 759–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Martinez-Cruz, K.; Sepulveda-Jauregui, A.; Casper, P.; Walter Anthony, K.; Smemo, K.A.; Thalasso, F. Ubiquitous and significant anaerobic oxidation of methane in freshwater lake sediments. Water Res. 2018, 144, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yang, Y.; Chen, J.; Li, B.; Liu, Y.; Xie, S. Anaerobic methane oxidation potential and bacteria in freshwater lakes: Seasonal changes and the influence of trophic status. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 41, 650–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Szal, D.; Gruca-Rokosz, R. Denitrification-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane in freshwater sediments of reservoirs in SE Poland. J. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 20, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. St Louis, V.L.; Kelly, C.A.; Duchemin, E.; Rudd, J.W.M.; Rosenberg, D.M. Reservoir surfaces as sources of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere: A global estimate. BioScience 2000, 50, 766–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Guérin, F.; Abril, G.; Richard, S.; Burban, B.; Reynouard, C.; Seyler, P.; Delmas, R. Methane and carbon dioxide emission from tropical reservoirs: Significance of downstream rivers. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, L21407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Raymond, P.A.; Hartman, J.; Lauerwald, R.; Sobek, S.; Mcdonald, C.; Hoover, M.; Butman, D.; Striegl, R.; Mayorga, E.; Humborg, C.; et al. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 2013, 503, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Tranvik, L.J.; Downing, J.A.; Weyhenmeyer, G.A. Lakes and reservoirs as regulators of carbon cycling and climate. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2009, 54, 2298–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bastviken, D.; Tranvik, L.J.; Downing, J.A.; Crill, P.M.; Enrich-Prast, A. Freshwater methane emissions offset the continental carbon sink—supporting information. Science 2011, 331, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Gruca-Rokosz, R. Dynamics of Carbon Greenhouse Gases in Reservoirs: Production Pathways, Emission to the Atmosphere; Printing House of Rzeszów University of Technology: Rzeszów, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  33. Koszelnik, P.; Tomaszek, J.; Gruca-Rokosz, R. Carbon and nitrogen and their elemental and isotopic ratios in the bottom sediment of the Solina-Myczkowce complex of reservoirs. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Stud. 2008, 37, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grandin, K. Variations of CH4 Emissions within and between Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Brazil. Master’ Thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  35. Soumis, N.; Duchemin, E.; Canuel, R.; Lucotte, M. Greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs of the western United States. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2004, 18, GB3022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mander, U.; Maddison, M.; Soosaar, K.; Karabelnik, K. The impact of pulsing hydrology and fluctuating water table on greenhouse gas emissions from constructed wetlands. Wetlands 2011, 31, 1023–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Topp, E.; Pattey, E. Soils as sources and sinks for atmospheric methane. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1997, 77, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jones, J.G.; Simon, B.E.M.; Gardener, S. Factors affecting methanogenesis and associated anaerobic processes in the sediment of a stratified eutrophic lake. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1982, 128, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Dunfield, P.; Knowles, R.; Dumont, R.; Moore, T. Production of greenhouse gases CH4 and CO2. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1993, 9, 529–540. [Google Scholar]
  40. Middelburg, J.J.; Klaver, G.; Nieuwenhuize, J.; Wielemaker, A.; De Hass, W.; Vlug, T.; Van Der Nat, J.F.W.A. Organic matter mineralization in intertidal sediments along an estuarine gradient. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1996, 132, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Juutinen, S.; Alm, J.; Martikainen, P.; Silvola, J. Effects of spring flood and water level draw-down on methane dynamics in the littoral zone of boreal lakes. Freshw. Biol. 2001, 46, 855–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liikanen, A.; Murtoniemi, T.; Tanskanen, H.; Väisänen, T.; Martikainen, P.J. Effect of temperature and oxygen availability on greenhouse gas and nutrient dynamics in sediment of a eutrophic mid-boreal lake. Biogeochemistry 2002, 59, 269–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xing, Y.; Xie, P.; Yang, H.; Ni, L.; Wang, Y.; Rong, K. Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from a shallow hypereutrophic subtropical Lake in China. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 5532–5540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Delsontro, T.; Mcginnis, D.F.; Sobek, S.; Ostrovsky, I.; Wehrli, B. Extreme methane emission from Swiss hydropower reservoir: Contribution from bubbling sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2419–2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xiao, S.; Liu, D.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Chen, W. Temporal variation of methane flux from Xiangxi Bay of the Three Gorges Reservoir. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Zhao, X.J.; Zhao, T.Q.; Zheng, H.; Duan, X.N.; Chen, F.L.; Ouyang, Z.Y.; Wang, X.K. Greenhouse gas emission from reservoir and its influence factors. Environ. Sci. 2008, 29, 2377–2384. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lü, Y.C.; Liu, C.Q.; Wang, S.L.; Xu, G.; Liu, F. Seasonal variability of p(CO2) in the two Karst Reservoirs, Hongfeng and Baihua lakes in Guizhou province, China. Environ. Sci. 2007, 28, 2674–2681. [Google Scholar]
  48. Xiao, S.; Wang, Y.; Liu, D.; Yang, Z.; Lei, D.; Zhang, C. Diel and seasonal variation of methane and carbon dioxide fluxes at Site Guojiaba, the Three Gorges Reservoir. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 25, 2065–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kumar, A.; Sharma, M.P. Impact of water quality on GHG emissions from Hydropower Reservoir. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2014, 5, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
  50. Gruca-Rokosz, R.; Bartoszek, L.; Koszelnik, P. The influence of environmental factors on the carbon dioxide flux across the water–air interface of reservoirs in south-eastern Poland. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 56, 290–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schrier-Uijl, A.P.; Veraart, A.J.; Leffelaar, P.A.; Berendse, F.; Veenendaal, E.M. Release of CO2 and CH4 from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry 2011, 102, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Furlanetto, L.M.; Marinho, C.C.; Palma-Silva, C.; Albertoni, E.F.; Figueiredo-Barros, M.P.; De Assis Estenes, F. Methane levels in shallow subtropical lake sediments: Dependence on the trophic status of the lake and allochthonous input. Limnologica 2012, 42, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abe, D.S.; Adams, D.D.; Sidagis Galli, C.V.; Sikar, E.; Tundisi, J.G. Sediment greenhouse gases (methane and carbon dioxide) in the Lobo-Broa Reservoir, São Paulo State, Brazil: Concentrations and diffuse emission fluxes for carbon budget considerations. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag. 2005, 10, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gruca-Rokosz, R.; Koszelnik, P. Production pathways for CH4 and CO2 in sediments of two freshwater ecosystems in south-eastern Poland. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Benner, R.; Maccubin, A.E.; Hodson, R.E. Anaerobic biodegradation of lignin polysaccharide components of lignocellulose and synthetic lignin by sediment microflora. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1984, 47, 998–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Gruca-Rokosz, R.; Tomaszek, J.A. Impact of the reservoir trophic state on the carbon greenhouse gases emission. In Water Supply, Water Quality and Protection; Dymaczewski, Z., Jeż-Walkowiak, J., Nowak, M., Eds.; Poznań: Toruń, Poland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  57. Demarty, M.; Bastien, J.; Tremblay, A.; Hesslein, R.H.; Gill, R. Greenhouse gas emissions from boreal reservoirs in Manitoba and Quebec, Canada, measured with automated systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8908–8915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Diem, T.; Koch, S.; Schwarzenbach, S.; Wehrli, B.; Schubert, C.J. Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, and N2O) from several perialpine and alpine hydropower reservoirs by diffusion and loss in turbines. Aquat. Sci. 2012, 74, 619–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Gruca-Rokosz, R.; Tomaszek, J.A.; Koszelnik, P.; Czerwieniec, E. Methane and carbon dioxide emission from some reservoirs in SE Poland. Limnol. Rev. 2010, 1, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jacinthe, P.A.; Filippelli, G.M.; Tedesco, L.P.; Raftis, R. Carbon storage and greenhouse gases emission from a fluvial reservoir in an agricultural landscape. Catena 2012, 94, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, L.; Lu, F.; Wang, X.; Duan, X.; Tong, L.; Ouyang, Z.; Li, H. Spatial and seasonal variability of CO2 flux at the air-water interface of the Three Gorges Reservoir. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 25, 2229–2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, D.Z.; Tan, D.B.; Wang, Z.H.; Hao, C.Y. Measurement and analysis of greenhouse gas fluxes from Shuibuya Reservoir in Qingjiang river basin. J. Yangtze River Sci. Res. Inst. 2011, 28, 197–204. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zinder, S.H. Physiological Ecology of Methanogenesis. In Methanogenesis: Ecology, Physiology, Biochemistry and Genetics; Ferry, J.G., Ed.; Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tremblay, A.; Therrien, J.; Hamlin, B.; Wichmann, E.; Ledrew, L. GHG emissions from boreal reservoirs and natural aquatic ecosystems. In Greenhouse Gas Emission—Fluxes and Processes, Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments; Tremblay, A., Varfalvy, L., Roehm, C., Garneau, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang, Y.-H.; Huang, H.-H.; Chu, C.-P.; Chuag, Y.-J. A preliminary survey of greenhouse gas emission from three reservoirs in Taiwan. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2013, 23, 215–225. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tremblay, A.; Varfalvy, L.; Roehm, C.; Garneau, M. The Issue of Greenhouse Gases from Hydroelectric Reservoirs: From Boreal to Tropical Regions. Available online: https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_tremblaypaper.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2020).
  67. Sturm, K.; Yuan, Z.; Gibbes, B.; Werner, U.; Grinham, A. Methane and nitrous oxide sources and emissions in a subtropical freshwater reservoir, South East Queensland, Australia. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 5245–5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Kemenes, A.; Forsberg, B.R.; Melack, J.M. CO2 emissions from tropical hydroelectric reservoir (Balbina, Brazil). J. Geophys. Res. 2011, 116, G03004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Dos Santos, M.A.; Rosa, L.P.; Sikar, B.; Sikar, E.; Dos Santos, E.O. Gross greenhouse gas fluxes from hydro-power reservoir compared to thermo-power plants. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Galy-Lacaux, C.; Delmas, R.; Jambert, C.; Dumestre, J.-F.; Labroue, L.; Richard, S.; Gosse, P. Gaseous emissions and oxygen consumption in hydroelectric dams: A case study in French Guyana. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1997, 11, 471–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chanudet, V.; Descloux, S.; Harby, A.; Sundt, H.; Hansen, B.H.; Brakstad, O.; Serca, D.; Guérin, F. Gross CO2 and CH4 emissions from the Nam Ngum and Nam Leuk sub-tropical reservoirs in Lao PDR. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 5382–5391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Atmosphere 11 00286 g001 550
Figure 1. Transformations of CH4 and CO2 ongoing in reservoirs, plus transfer to the atmosphere; AOM-SR—anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to sulfate reduction, DAMO—anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to nitrate and nitrite reduction and AOM-Mn/Fe—anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to manganese and iron reduction.
Figure 1. Transformations of CH4 and CO2 ongoing in reservoirs, plus transfer to the atmosphere; AOM-SR—anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to sulfate reduction, DAMO—anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to nitrate and nitrite reduction and AOM-Mn/Fe—anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to manganese and iron reduction.
Atmosphere 11 00286 g001
Atmosphere 11 00286 g002 550
Figure 2. Locations of the reservoirs studied and their measuring stations.
Figure 2. Locations of the reservoirs studied and their measuring stations.
Atmosphere 11 00286 g002
Atmosphere 11 00286 g003 550
Figure 3. Time series of CH4 and CO2 fluxes at the water–air interface in Rzeszów Reservoir (panel A—station R1, panel B—R2, panel C—R3, panel D—R4 and panel E—R5).
Figure 3. Time series of CH4 and CO2 fluxes at the water–air interface in Rzeszów Reservoir (panel A—station R1, panel B—R2, panel C—R3, panel D—R4 and panel E—R5).
Atmosphere 11 00286 g003
Atmosphere 11 00286 g004 550
Figure 4. Time series of CH4 and CO2 fluxes at the water–air interface in Maziarnia Reservoir (panel A—station M1, panel B—M2, panel C—M3, panel D—M4, panel E—M5 and panel F—M6).
Figure 4. Time series of CH4 and CO2 fluxes at the water–air interface in Maziarnia Reservoir (panel A—station M1, panel B—M2, panel C—M3, panel D—M4, panel E—M5 and panel F—M6).
Atmosphere 11 00286 g004
Atmosphere 11 00286 g005 550
Figure 5. Time series of CH4 and CO2 fluxes at the water–air interface in Nielisz Reservoir (panel A—station N1, panel B—N2, panel C—N3, panel D—N4 and panel E—N5).
Figure 5. Time series of CH4 and CO2 fluxes at the water–air interface in Nielisz Reservoir (panel A—station N1, panel B—N2, panel C—N3, panel D—N4 and panel E—N5).
Atmosphere 11 00286 g005
Table
Table 1. Values for selected parameters characterizing sediments; min.–max. (mean ± SD).
Table 1. Values for selected parameters characterizing sediments; min.–max. (mean ± SD).
ReservoirRzeszów
StationR1R2R3R4R5
OM (%)6.15–8.44 (7.42 ± 1.16)4.44–16.56 (9.71 ± 2.92)4.23–8.57 (6.44 ± 1.29)3.38–6.86 (5.66 ± 1.29)6.63–10.57 (8.53 ± 1.29)
TOC (%)1.79–3.02 (2.40 ± 0.62)1.62–6.54 (3.06 ± 1.50)1.45–2.79 (2.25 ± 0.21)1.69–2.27 (1.95 ± 0.21)1.61–3.34 (2.24 ± 0.60)
TN (%)0.13–0.22 (0.19 ± 0.05)0.12–0.50 (0.25 ± 0.11)0.08–0.22 (0.17 ± 0.02)0.12–0.18 (0.15 ± 0.02)0.14–0.31 (0.21 ± 0.06)
pH7.33–7.587.07–8.357.54–8.587.65–8.607.04–7.40
ReservoirMaziarnia
StationM1M2M3M4M5M6
OM (%)5.17–7.80 (6.78 ± 1.17)0.55–7.09 (2.55 ± 2.34)2.38–5.80 (4.02 ± 1.21)2.47–19.32 (12.96 ± 5.64)0.16–1.85 (0.82 ± 0.61)13.78–17.17 (14.57 ± 1.04)
TOC (%)1.72–4.28 (2.80 ± 0.96)0.16–3.06 (0.99 ± 1.06)0.77–2.40 (1.37 ± 0.62)0.98–5.90 (4.06 ± 1.93)0.08–0.87 (0.22 ± 0.27)4.11–9.76 (5.94 ± 1.53)
TN (%)0.14–0.38 (0.24 ± 0.08)0.01–0.20 (0.07 ± 0.07)0.05–0.18 (0.10 ± 0.05)0.06–0.59 (0.36 ± 0.18)0.01–0.22 (0.04 ± 0.07)0.32–0.67 (0.48 ± 0.10)
pH5.70–6.925.30–6.955.71–7.285.08–6.807.36–7.805.33–6.59
ReservoirNielisz
StationN1N2N3N4N5
OM (%)1.25–9.64 (5.96 ± 3.19)1.88–13.02 (5.10 ± 2.99)0.68–5.35 (2.39 ± 1.73)0.75–8.04 (2.55 ± 2.90)0.39–1.52 (0.95 ± 0.48)
TOC (%)0.56–4.55 (2.63 ± 1.63)0.84–4.77 (2.08 ± 1.11)0.24–2.76 (1.10 ± 0.98)0.21–2.54 (0.82 ± 0.80)0.16–0.58 (0.34 ± 0.18)
TN (%)0.05–0.44 (0.23 ± 0.16)0.06–0.23 (0.14 ± 0.06)0.02–0.21 (0.08 ± 0.07)0.02–0.22 (0.08 ± 0.08)0.01–0.03 (0.03 ± 0.01)
pH7.70–8.997.20–8.888.44–9.247.40–7.998.40–9.43
Table
Table 2. Minimum, maximum and mean values for fluxes of CH4 and CO2 at the water–air interface; n—number of measurements.
Table 2. Minimum, maximum and mean values for fluxes of CH4 and CO2 at the water–air interface; n—number of measurements.
ReservoirRzeszów
StationR1R2R3R4R5
GasCH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2
(mmol·m−2·d−1)
Min. 137.2171.800.006.060.146.520.8820.410.0011.49
Max.1817.00621.691181.90183.7826.6841.2088.6181.89235.60162.51
Median413.89155.2545.9843.662.5522.2817.1440.972.6838.82
n33212166661212
ReservoirMaziarnia
StationM1M2M3M4M5M6
GasCH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2
(mmol·m−2·d−1)
Min. 1.113.741.15−10.960.325.7327.7029.050.00−4.700.02−6.77
Max.347.6233.60293.4236.2414.59128.84758.18138.332.2396.707.6443.96
Median61.6821.688.5522.471.1814.10392.0674.060.0025.000.419.18
n666666888855
ReservoirNielisz
StationN1N2N3N4N5
GasCH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2CH4CO2
(mmol·m−2·d−1)
Min. 10.1422.1217.464.964.97−4.630.003.580.555.20
Max.2513.48429.27426.50495.3561.7327.5246.7552.4817.4327.73
Median89.7574.779372.3546.3212.9320.2012.459.793.5917.00
n551313668844

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gruca-Rokosz, R. Quantitative Fluxes of the Greenhouse Gases CH4 and CO2 from the Surfaces of Selected Polish Reservoirs. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11030286

AMA Style

Gruca-Rokosz R. Quantitative Fluxes of the Greenhouse Gases CH4 and CO2 from the Surfaces of Selected Polish Reservoirs. Atmosphere. 2020; 11(3):286. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11030286

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gruca-Rokosz, Renata. 2020. "Quantitative Fluxes of the Greenhouse Gases CH4 and CO2 from the Surfaces of Selected Polish Reservoirs" Atmosphere 11, no. 3: 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11030286

APA Style

Gruca-Rokosz, R. (2020). Quantitative Fluxes of the Greenhouse Gases CH4 and CO2 from the Surfaces of Selected Polish Reservoirs. Atmosphere, 11(3), 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11030286

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop