| Literature DB >> 31391485 |
Susan Waldron1, Leena Vihermaa2, Stephanie Evers3,4, Mark H Garnett5, Jason Newton6, Andrew C G Henderson7.
Abstract
Southeast-Asian peat swamp forests have been significantly logged and converted to plantation. Recently, to mitigate land degradation and C losses, some areas have been left to regenerate. Understanding how such complex land use change affects greenhouse gas emissions is essential for modelling climate feedbacks and supporting land management decisions. We carried out field research in a Malaysian swamp forest and an oil palm plantation to understand how clear-felling, drainage, and illegal and authorized conversion to oil palm impacted the C cycle, and how the C cycle may change if such logging and conversion stopped. We found that both the swamp forest and the plantation emit centuries-old CO2 from their drainage systems in the managed areas, releasing sequestered C to the atmosphere. Oil palm plantations are an iconic symbol of tropical peatland degradation, but CO2 efflux from the recently-burnt, cleared swamp forest was as old as from the oil palm plantation. However, in the swamp forest site, where logging had ceased approximately 30 years ago, the age of the CO2 efflux was modern, indicating recovery of the system can occur. 14C dating of the C pool acted as a tracer of recovery as well as degradation and offers a new tool to assess efficacy of restoration management. Methane was present in many sites, and in higher concentrations in slow-flowing anoxic systems as degassing mechanisms are not strong. Methane loading in freshwaters is rarely considered, but this may be an important C pool in restored drainage channels and should be considered in C budgets and losses.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31391485 PMCID: PMC6685963 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46534-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest (left, termed ‘forest’) annotated with the sampling locations, and the location of the oil palm plantation (termed ‘OP-plantation’) in south Selangor within the vicinity of Kuala Lumpur International airport (KLIA) and South Langat Forest Reserve.
Water chemistry and C determinants for key samples.
| Location | Area | Site | pH | SC | %DO | Temp°C | [Ca] | [DIC] | δ13C-DIC | [DOC] | [POC] | CO2 efflux | [CH4-aq] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| RT2 | NSPSF | Tengi River | 6.30 | 92.8 | 26.1 | 27.8 | 1.95 | 7.32 | −9.3 | 11.7 | 2.54 | 1.60 ± 0.07 | 2.5 |
| RT3 | NSPSF | Tengi tributary | 3.90 | 45.0 | 64.0 | 29.3 | 0.49 | 2.52 | −23.4 | 45.9 | 1.79 | 1.78 ± 0.42 | 6.6 |
| BF1 | NSPSF | Illicitly cleared | 3.74 | 75.2 | 6.7 | 29.7 | 0.96 | 5.40 | −25.0 | 83.6 | 0.94 | 2.00 ± 0.39 | 15.3 |
| BF2 | NSPSF | Illicitly cleared | 3.71 | 74.7 | 19.3 | 28.9 | 0.95 | 6.00 | −25.7 | 83.0 | 0.76 | 23.99 ± 3.4 | 3.5 |
|
| |||||||||||||
| PSF1 | NSPSF | Unlogged | 3.64 | 129.7 | 1.6 | 25.6 | 0.93 | 4.92 | −23.8 | 144.8 | 4.35 | 1.3 ± 0.04* | 247.5 |
|
| |||||||||||||
| WP40 | KLIA | Canal drain | 3.88 | 334.3 | 25.5 | 30.0 | 6.90 | 3.12 | −18.6 | 22.5 | 11.52 | 0.69 ± 0.11* | 0.5 |
| WP41 | KLIA | Canal drain | 4.06 | 206.6 | 54.6 | 27.7 | 2.91 | 0.84 | −24.5 | 109.0 | 12.07 | 0.51 ± 0.08* | 1.4 |
[DIC], [DOC], [POC] and [Ca] are in mg/l C, δ13C-DIC is in ‰, CO2 efflux is μmol C/m2/sec, [CH4-Caq] is μg/l, specific conductivity (SC) in μS/cm. Efflux at BF2 were taken in areas of turbulent and smoother water and thus shows considerable ranges.
*Here the chamber had to be gently agitated to break the boundary layer and facilitate CO2 efflux, so this is a maximum efflux rate under these conditions and more representative of efflux with a gentle breeze.
14C (% enrichment) and δ13C (‰) for paired CO2 efflux–DOC and peat samples collected to identify the impact of different land use.
| Location | Site type | Lab code | CO2 % Modern ± 1σ | CO2 14C Age BP ± 1σ | δ13C-CO2 | Lab code | DOC % Modern ± 1σ | DOC 14C Age BP ± 1σ | δ13C-DOM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Area | Depth (cm) | Lab code | Upper peat % Modern ± 1σ | Surface peat Age BP | δ13C-peat | Lab code | Lower peat % Modern ± 1σ | Basal peat Age BP ± 1σ | δ13C-peat |
| RT2 | Forest | SUERC-47910 | 96.22 ± 0.44 | 310 ± 37 | −17.4 | SUERC-49328 | 96.65 ± 0.44 | 273 ± 37 | −29.4 | |
| RT3 | Forest | — | — | — | — | SUERC-49327 | 98.48 ± 0.45 | 123 ± 37 | −29.4 | |
| BF1 | Forest | SUERC-47911 | 93.07 ± 0.41 | 577 ± 35 | −24.1 | SUERC-49329 | 94.17 ± 0.41 | 483 ± 35 | −29.6 | |
| BF2 | Forest | SUERC-47912 | 93.01 ± 0.43 | 582 ± 37 | −25.5 | SUERC-49330 | 94.03 ± 0.41 | 495 ± 35 | −29.0 | |
| PSF1 | Forest (log halt) | SUERC-47913 | 102.86 ± 0.45 | After 1950AD | −23.6 | SUERC-49331 | 99.96 ± 0.46 | 3 ± 37 | −29.7 | |
| WP40 | OP-Plantation | SUERC-47914 | 96.92 ± 0.42 | 251 ± 35 | −16.2 | SUERC-49334 | 91.71 ± 0.42 | 695 ± 37 | −27.5 | |
| WP41 | OP-Plantation | SUERC-47915 | 93.18 ± 0.43 | 567 ± 37 | −14.5 | SUERC-49335 | 92.93 ± 0.40 | 589 ± 37 | −28.5 | |
| WP40 | OP-Plantation | 3–8 | SUERC-72693 | 94.73 ± 0.34 | 435 ± 29 (3–8 cm) | −30.1 | SUERC-65199 | 72.87 ± 0.27 | 2542 ± 30 (181–183 cm) | −27.2 |
| 2010–2 | OP-Plantation | 3–6 | SUERC-72694 | 91.77 ± 0.33 | 690 ± 29 (3–6 cm) | −29.5 | SUERC-65204 | 73.49 ± 0.25 | 2474 ± 28 (36–38 cm) | −27.0 |
| PSF2* (Close to PSF1) | Forest | 10–13 | SUERC-75684 | 102.12 ± 0.47 | After 1950AD (10–13 cm) | −31.5 | SUERC-75686 | 61.84 ± 0.29 | 3861 ± 37 (90–100 cm) | −29.7 |
| MOP2* (Close to BF1/BF2) | Forest | — | — | — | — | — | SUERC-75693 | 61.19 ± 0.28 | 3946 ± 37 (70–80 cm) | −29.5 |
Figure 2CH4 concentrations as a function of land use across the forest (NSPSF) and oil palm plantation site (KLIA). All data have been pooled for this land use consideration (see Table SI4 for individual site categorization). The graph shows the maximum, minimum, median and 1st and 3rd quartiles of the different categories. Note the forest not logged for 30 years has only one sample.
Figure 3Relationship between 14C of fluvial CO2 efflux and of DOC for samples from the forest reserve and the OP-plantation.
Figure 4The outputs of the SIAR modeled contributions of different carbon age groups to forest (NSPSF) and OP-plantation (KLIA) CO2 efflux. The dark, light and lightest grey boxes represent respectively the 50%, 75% and 95% credible intervals of the estimates i.e. the contribution of a given source lies with this % probability in the interval. Although the same terminology has been used for the potential end members, these represent different age ranges and so this is a guide to where C may be derived rather than exactly the age of the carbon. For completeness, we have included a fossil C source in the modelling. If this was not present, the source contribution from mid- and deep-peat would be greater.