the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PVN 1.0: using dynamic PFTs and restoration scenarios to model CO2 and CH4 emissions in peatlands
Abstract. Peatlands are the world’s largest terrestrial carbon store. Despite covering only 3 % of the planet’s land surface, peatlands store 30 % of the planet’s terrestrially available carbon. The Dutch government's 2019 National Climate Agreement committed to reduce the contribution of peatlands to total national Dutch greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by 1 Mton CO2 per year (20 %) until 2030. Countries with similarly degraded peatlands are likely to face similar commitments in the coming years. Restoration (or rewetting) is a proposed solution to reduce land subsidence and increase carbon sequestration in agricultural peatlands but is often accompanied by large CH4 emissions.
Whilst, previous studies have investigated whether singular plant types impact the GHG emissions of peatlands, few (or no) studies have investigated the impact of plant composition on GHG emissions in peatlands. To assess the impact of dynamic vegetation on subsequent GHG fluxes in peatlands, we developed a new model, Peatland-VU-NUCOM (PVN). This is the second process-based model to date, capable of simulating dynamic vegetation, CO2, and CH4 emissions in peatlands.
The new PVN model simulates CH4 and CO2 fluxes in relation to the plant community composition. The PVN model includes plant competition, CH4 diffusion, ebullition, root, shoot, litter exudate production, below-ground decomposition, and aboveground moss development, under changing water table and climatic conditions. The model was compared against observational data collected at two sites in the Netherlands.
These results showed that plant communities impact net GHG emissions. This is the first time that a peatland emissions model is able to investigate the role of re-introducing peat forming vegetation on subsequent GHG emissions. We also found that the initial plant community influenced the potential for harvest events to reduce GHG emissions. These results indicated that plant community restoration is a critical component of peatland restoration.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(12621 KB)
-
Supplement
(2764 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(12621 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2764 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-143', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Aug 2022
The manuscript describes and tests a new site-level model suitable for restored peatlands incorporating dynamic vegetation to estimate GHG fluxes. This is a very much needed tool, as long term restoration project are still few in number and monitoring/measuring the changing GHG fluxes over years is a needed but tedious task. A well operating model could offer us a sight into future (as well as past).
There is yet one issue that bothered me a lot during the review process, making the process almost impossible. After reading the MS I do not know what is the sign convention you use for NEE, CO2. The figure3 indicates that positive NEE is net CO2 uptake, which would be logical as plants are more active during summer. Yet in the text you talk about CO2 emissions. This bothered me enormously as it affects interpretation of all the results. For this reason this review is not “completed”.
Secondly, the text is very hard to follow. There are so many abbreviation that the reading would require memory of an elephant. In addition to me it seemed that in result sections same issues are repeated under different subheadings. Please try to review the text carefully for the next version of the MS.
Thirdly, I am not an expert on model related issues, so I am not able to comment the model structure or process. Hopefully there is someone else for that task.
I have listed here also some more detailed comments, but I do feel that proper review process is not possible at this stage.
pg12 l285: what was the size of the automatic chambers? in a photo they look rather small in comparison to the height of the vegetation
Fig 3a: what is the sign convention here? is positive CO2 uptake and negative CO2 release. Is the orange line PV_HORST correct? it basically does not go under zero at all, indicating that there is either no netCO2 uptake at all even at high summer or that there is no net release...
pg 18 l407: the list of abbreviations here is just too much
pg18 l415: and what?
pg 19 l431: is net GHG budget emissions when positive
pg21 l454: can abandonment be used as a restoration scenario? would restoration not need some activity?
pg23 l480-485: when you compare these scenarios, should you also consider what happens to the harvested biomass? it is likely decomposing and emitting CO2
pg23 l491-500: excuse me but how is this text related to the site properties? this is just a comparison of the scenarios
pg 23 l511: how was the LAI for mosses defined? this is something very new to me. more so the value seems extremely high
pg28 l607: what is this at the beginning of the sentence? (refer to PFT results and maybe shorter)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-143-RC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-143', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Aug 2022
The manuscript describes and tests a new site-level model suitable for restored peatlands incorporating dynamic vegetation to estimate GHG fluxes. This is a very much needed tool, as long term restoration project are still few in number and monitoring/measuring the changing GHG fluxes over years is a needed but tedious task. A well operating model could offer us a sight into future (as well as past).
There is yet one issue that bothered me a lot during the review process, making the process almost impossible. After reading the MS I do not know what is the sign convention you use for NEE, CO2. The figure3 indicates that positive NEE is net CO2 uptake, which would be logical as plants are more active during summer. Yet in the text you talk about CO2 emissions. This bothered me enormously as it affects interpretation of all the results. For this reason this review is not “completed”.
Secondly, the text is very hard to follow. There are so many abbreviation that the reading would require memory of an elephant. In addition to me it seemed that in result sections same issues are repeated under different subheadings. Please try to review the text carefully for the next version of the MS.
Thirdly, I am not an expert on model related issues, so I am not able to comment the model structure or process. Hopefully there is someone else for that task.
I have listed here also some more detailed comments, but I do feel that proper review process is not possible at this stage.
pg12 l285: what was the size of the automatic chambers? in a photo they look rather small in comparison to the height of the vegetation
Fig 3a: what is the sign convention here? is positive CO2 uptake and negative CO2 release. Is the orange line PV_HORST correct? it basically does not go under zero at all, indicating that there is either no netCO2 uptake at all even at high summer or that there is no net release...
pg 18 l407: the list of abbreviations here is just too much
pg18 l415: and what?
pg 19 l431: is net GHG budget emissions when positive
pg21 l454: can abandonment be used as a restoration scenario? would restoration not need some activity?
pg23 l480-485: when you compare these scenarios, should you also consider what happens to the harvested biomass? it is likely decomposing and emitting CO2
pg23 l491-500: excuse me but how is this text related to the site properties? this is just a comparison of the scenarios
pg 23 l511: how was the LAI for mosses defined? this is something very new to me. more so the value seems extremely high
pg28 l607: what is this at the beginning of the sentence? (refer to PFT results and maybe shorter)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-143-RC1
Data sets
PVN model code and input data Tanya J. R. Lippmann https://bitbucket.org/tlippmann/pvn_public
Model code and software
PVN 1.0 model source code Tanya J. R. Lippmann https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6802102
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
804 | 191 | 32 | 1,027 | 95 | 36 | 33 |
- HTML: 804
- PDF: 191
- XML: 32
- Total: 1,027
- Supplement: 95
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Tanya Juliette Rebecca Lippmann
Monique Heijmans
Han Dolman
Ype van der Velde
Dimmie Hendriks
Ko van Huissteden
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(12621 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2764 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote