Next Article in Journal
Advances in High-Performance Nanofiltration Membranes Facilitated by Two-Dimensional Materials
Next Article in Special Issue
Use of the Gas Emission Site Type Method in the Evaluation of the CO2 Emissions in Raised Bogs
Previous Article in Journal
Statistical Analysis and Scenario Modeling of Non-Stationary Runoff Change in the Loess Plateau: A Novel Application of the Generalized Additive Model in Location, Scale and Shape
Previous Article in Special Issue
Stocks and Sources of Soil Carbon and Nitrogen in Non-Native Kandelia obovata Afforestation and Spartina alterniflora Invasion: A Case Study on Northern Margin Mangroves in the Subtropical Coastal Wetlands of China
 
 
Correction published on 26 June 2024, see Water 2024, 16(13), 1801.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emission Patterns in Different Water Levels in Peatlands

1
School of Life Science, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
2
Key Laboratory of Vegetation Ecology, Ministry of Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2024, 16(7), 985; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16070985
Submission received: 13 January 2024 / Revised: 14 March 2024 / Accepted: 26 March 2024 / Published: 28 March 2024 / Corrected: 26 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restoration of Wetlands for Climate Change Mitigation)

Abstract

:
Peatlands store large amounts of carbon in wetland ecosystems. The hydrological conditions within peatlands are important factors that affect the biochemical cycle and patterns of greenhouse gas emissions in these peatlands. This study was carried out in Changbai Mountain Jinchuan peatland to investigate variations in carbon dioxide and methane emissions in peat swamps that have undergone distinct saturation conditions. Three peatland types (high water levels (S1); medium water levels (S2); low water levels (S3)) at different flood depths were selected as specific sampling points. The static box and gas chromatography methods were used at different time periods (6:00; 12:00; and 18:00) from July to September. The discharge flux of CO2 and CH4 slowly increased with the increase in the water level. The results indicate similarity in the fluctuation trends between the fluxes of CO2 and CH4 in S1 and S2 to the fluctuations of water levels. During the entire growth season, the flux range of CO2 and CH4 was −695.329~859.907 mg m−2 h−1 and 259.981~147.155 mg m−2 h−1, respectively. Furthermore, there was variation in mutation characteristics between two gases, the CO2 exhibited larger mutation range (−7.08~3.40) than CH4 (−1.79~1.26). In terms of daily flux changes, CO2 showed an upward trend, while CH4 had a downward trend. These results indicate variations in saturation conditions tend to affect discharge of greenhouse gases, with subsequent effects on climate change. This study highlights potential theoretical support to reduce anthropogenic activities on peatlands. This can be achieved by undertaking measures to conserve peatlands and explore mitigation measures to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and hence impacts of climate change.

1. Introduction

Wetland soil carbon storage contains accumulations of carbon that occur naturally. Wetland regions comprise about 4–6% of the Earth’s total land surface, and have carbon stores ranging from 4.55 × 1010 to 7.00 × 1010 metric tons. These reserves account for 30% of the total carbon stored in the soil [1,2,3,4]. The carbon density of forest soil is over three times lower than that of wetland soil. The “buffer” of global climate change, referred to as carbon sink, plays a crucial role in the global carbon cycle and carbon balance. The degradation and depletion of marsh wetlands results in the conversion of natural wetland to carbon and changes marsh wetlands into a significant carbon emitter. Studies indicate that the depletion of northern peatlands worldwide can lead to the release of greenhouse gases at an annual rate of 0.10 ± 0.02 Pg C·y−1. This accounts for approximately 1% of the total human emissions projected for this century [5], and may impact the global environment through an increase in the mean temperature of approximately 0.35 °C [6]. This may result in a reduced plant productivity, and the enhancement of breakdown would significantly affect global climate change through the release of organic carbon. The stability of organic carbon in wetland soil and its ability to respond to climate change are currently potential areas of intense research focus worldwide e [7,8].
Under the saturated conditions of wetlands, a unique anaerobic environment is formed. Due to the high level of primary productivity and low decomposition rate under anaerobic conditions, the undecomposed plant residues will eventually accumulate to form peat, and therefore swamps develop under these climatic and hydrological conditions [9]. Peatlands are characterized by different developmental stages, as a function of water level changes and hydrological conditions. For instance, peatlands may develop through paludification of mineral soil forest, through terrestrialization of lakes, or a primary peat can be formed on bare soils of previously glaciated areas [10]. Additionally, peat can be formed under the joint influence of sphagnum and precipitation. In this case, the fen will gradually change to bog over the years [11] and, with time, the plant litter may form and cover the surface of peat. Consequently, the accumulated peat may rise and exceed the groundwater level, and the peat layer above the groundwater level becomes replenished by atmospheric precipitation, thus turning into a bog. Bogs obtain water through rainfall and nutrients via atmospheric sedimentation. An acidic and nutrient-deficient environment is conducive for the establishment and growth of dwarf shrubs and sphagnum, and the fen is affected by alkaline- and nutrient-rich groundwater with sedges, herbs and grasses [12]. Different geographical conditions may lead to the formation of different types of peatland, whether fens or bogs, which represent different stages of peat development.
Hydrological conditions play a crucial role in preserving the structure and function of the wetland ecosystem. Hydrological circumstances have a significant impact on several non-biological aspects of the wetland ecosystem. These aspects, in turn, influence the biological communities within the wetland ecosystem [2]. Studies have demonstrated that the consistent hydrological process in wetland ecosystems significantly enhance the process of nitrogen cycling [13,14]. The aquatic rhythm often has a significant effect on the production of carbon dioxide and the oxidation of methane. This, in turn, impacts the rate at which carbon accumulates [15]. The research findings indicate that, as seasons change, the hydrological regulations in wetlands are more influenced by natural precipitation than other factors, consequently influencing the carbon cycle [16]. The hydrologic rhythm typically pertains to fluctuations in the daily, nocturnal, monthly, seasonal, or annual patterns [17]. Hydrology will have a significant impact on the accumulation of carbon inside the aquatic ecosystem. In Australia, a study to investigate the impact of hydrological patterns on carbon distribution through analysis of the stable isotope 13C in water bodies and surrounding biological weight revealed the significant influence of hydrology to the carbon content in water bodies [18,19].
Water-level changes caused by climate change and human interference may affect the carbon exchange in peatlands. Precipitation is an important environmental factor, which not only affects the vegetation on peat ground, but also causes fluctuations water-level depth (WTD) [20]. Temperatures above freezing point will change the time and amplitude of the hydrological fluxes that occur during the growth season. A model is used to simulate the three-climate scenario. The runoff on the ground enters local rivers, lakes, and wetlands. These runoffs either evaporate or enter the ocean via the surface-drainage network. During a drought period, the groundwater level is transported upward to the root area. Deeper groundwater flow, covering a longer distance, can be discharged to wetlands and rivers in the lower reaches [21]. Groundwater is supplied by and flows from the topographic heights, while these flows lead to, and discharge occurs, at lower terrains [22]. For example, if there is excess water, forest hills can be used as water sources (i.e., groundwater supply), and then be used for water exchange (i.e., underground emissions) when evaporation occurs following the precipitation period. In addition to climate change, changes in land use and land coverage related to humans can also lead to changes in water levels and peatland functions. Large areas of peatland are used for agriculture or forestry. Research found that after the first two years of ditch blocking, wetness significantly increased groundwater levels [23]. In Europe, more than half of peatlands have been dried for agriculture or forestry [24]. Since the 1970s, about 6 million hectares of peatland in Finland have been altered [25]. The construction of a reservoir can improve the local water levels and submerge peatland [18]. The construction of highways or railways usually forms an embankment, and these embankments may cause water to accumulate in peatland or cause peatland to become dry [26]. The dams built by beavers lead to water storage in peatland, and are an important part of the landscape of the northern region [27]. Vitamin plants can quickly grow after recovery is achieved using moss layer transfer technology. This recovery technology can successfully restore the hydrology of peat, but the establishment of peat moss carpets may take several years [28].
Various environmental conditions, including temperature, soil freezing state, human activity intensity, and hydrological variations, might influence the release of greenhouse gases in wetland soil [29]. A study revealed that the emissions of greenhouse gases from artificial wetlands were 2–10 times higher than those from natural wetlands [30]. Typically, fluctuations in water levels play a crucial role in determining the presence of aerobic or anaerobic conditions at various depths inside wetlands. When the synthesis of methane and methane oxidation was regulated, it was discovered that organic carbon accumulated differently in vegetation at various groundwater levels, with higher accumulation being observed in continuously flooded areas as compared to other vegetation areas [31,32]. Organic sediments have high capacity to retain water, resulting in a groundwater level that is lower than the sediment. The rates of methane generation and methane emissions in the continuous-saturated area exhibit only marginal disparities, with no statistically significant distinction. The rate of similar occurrences is largely diminished when methane is stored within sandy casters.
In brief, the existing body of research pertaining to carbon dioxide and methane emissions from wetland soil primarily focuses on investigating the carbon density, the ecological implications of changes in solid carbon function, wetland hydrology, soil volume, and greenhouse gas levels. There is currently inadequate knowledge regarding these aspects. The objective of this research endeavor is to discern the variations in carbon dioxide and methane emission depths within peat swamps that have undergone distinct saturation conditions. To achieve this, quantities of carbon dioxide and methane emissions will be monitored in conjunction with hydrological conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The research was conducted in the Longwan National Nature Reserve in Tonghua City, Jilin Province, which is located at 42°16′–42°26′ N and 126°13′–126°32′ E, and with a height ranging from 632.51 m to 640.51 m. Jinchuan Peatland evolved from Quaternary Crater Lake, with a flat and open valley bottom and a gradient from northeast to southwest. According to the changes in water level, three different development stages of peatlands (S1, S2, and S3) were set. The development of peatland is intricately linked to the change in hydrological conditions. Paludification is a steady process where the frequency and duration of saturation diminish over time, leading to the gradual accumulation of material and the eventual formation of peatland. The hydrological circumstances and peatland characteristics of the three selected sampling places in this study align closely with the starting, intermediate, and development stages of peatland. The research region has a moderate continental climate and experiences high rainfall and high temperature. The study area is characterized by an average temperature of 4.1 °C per year, a precipitation of approximately 704.2 mm per year, evaporation of around 1276.1 mm per year, an annual average sunlight duration of 2550 h, and the frost-free season lasts from 110 to 120 days. The peatlands in this area sustain a notable abundance of species, including sedges, cattails, and reeds. The wetland comprises a number of primary communities, including the birch (Betula ovalifolia) + sedge (Carex schmidtii); C. schmidtii + typha (Thelypteris palustris); C. schmidtii + reed (Phragmites australis); C. schmidtii; C. tenuiflora; and Ph. australis + C. schmidtii (Figure 1).

2.2. Methodology and Data Collection Process

The collection of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) was carried out using the static box method. The rectangular high-density polyethylene (HDPE) base, measuring 50 cm × 20 cm (0.25 m2), has open tops and bottoms. Three bases were positioned at S1, S2, and S3, each with a different water-level gradient. The bottom-removable rectangular plastic storage container measuring 50 cm × 50 cm × 50 cm was positioned at the base for collection. Three repeated static boxes were established at each sampling site to enable the estimation of the standard error. The static boxes were positioned at a minimum distance of 2 m from one another, and the ambient temperature, as well as the temperature of greenhouse gases within each static box during sampling, were documented. The procedure involves collecting gas using 100 mL syringes. The collection took place from July to September, encompassing the summer and autumn seasons. Each collection was carried out every 15 days, at three specific times during the day: 6:00, 12:00, and 18:00. Prior to sampling, we checked that the sample bag was empty and verified on-site that it was free of air. For each collection interval of 5 min, gas samples of 100 mL each were obtained and placed in individual, 100 mL vacuum bags. This process was repeated 6 times for each bag, leading to a total of 18 samples [33].
A 2 m long aluminum alloy tube with a diameter of 5 cm was inserted at three distinct water-level gradients, namely S1, S2, and S3. Throughout each gas-collection procedure, the water-level-depth measuring equipment was utilized to gauge and document the water level within the aluminum alloy tube.

2.3. Analysis of the Sample

Upon retrieval of the sample, an Agilent 1890B (Santa Clara, CA, USA) gas chromatograph spectrometer was used. The samples were placed into a 30 mL vacuum test sample bottle using a Luer valve syringe. The sample container was then placed in an automated inlet and prepared for testing. The sample underwent gas chromatography, employing either a flame ion detector (FID, Agilent 1890B, USA) or an electronic capture detector (ECD, Agilent 1890B, USA) for online analysis to identify the levels of CO2 and CH4 present in the sample. Stainless steel filling columns were used to contain CO2 and CH4. A 60/80 mesh column was loaded with 13× color-spectrum pillars containing CH4. A 60/80 mesh Porapak-Q color-spectrum column was also loaded with CH4 and CO2, using high-purity nitrogen at a flow rate of 30 mL/min. The temperature of the FID detector was set at 250 °C, while the column temperature was maintained at 55 °C. The carrier used AR-CHA (5 mL/min). The ECD detector was set at a temperature of 350 °C and the column temperature was maintained at 55 °C. An analysis of the peak areas corresponding to CO2 and CH4 was conducted. Then, the gas concentration was calculated using the provided formula based on the peak area by the following equations.
C = C s / S ¯ p e a k × S p e a k
C represents the concentration of a gas; C s represents the concentration of a standard gas; S ¯ p e a k represents the average peak area of the standard gas; S p e a k represents the peak area of the standard gas.
The emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) were computed as follows:
J = d c d t × M V × V 0 × P P 0 × T 0 T × H
Among these, dc/dt represents the rate of the change in concentration. M denotes the quality of Moore. P signifies the atmospheric pressure at the sampling station. T represents the absolute temperature during sampling. V0, P0, and T0 are the absolute temperatures at Moore volume, the atmospheric pressure, and the standard circumstances, respectively. H stands for the vertical measurement of the cavity submerged in water, which determines the precise volume of gas present in the column of the color spectrum.

2.4. Data Statistics and Analysis

The first step in processing the sample data involves the use of SPSS 24 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) to remove any anomalous emissions present in the data. Subsequently, a statistical analysis was performed and a graphical representation was established using the Origin software (Origin Lab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA). This software employs linear regression to assess the correlation between temperature throughout the growth season, various water-level gradients, and emissions of CO2 and CH4. The study examines how variations in temperature and water-level gradients affect greenhouse gas emissions using a two-factor square analysis. The test has a significant threshold of 0.05%. The standard deviation of all error lines was used to determine the average value.

3. Results

This study revealed a significant variation in the emission rates of CO2 and CH4 at different water levels, with minor mutation coefficients, during a period of plant growth in Jinchuan peatland (Figure 2). Each month exhibited distinct properties of the two greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide and methane emissions exhibited fluctuations and an overall increase, albeit of a minor magnitude. The discharge regulations are outlined as follows: The overall emission volume of greenhouse gases in July was generally high, with the value 19.58 mg m−2 h−1. On August 15, methane emissions were 45.45 mg m−2 h−1. On August 28, the absorption of carbon dioxide was −157.79 mg m−2 h−1, with a total absorption of more than 183.45 mg m−2 h−1. The mutation coefficients of the two gases are substantial, with carbon dioxide (−7.08~3.40) and methane (−1.79~1.26) having comparatively smaller mutation values.
The extent of saturation in the research region directly impacts the rise in CO2 and CH4 emissions in proportion to the increase in water level in Jinchuan peatland at different development stages (Figure 3). The mean saturated depths at locations S1–S3 are −7.5 ± 14.00 cm, −12.09 ± 14.16 cm, and −22.5 ± 23.58 cm, respectively. Overall, the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 rose in tandem with rising water levels. Significant fluctuations in water levels led to corresponding fluctuations in the discharge flux of CO2 and CH4 at different development stages in peatland. The variation pattern of the carbon dioxide and methane volumes at locations S1 and S2 closely correspond to the fluctuations in the water level. However, at point S3, there is a significant disparity between the current trajectory of carbon dioxide and methane emissions and fluctuations in water level. Simultaneously, it was discovered that the flow of carbon dioxide and methane at point S1 escalated in proportion to the extent of saturation. The carbon dioxide concentration grew progressively from −230.23 mg m−2 h−1 to −61.71 mg m−2 h−1 starting from the baseline value. Methane was detected at a concentration of 50.41 mg m−2 h−1 on 12 September. The peak concentration of carbon dioxide reached its greatest value at −57.48 mg m−2 h−1 on 15 August. As the saturation subsided, the maximum flood depth at site S2 reached −35 cm. Simultaneously, the concentration of carbon dioxide rose from −3.75 mg m−2 h−1 to 101.77 mg m−2 h−1, and the volume of methane increased from 16.83 mg m−2 h−1 to 26.71 mg m−2 h−1. The peak flux in both greenhouse gases occurred simultaneously on the same day: The values were 101.77 mg m−2 h−1 and 57.85 mg m−2 h−1. At point S3, which experienced the least amount of saturation, there is a notable disparity in the emission patterns of CO2 and CH4 compared to the other two points. Following a decrease from −223.48 mg m−2 h−1 to −2.52 mg m−2 h−1, the overall volume changes in methane exhibited an increase from 13.69 mg m−2 h−1 to 42.27 mg m−2 h−1, followed by a strong decline to 12.85 mg m−2 h−1, which was comparatively less than the previous two data points.
The temperature of the three points in the Jinchuan peatland research area shows a gradual downward trend, gradually decreasing from 33.11 ± 1.14 °C to 26.70 ± 1.42 °C (Figure 4). Simultaneously, the extent of inundation exhibits a gradual upward trajectory. The correlation study revealed that the carbon dioxide flux is positively correlated with temperature (p = 0.625) (Figure 4c), whereas the methane flux and temperature exhibit a negative association (p = 0.573) (Figure 4a). The concentration of carbon dioxide is positively correlated with temperature and the depth of saturation (p = 0.538) (Figure 4d), while the methane emission rate is positively correlated with the depth of saturation (p < 0.001) (Figure 4b). CO2 and CH4 switched to the low water levels (S3), with a strong correlation between the depth of saturation compared with S1 and (p < 0.07) (Table 1). A correlation was found between the CH4 flux volume and the temperature and flood depth of S1 (p < 0.05) (Table 1). A significant association was also found between CH4 saturation and temperature saturation at site S3 (p < 0.01) (Table 1).

4. Discussion

Peatlands are predominantly located in tropics and in high-latitude regions. The peatland chosen for this study is situated in northeast China at a relatively high latitude. In contrast to the maximum and minimum values observed in the peat marsh at the same latitude, the findings of this research indicate relatively average distribution (Table 2). The findings of our study reveal a considerable range of CO2 emissions, exhibiting a maximal value comparable to that observed at an identical latitude. Contrary to the study conducted in Panama in the equatorial region, the magnitude of alterations mirrors the fluctuating pattern in our study. Additionally, the change range of CH4 switch volume in this study is considerably smaller in magnitude when compared to the findings of research conducted in a region of the same latitude. Conversely, the methane flux in this study is considerably greater than that observed in research conducted in another tropical area.
The impact of groundwater depth on peat soil and its vegetation is evident, as the expansion of water-table depth (WTD) facilitates enhanced respiration and vegetation development in peat. Arid peatland serves as a notable source of greenhouse gas emissions. The increased depth of the groundwater facilitates CO2 emissions. In contrast to carbon dioxide emissions, CH4 emissions are more favorable at modest groundwater levels [34]. At three locations in our study (S1, S2, and S3), CO2 exhibited the highest emission volume at depths of 6 cm, −5 cm, and −16 cm, respectively. In contrast, CH4 demonstrated the lowest emission volume at depths of −30 cm, −20 cm, and −16 cm, respectively. The experiments in S3 were conducted in July and between August 12 and August 15, the water levels exhibited decreasing trends in terms of the fluxes in CO2 emissions as well as CH4 emissions. If WTD is below 20 cm, and the local water level is at the surface of the peat floor, the northern temperate peatlands can be utilized for a net CO2 exchange, given the net source of CO2 is higher than 25 cm above the WTD [35]. By analyzing the volumes of CO2 and CH4, as well as the water levels, this experiment reveals that CH4 emissions increased as WTD rose, whereas CO2 emissions decreased as WTD rose. The hydrophobic and organic matter content, carbon–nitrogen conversion, microbial composition, and greenhouse gas emissions of the soil are all influenced by the drainage and flood circulation, as well as the drying and wetting conditions [36,37]. The research has indicated that variations in the chemical properties of soil and soil do not significantly affect the duration of saturation or drainage from two to four weeks. It is found that, with the increase in submergence depth, CO2 and CH4 emissions show an increasing trend, and changes in submergence depth lead to a more obvious trend of CH4 fluxes (Figure 4b,d). However, prolonged saturated or drainage conditions (24 weeks) result in substantial changes in soil volume water content, pH value, microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, and greenhouse gas emissions [38].
The fresh organic decomposition of the flooded vegetation and soil produced the most CO2 emissions in the years following the flood [39,40]. The increased CO2 emissions persist for decades following the flood, after which they decline at a rate comparable to that of a northern lake [41]. A river located in Spain has an annual cycle of saturation (from October to March) and annual droughts (from May to June), and reduced CO2 emissions result from the arid weather conditions [42]. The growth of organic matter and the flow of carbon and nitrogen may be enhanced by drainage-saturated conditions that alternate between anaerobic and aerobic environments. In a poor fen and bog, WTD increased plant growth, while in rich fen, WTD reduced the growth of ground-level vegetation [43]. Sphagnum is the most important plant for the accumulation of peat, and is one of the dominant species in nutrient-poor peatland [44,45]. The accumulated peat thickens continuously, and when it is exposed to the overlying water, the dominant species of sphagnum is isolated from the nutrient supply and the nutrition in the peatland becomes poorer. In the wet period, a saturated peat mound generates enough water pressure to drive the surface water downwards, which exhausts the inorganic solute in the surface water and creates an environment conducive to the invasion of sphagnum moss [46].
Additional greenhouse gas emissions are significantly influenced by agricultural practices, including the climate, vegetation, crop residue and fertilization, and inherent peat characteristics [47,48]. The combination of climate warming and reduced water levels will accelerate the deterioration of peat and the subsequent release of nutrients. The dynamic alterations in plant composition have the potential to enhance the uptake of nutrients and partially counterbalance the detrimental impacts of global warming on peat ground ecosystems [49,50]. The absorption of CO2, particularly at the deepest S1 saturated water level, declined between July 12 and August 15. The noticeable variation in CH4 emissions at S3 could be attributed to the disparity in water-level changes. The restoration of CO2 flow after the artificial disturbance of peatland is more challenging compared to the restoration of CH4, resulting in a longer recovery period. At various water levels (S1, S2, and S3), when the water level falls within a comparable range, the emissions of CH4 remain consistent, whereas the overall fluctuations in the volume of CO2 differ from those of CH4. As an illustration, the CH4 emission rate at a depth of −30 cm at the S1 water level was 14.53 mg m−2h−1, while at a depth of −35 cm at the S2 water level, the CH4 emission rate was 16.83 mg m−2h−1 (Figure 2), with a value of 18.96 mg m−2h−1. Fluctuations in groundwater levels have a direct impact on the processes of decomposition and the electron receptor capacity required for heterotrophic respiration (EAC) [51]. The groundwater level declines, and the last electron receptor undergoes oxidation to renew and restore the efficient EAC [52]. Consequently, a decrease in groundwater levels may lead to a reduction in the release of CH4, whereas an increase in CO2 emissions may occur due to the deeper penetration of oxygen into peat, stimulating heterotrophic respiration [53]. The boundary between oxygen-rich and oxygen-depleted areas, particularly in severely degraded peatland, is characterized by a broad zone rather than a distinct transition that aligns with the groundwater level. The repair process is unaffected by the current groundwater level [54]. While the repair process can restore movement, it does not aid in the reduction in CO2; however, it has the potential to significantly amplify CH4 emissions. The research has shown that CO2 emissions decreased by 14% following the introduction of moist CO2, whereas CH4 emissions increased by a factor of 3.4 [55].
The carbon balance in the biosphere is determined by two natural processes: (1) the accumulation of carbon through photosynthesis; (2) the release of CO2 and CH4 through heterotrophic respiration and the decomposition of organic matter. The carbon balance of peatland is influenced by small fluctuations in groundwater and temperature. These variations enhance the decomposition rate of soil organic matter and lead to an increase in the productivity of the plant community [53,56,57]. Research has indicated that climatic warming will amplify the release of CH4 from peatlands, and the production of CH4 is more responsive to heating than CO2 [58]. Higher temperatures are anticipated to accelerate the rate at which microorganisms decompose. Additionally, a decrease in groundwater level will result in the release of a significant amount of CO2 from the soil into the atmosphere, leading to a reduction in CH4 emissions [44,59,60]. Core warming can lead to an increase in the carbon turnover rate of swamp peatland by affecting the amount of moss, shrubs, and grain-based plants [61]. Methane is produced in the presence of waterlogging. Furthermore, the CH4 emissions into the atmosphere are also significant, alongside the dispersion and movement of peat [62,63]. The methane oxide metabolism can convert CH4 back into CO2 [63]. An increase in temperature is likely to cause an increase in CH4 emissions from organic soil when compared to CO2 emissions [64]. The experiment reveals a linear relationship between the temperature of the growing season and the volume of CO2 and CH4 conversions. Temperature changes lead to both positive and negative trends in response to variations in the quantities of CO2 and CH4. A high water table depth indicates favorable conditions for the sequestration of atmospheric carbon. Conversely, a low WTD leads to an accelerated breakdown rate of plant organic matter, resulting in an increase in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and transforming the ecosystem into a carbon source. The wetland modeling research has shown that a decrease in WTD results in a reduction in methane emissions within the ecosystem, while causing an increase in carbon dioxide emissions [65]. The experiment revealed a linear relationship between the variations in water level that occurred during the growing season and the volumes of CO2 and CH4 flips. As the water level rises, there will be an inverse and direct relationship between CO2 and CH4. The increase in groundwater levels notably altered the physical and chemical characteristics of the top layer of soil (0–10 cm), particularly the soil moisture and salt content. These changes could potentially impact the pace at which soil releases CO2 and CH4 gases [66].
Climate warming, regardless of its magnitude, can alter hydrological processes and soil microbiology, consequently impacting the emissions of CO2 and CH4 and the carbon storage capacity of peatland [66,67,68]. A bivariate analysis of the effect of water level and temperature on CO2 and CH4 volume demonstrated that the fluxes in CO2 and CH4 emissions can be influenced by temperature, water level, and the interaction between the two. There is a strong association between the depth of saturation and the amounts of CO2 and CH4 gases when they are in low water levels (S3). A strong correlation exists between the CH4 flux volume, temperature, and flood depth in S1. A link exists between the interaction between CH4, temperature, and saturated depth in S3. Peatland is an intricate ecological–hydrological system (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The hydrogen feedback associated with the water table depth (WTD) would enhance the influence of climate on CO2 and CH4 emissions [69]. The decrease in WTD will enhance the process of oxygen mineralization, thus leading to an increase in the availability of carbon substrates for the formation of methane [70]. In contrast, a low WTD can also impede the release of methane from peatlands. This is due to the expansion of the CH4 oxidation zone in the soil with an increase in the available oxygen, while the zone in which methane is created contracts in areas with oxygen-depleted, saturated soil [71,72,73]. Consequently, global warming impacts WTD levels by augmenting dispersion, diminishing soil moisture, and altering precipitation [74]. Simultaneously, the stimulation of vegetation and biomass by CO2 might result in higher levels of moisture loss due to evaporation and transpiration, while also decreasing the amount of moisture captured by the upper layer of plants [69]. The hydrological alterations may interact with the process of warming, resulting in a more intricate release of CO2 and CH4.

5. Conclusions

The general variations in CO2 and CH4 discharge at various water levels are distinct: an increase in water level results in a corresponding rise in the CH4 emission fluxes. The temperature reflects the gradient change in inundation depth; that is, as the water level increases, the temperature decreases. The volume of CO2 emissions increases in tandem with the decrease in CH4 emissions as the temperature rises. Differences in the temperature and depth of the inundated water will influence CO2 and CH4 emissions. These findings highlight theoretical support for reduction of anthropogenic activities on peatlands. This can be achieved by undertaking measures to conserve peatlands and explore mitigation measures to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and, hence, the impacts of climate change.

Author Contributions

C.P., N.Y. and M.L. designed this study; C.P., H.L. and N.Y. performed the data collection, analysis and designed the figures; C.P. and M.L. discussed the results and wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFF1300905).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which significantly improved the quality of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lal, R.; Pimentel, D. Soil erosion: A carbon sink or source? Science 2008, 319, 1040–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. Wetlands, 5th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, M.; Xu, X.; Wu, X.; Mi, C. Centennial-scale study on the spatial-temporal evolution of riparian wetlands in the Yangtze River of China. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2022, 113, 102874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stewart, A.J.; Halabisky, M.; Babcock, C.; Butman, D.E.; D’Amore, D.V.; Moskal, L.M. Revealing the hidden carbon in forested wetland soils. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hugelius, G.; Loisel, J.; Chadburn, S.; Jackson, R.B.; Jones, M.; MacDonald, G.; Marushchak, M.; Olefeldt, D.; Packalen, M.; Siewert, M.B.; et al. Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 20438–20446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Walker, T.N.; Ward, S.E.; Ostle, N.J.; Bardgett, R.D. Contrasting growth responses of dominant peatland plants to warming and vegetation composition. Oecologia 2015, 178, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Leiber-Sauheitl, K.; Fuß, R.; Voigt, C.; Freibauer, A. High CO2 fluxes from grassland on histic gleysol along soil carbon and drainage gradients. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 749–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wittnebel, M.; Tiemeyer, B.; Dettmann, U. Peat and other organic soils under agricultural use in Germany: Properties and challenges for classification. Mires Peat 2021, 27, 19. [Google Scholar]
  9. Shotyk, W. Review of the inorganic geochemistry of peats and peatland waters. Earth-Sci. Rev. 1988, 25, 95–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rydin, H.; Jeglum, J.K. The Biology of Peatlands; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  11. Avis, C.A.; Weaver, A.J.; Meissner, K.J. Reduction in areal extent of high-latitude wetlands in response to permafrost thaw. Nat. Geosci. 2011, 4, 444–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boyd, W.E. Peatlands and environmental change. Geoarchaeology 2004, 19, 505–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Last, W.M.; Ginn, F.M. Saline systems of the great plains of western Canada: An overview of the limnogeology and paleolimnology. Saline Syst. 2005, 1, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arias, M.E.; Wittmann, F.; Parolin, P.; Murray-Hudson, M.; Cochrane, T.A. Interactions between flooding and upland disturbance drives species diversity in large river floodplains. Hydrobiologia 2018, 814, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brocard, G.; Adatte, T.; Magand, O.; Pfeifer, H.-R.; Bettini, A.; Arnaud, F.; Anselmetti, F.S.; Moran-Ical, S. The recording of floods and earthquakes in lake chichój, guatemala during the twentieth century. J. Paleolimnol. 2014, 52, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Karnatak, G.; Sarkar, U.K.; Naskar, M.; Roy, K.; Gupta, S.; Nandy, S.K.; Srivastava, P.K.; Sarkar, S.D.; Sudheesan, D.; Bose, A.K.; et al. Understanding the role of climatic and environmental variables in gonadal maturation and spawning periodicity of spotted snakehead, channa punctata (bloch, 1793) in a tropical floodplain wetland, india. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2018, 101, 595–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jardine, T.D.; Bond, N.R.; Burford, M.A.; Kennard, M.J.; Ward, D.P.; Bayliss, P.; Davies, P.M.; Douglas, M.M.; Hamilton, S.K.; Melack, J.M.; et al. Does flood rhythm drive ecosystem responses in tropical riverscapes? Ecology 2015, 96, 684–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jardine, T.D.; Pusey, B.J.; Hamilton, S.K.; Pettit, N.E.; Davies, P.M.; Douglas, M.M.; Sinnamon, V.; Halliday, I.A.; Bunn, S.E. Fish mediate high food web connectivity in the lower reaches of a tropical floodplain river. Oecologia 2012, 168, 829–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Correa, S.B.; Winemiller, K.O. Niche partitioning among frugivorous fishes in response to fluctuating resources in the amazonian floodplain forest. Ecology 2014, 95, 210–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ishikura, K.; Yamada, H.; Toma, Y.; Takakai, F.; Morishita, T.; Darung, U.; Limin, A.; Limin, S.H.; Hatano, R. Effect of groundwater level fluctuation on soil respiration rate of tropical peatland in central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017, 63, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schaller, M.; Fan, Y. River basins as groundwater exporters and importers: Implications for water cycle and climate modeling. J. Geophys. Res. 2009, 114, D04103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hokanson, K.J.; Peterson, E.S.; Devito, K.J.; Mendoza, C.A. Forestland-peatland hydrologic connectivity in water-limited environments: Hydraulic gradients often oppose topography. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 034021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Laudon, H.; Mosquera, V.; Eklöf, K.; Järveoja, J.; Karimi, S.; Krasnova, A.; Peichl, M.; Pinkwart, A.; Tong, C.H.M.; Wallin, M.B.; et al. Consequences of rewetting and ditch cleaning on hydrology, water quality and greenhouse gas balance in a drained northern landscape. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 20218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dixon, S.D.; Qassim, S.M.; Rowson, J.G.; Worrall, F.; Evans, M.G.; Boothroyd, I.M.; Bonn, A. Restoration effects on water table depths and CO2 fluxes from climatically marginal blanket bog. Biogeochemistry 2014, 118, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Menberu, M.W.; Haghighi, A.T.; Ronkanen, A.-K.; Marttila, H.; Kløve, B. Effects of drainage and subsequent restoration on peatland hydrological processes at catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 4479–4497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Patterson, L.; Cooper, D.J. The use of hydrologic and ecological indicators for the restoration of drainage ditches and water diversions in a mountain fen, cascade range, California. Wetlands 2007, 27, 290–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moore, T.R.; De Young, A.; Bubier, J.L.; Humphreys, E.R.; Lafleur, P.M.; Roulet, N.T. A multi-year record of methane flux at the mer bleue bog, southern canada. Ecosystems 2011, 14, 646–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lazcano, C.; Deol, A.S.; Brummell, M.E.; Strack, M. Interactive effects of vegetation and water table depth on belowground c and n mobilization and greenhouse gas emissions in a restored peatland. Plant Soil 2020, 448, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Knoblauch, C.; Zimmermann, U.; Blumenberg, M.; Michaelis, W.; Pfeiffer, E.-M. Methane turnover and temperature response of methane-oxidizing bacteria in permafrost-affected soils of northeast Siberia. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 3004–3013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maltais-Landry, G.; Maranger, R.; Brisson, J.; Chazarenc, F. Greenhouse gas production and efficiency of planted and artificially aerated constructed wetlands. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 748–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kelley, C.A.; Martens, C.S.; Ussler, W., III. Methane dynamics across a tidally flooded riverbank margin. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1995, 40, 1112–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Grünfeld, S.; Brix, H. Methanogenesis and methane emissions: Effects of water table, substrate type and presence of phragmites australis. Aquat. Bot. 1999, 64, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cosentino, D.; Chenu, C.; Le Bissonnais, Y. Aggregate stability and microbial community dynamics under drying–wetting cycles in a silt loam soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 2053–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Olshansky, Y.; Root, R.A.; Chorover, J. Wet–dry cycles impact dom retention in subsurface soils. Biogeosciences 2018, 15, 821–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Abid, A.A.; Gu, C.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, J.; Di, H. Nitrous oxide fluxes and nitrifier and denitrifier communites as affected by dry-wet cycles in long term fertilized paddy soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 125, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hu, J.; Liao, X.; Vardanyan, L.G.; Huang, Y.; Inglett, K.S.; Wright, A.L.; Reddy, K.R. Duration and frequency of drainage and flooding events interactively affect soil biogeochemistry and N flux in subtropical peat soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Matthews, C.J.D.; Joyce, E.M.; Louis, V.L.S.; Schiff, S.L.; Venkiteswaran, J.J.; Hall, B.D.; Bodaly, R.A.; Beaty, K.G. Carbon dioxide and methane production in small reservoirs flooding upland boreal forest. Ecosystems 2005, 8, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Teodoru, C.R.; Bastien, J.; Bonneville, M.-C.; Giorgio, P.A.; Demarty, M.; Garneau, M.; Hélie, J.; Pelletier, L.; Prairie, Y.T.; Roulet, N.T.; et al. The net carbon footprint of a newly created boreal hydroelectric reservoir. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2012, 26, GB2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tremblay, A.; Lambert, M.; Gagnon, L. Do hydroelectric reservoirs emit greenhouse gases? Environ. Manag. 2004, 33, S509–S517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Huertas, I.E.; Flecha, S.; Figuerola, J.; Costas, E.; Morris, E.P. Effect of hydroperiod on co2 fluxes at the air-water interface in the mediterranean coastal wetlands of doñana. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2017, 122, 1615–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dias, A.T.C.; Hoorens, B.; Van Logtestijn, R.S.P.; Vermaat, J.E.; Aerts, R. Plant species composition can be used as a proxy to predict methane emissions in peatland ecosystems after land-use changes. Ecosystems 2010, 13, 526–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Couwenberg, J.; Thiele, A.; Tanneberger, F.; Augustin, J.; Bärisch, S.; Dubovik, D.; Liashchynskaya, N.; Michaelis, D.; Minke, M.; Skuratovich, A.; et al. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands using vegetation as a proxy. Hydrobiologia 2011, 674, 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Köster, E.; Chapman, J.P.B.; Barel, J.M.; Korrensalo, A.; Laine, A.M.; Vasander, H.T.; Tuittila, E. Water level drawdown makes boreal peatland vegetation more responsive to weather conditions. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2023, 29, 5691–5705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. McNeil, P.; Waddington, J.M. Moisture controls on Sphagnum growth and CO2 exchange on a cutover bog. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 354–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lindo, Z.; Gonzalez, A. The Bryosphere: An Integral and Influential Component of the Earth’s Biosphere. Ecosystems 2010, 13, 612–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Siegel, D.I. Ground water and the evolution of patterned mires, Glacial Lake Agassiz Peatlands, Northern Minnesota. J. Ecol. 1983, 71, 913–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pohl, M.; Hoffmann, M.; Hagemann, U.; Giebels, M.; Albiac Borraz, E.; Sommer, M.; Augustin, J. Dynamic c and n stocks—Key factors controlling the c gas exchange of maize in heterogenous peatland. Biogeosciences 2015, 12, 2737–2752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Macrae, M.L.; Devito, K.J.; Strack, M.; Waddington, J.M. Effect of water table drawdown on peatland nutrient dynamics: Implications for climate change. Biogeochemistry 2013, 112, 661–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Salimi, S.; Scholz, M. Impact of future climate scenarios on peatland and constructed wetland water quality: A mesocosm experiment within climate chambers. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Limpens, J.; Berendse, F.; Blodau, C.; Canadell, J.G.; Freeman, C.; Holden, J.; Roulet, N.; Rydin, H.; Schaepman-Strub, G. Peatlands and the carbon cycle: From local processes to global implications—A synthesis. Biogeosciences 2008, 5, 1475–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Knorr, K.-H.; Blodau, C. Impact of experimental drought and rewetting on redox transformations and methanogenesis in mesocosms of a northern fen soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 1187–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Silvola, J.; Alm, J.; Ahlholm, U.; Nykänen, H.; Martikainen, P.J.J.J.o.E. CO2 fluxes from peat in boreal mires under varying temperature and moisture conditions. J. Ecol. 1996, 84, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Knorr, K.-H.; Lischeid, G.; Blodau, C. Dynamics of redox processes in a minerotrophic fen exposed to a water table manipulation. Geoderma 2009, 153, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Best, E.P.H.; Jacobs, F.H.H. The influence of raised water table levels on carbon dioxide and methane production in ditch-dissected peat grasslands in the netherlands. Ecol. Eng. 1997, 8, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shurpali, N.J.; Verma, S.B.; Kim, J.; Arkebauer, T.J. Carbon dioxide exchange in a peatland ecosystem. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos. 1995, 100, 14319–14326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bubier, J.; Crill, P.; Moore, T.; Savage, K.; Varner, R. Seasonal patterns and controls on net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland complex. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1998, 12, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gill, A.L.; Giasson, M.; Yu, R.; Finzi, A.C. Deep peat warming increases surface methane and carbon dioxide emissions in a black spruce-dominated ombrotrophic bog. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 5398–5411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jauhiainen, J.; Takahashi, H.; Heikkinen, J.; Martikainen, P.; Vasander, H. Carbon fluxes from a tropical peat swamp forest floor. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 11, 1788–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hirano, T.; Jauhiainen, J.; Inoue, T.; Takahashi, H. Controls on the carbon balance of tropical peatlands. Ecosystems 2009, 12, 873–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ward, S.E.; Bardgett, R.D.; McNamara, N.P.; Ostle, N.J. Plant functional group identity influences short-term peatland ecosystem carbon flux: Evidence from a plant removal experiment. Funct. Ecol. 2009, 23, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Greenup, A.L.; Bradford, M.A.; McNamara, N.P.; Ineson, P.; Lee, J.A. The role of eriophorum vaginatum in ch4 flux from an ombrotrophic peatland. Plant Soil 2000, 227, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lai, D.Y.F. Methane dynamics in northern peatlands: A review. Pedosphere 2009, 19, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Raghoebarsing, A.A.; Smolders, A.J.P.; Schmid, M.C.; Rijpstra, W.I.C.; Wolters-Arts, M.; Derksen, J.; Jetten, M.S.M.; Schouten, S.; Sinninghe Damsté, J.S.; Lamers, L.P.M.; et al. Methanotrophic symbionts provide carbon for photosynthesis in peat bogs. Nature 2005, 436, 1153–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Turetsky, M.; Kotowska, A.; Bubier, J.; Dise, N.; Crill, P.; Hornibrook, E.; Minkkinen, K.; Moore, T.; Myers-Smith, I.; Nykänen, H.; et al. A synthesis of methane emissions from 71 northern, temperate, and subtropical wetlands. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 2183–2197. [Google Scholar]
  65. Cui, J.; Li, C.; Sun, G.; Trettin, C. Linkage of mike she to wetland-dndc for carbon budgeting and anaerobic biogeochemistry simulation. Biogeochemistry 2005, 72, 147–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Baldwin, D.S.; Mitchell, A.M. The effects of drying and re-flooding on the sediment and soil nutrient dynamics of lowland river-floodplain systems: A synthesis. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 2000, 16, 457–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nykänen, H.; Alm, J.; Silvola, J.; Tolonen, K.; Martikainen, P.J. Methane fluxes on boreal peatlands of different fertility and the effect of long-term experimental lowering of the water table on flux rates. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1998, 12, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Keller, J.K.; White, J.R.; Bridgham, S.D.; Pastor, J. Climate change effects on carbon and nitrogen mineralization in peatlands through changes in soil quality. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2004, 10, 1053–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Waddington, J.M.; Morris, P.J.; Kettridge, N.; Granath, G.; Thompson, D.K.; Moore, P.A. Hydrological feedbacks in northern peatlands. Ecohydrology 2015, 8, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Song, Y.; Song, C.; Hou, A.; Ren, J.; Wang, X.; Cui, Q.; Wang, M. Effects of temperature and root additions on soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization in a predominantly permafrost peatland. CATENA 2018, 165, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Whalen, S.C.; Reeburgh, W.S. Moisture and temperature sensitivity of ch4 oxidation in boreal soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 1271–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Whalen, S.; Reeburgh, W. Methane oxidation, production, and emission at contrasting sites in a boreal bog. Geomicrobiol. J. 2000, 17, 237–251. [Google Scholar]
  73. White, J.R.; Shannon, R.D.; Weltzin, J.F.; Pastor, J.; Bridgham, S.D. Effects of soil warming and drying on methane cycling in a northern peatland mesocosm study. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113, G00A06. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Allison, S.D.; Treseder, K.K. Warming and drying suppress microbial activity and carbon cycling in boreal forest soils. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2008, 14, 2898–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location of the Jinchuan wetland and our study site.
Figure 1. Location of the Jinchuan wetland and our study site.
Water 16 00985 g001
Figure 2. Fluctuations in CO2 and CH4 flux levels in different months. (a) is the curve of average flux, median flux and coefficient of variation of carbon dioxide in different months. (b) is the curve of methane average flux, median flux and coefficient of variation in different months.
Figure 2. Fluctuations in CO2 and CH4 flux levels in different months. (a) is the curve of average flux, median flux and coefficient of variation of carbon dioxide in different months. (b) is the curve of methane average flux, median flux and coefficient of variation in different months.
Water 16 00985 g002
Figure 3. The depth and discharge fluxes in CO2 and CH4 during inundation varied from month to month. The left upper vertical axis shows the fluxes in CO2 (mg m−2 h−1), the right upper vertical axis shows the fluxes in CH4 (mg m−2 h−1), and the left lower vertical axis shows the water level (cm). (a) shows the relationship between carbon dioxide flux and methane flux and S1 water level. The dark yellow curve represents carbon dioxide, the light yellow curve represents methane, and the yellow shaded part shows the water level change. (b) shows the relationship between carbon dioxide flux and methane flux and S2 water level. The crimson curve represents carbon dioxide, the light red curve represents methane, and the red shaded part represents water level change. (c) shows the relationship between carbon dioxide flux and methane flux and S3 water level. The crimson curve represents carbon dioxide, the light red curve represents methane, and the red shaded part represents water level change.
Figure 3. The depth and discharge fluxes in CO2 and CH4 during inundation varied from month to month. The left upper vertical axis shows the fluxes in CO2 (mg m−2 h−1), the right upper vertical axis shows the fluxes in CH4 (mg m−2 h−1), and the left lower vertical axis shows the water level (cm). (a) shows the relationship between carbon dioxide flux and methane flux and S1 water level. The dark yellow curve represents carbon dioxide, the light yellow curve represents methane, and the yellow shaded part shows the water level change. (b) shows the relationship between carbon dioxide flux and methane flux and S2 water level. The crimson curve represents carbon dioxide, the light red curve represents methane, and the red shaded part represents water level change. (c) shows the relationship between carbon dioxide flux and methane flux and S3 water level. The crimson curve represents carbon dioxide, the light red curve represents methane, and the red shaded part represents water level change.
Water 16 00985 g003
Figure 4. Correlation between CO2 and CH4 switch fluxes, temperature, and saturated depth. Vertical axes (a,b) show the flux in CH4; vertical axes (c,d) show the CO2 flux; horizontal axes (a,c) show the temperature; horizontal axes (b,d) show the saturated depth. The yellow dots represent methane flux in (a,b), and carbon dioxide flux in (c,d). The yellow shaded part is the confidence interval. The yellow line shows the linear relationship between methane and temperature in (a), methane and flooding depth in (b), carbon dioxide and temperature in (c) and carbon dioxide and flooding depth in (d).
Figure 4. Correlation between CO2 and CH4 switch fluxes, temperature, and saturated depth. Vertical axes (a,b) show the flux in CH4; vertical axes (c,d) show the CO2 flux; horizontal axes (a,c) show the temperature; horizontal axes (b,d) show the saturated depth. The yellow dots represent methane flux in (a,b), and carbon dioxide flux in (c,d). The yellow shaded part is the confidence interval. The yellow line shows the linear relationship between methane and temperature in (a), methane and flooding depth in (b), carbon dioxide and temperature in (c) and carbon dioxide and flooding depth in (d).
Water 16 00985 g004
Table 1. Analysis of the correlation between the flux and temperature at different sampling points, CO2 and CH4, saturation, and saturated depth.
Table 1. Analysis of the correlation between the flux and temperature at different sampling points, CO2 and CH4, saturation, and saturated depth.
CO2 FluxCH4 Flux
F-Valuep-ValueF-valuep-Value
S1
Temperature2.520.123.500.07.
Saturated depth1.100.303.410.07.
Temperature × Saturated depth0.420.520.030.86
S2
Temperature0.130.721.250.27
Saturated depth0.360.551.990.17
Temperature × Saturated depth0.510.480.850.36
S3
Temperature2.730.100.010.91
Saturated depth3.480.07.22.471.81 × 10−5 ***
Temperature × Saturated depth1.140.2912.767.95 × 10−4 ***
Note(s): Significant codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.05 ‘.’.
Table 2. Various wetland types exhibit distinct variations in CO2 and CH4 fluxes.
Table 2. Various wetland types exhibit distinct variations in CO2 and CH4 fluxes.
Study LocationCO2 (mg m−2h−1)CH4 (mg m−2h−1)References
Changbai Mountain, China−695.33~859.91−259.98~147.16This article
Northwest Panama719.94~913.1838.78~48.89[28]
Southern Sweden1483~66651934~8888[29]
Northern Colombia 1.57~1.97[30]
Northern Norway52.17~154.110.32[31]
Kampar, Indonesia−0.47~4.272.22~8.52[32]
Southwest Florida, FL, USA 4.55~55.30[27]
San San-Pond Sak, Panama−1652~−548−5.10~77.83[31]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Peng, C.; Li, H.; Yang, N.; Lu, M. A Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emission Patterns in Different Water Levels in Peatlands. Water 2024, 16, 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16070985

AMA Style

Peng C, Li H, Yang N, Lu M. A Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emission Patterns in Different Water Levels in Peatlands. Water. 2024; 16(7):985. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16070985

Chicago/Turabian Style

Peng, Chengcheng, Hengfei Li, Nan Yang, and Mingzhi Lu. 2024. "A Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emission Patterns in Different Water Levels in Peatlands" Water 16, no. 7: 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16070985

APA Style

Peng, C., Li, H., Yang, N., & Lu, M. (2024). A Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emission Patterns in Different Water Levels in Peatlands. Water, 16(7), 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16070985

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