Skip to main content
Download PDF

Response of soil respiration to changes in soil temperature and water table level in drained and restored peatlands of the southeastern United States

Carbon Balance and Management volume 17, Article number: 18 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Extensive drainage of peatlands in the southeastern United States coastal plain for the purposes of agriculture and timber harvesting has led to large releases of soil carbon as carbon dioxide (CO2) due to enhanced peat decomposition. Growth in mechanisms that provide financial incentives for reducing emissions from land use and land-use change could increase funding for hydrological restoration that reduces peat CO2 emissions from these ecosystems. Measuring soil respiration and physical drivers across a range of site characteristics and land use histories is valuable for understanding how CO2 emissions from peat decomposition may respond to raising water table levels. We combined measurements of total soil respiration, depth to water table from soil surface, and soil temperature from drained and restored peatlands at three locations in eastern North Carolina and one location in southeastern Virginia to investigate relationships among total soil respiration and physical drivers, and to develop models relating total soil respiration to parameters that can be easily measured and monitored in the field.

Results

Total soil respiration increased with deeper water tables and warmer soil temperatures in both drained and hydrologically restored peatlands. Variation in soil respiration was more strongly linked to soil temperature at drained (R2 = 0.57, p < 0.0001) than restored sites (R2 = 0.28, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The results suggest that drainage amplifies the impact of warming temperatures on peat decomposition. Proxy measurements for estimation of CO2 emissions from peat decomposition represent a considerable cost reduction compared to direct soil flux measurements for land managers contemplating the potential climate impact of restoring drained peatland sites. Research can help to increase understanding of factors influencing variation in soil respiration in addition to physical variables such as depth to water table and soil temperature.

Background

Peatlands cover less than 3% of land area [1] but account for 25% of soil carbon storage [2], thereby playing a disproportionately important role in the global carbon cycle. Intact peatlands are seasonally or permanently water-logged ecosystems where vegetation litter input exceeds soil organic matter (SOM) decomposition, leading to the accumulation of carbon-rich peat deposits. Conversion and drainage of peatlands alters C inputs to peat from vegetation [3] and accelerates aerobic peat decomposition by enhancing oxygen availability, thereby increasing peat CO2 emissions (4,5,6). As a result of intensifying anthropogenic disturbance, peatlands have become a growing source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the atmosphere [7,8,9] with drained peatlands accounting for an estimated 3% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions [10, 11].

Prior to widespread conversion in the second half of the twentieth century, forested peatlands covered over 1.5 million hectares of the southeastern United States (U.S.) coastal plain from Virginia to northern Florida [12]. Most of these peatlands have been drained and converted for agriculture and timber production [13, 14], with roughly half of this conversion occurring prior to the 1980s [14, 15]. Consequently, peatland soils in the southeastern United States are a major source of anthropogenically driven CO2 emissions [16]. Recently, there has been interest in hydrological restoration of drained peatlands in the southeastern United States as a means to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions and support climate change mitigation [17].

Peatland hydrological restoration is achieved through improving water management capabilities and altering local water table levels to mimic pre-drainage conditions. Water control structures can be installed within ditches to capture and hold rainfall, slowing drainage, and re-wetting the drained peat. Raising the water table level in drained peatlands in the southeastern U.S. coastal plain has been found to reduce CO2 fluxes from soils [18, 19] without always contributing to large concomitant increases in CH4 [20], as is the case in other regions (e.g., 21–23). Globally, peatland water-table drawdown attributed to rising temperatures and anthropogenic activities has a net warming effect on the climate due to increased CO2 emissions that offset CH4 emission reductions [24]. Restoration of peatlands converted to cropland and pasture in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina could reduce up to 1.1–1.5 Tg CO2 emissions over the next decade by decreasing rates of peat SOM decomposition [16]. Peatland hydrological restoration generates numerous additional benefits, including reducing risk of wildfires and their associated negative impacts on human populations [25, 26] and increasing habitat for native wildlife [27]. Restoration also improves regional water quality [28], helps to protect downstream estuarine habitats [29], and controls flooding offsite [30].

Despite the broad benefits, restoration has been limited and large areas of drained peatlands remain [16]. Mechanisms that provide financial incentives for reducing emissions from land use and land-use change (e.g. REDD +) offer options for land managers to fund conservation of historically wet peatlands as well as hydrologic restoration [17]. In order for these mechanisms to succeed, accurate estimates of GHG emission reductions are needed, and the development of practical estimation methods are being pursued. For example, the American Carbon Registry has approved a carbon offset methodology that establishes standardized procedures to monitor and account for the GHG benefits associated with restoring drained peatlands in the southeastern U.S. coastal plain, offering the possibility to credit reductions in CO2 emissions from peat decomposition modeled as a function of one or more proxy variables [31].

Depth to water table has been considered the dominant biogeophysical control on peat decomposition, but field observations are not consistent [5, 32, 33]. Multiple factors in addition to water table level control soil respiration in peatlands such as soil temperature [34, 35], peat chemistry [33, 34, 36], and vegetation [35, 37]. In ex situ experiments in southeastern U.S. peatlands, increased soil temperature causes an exponential increase in microbial respiration over a large temperature range [34] while SOM phenolic content acts as a control on peat decomposition rate [33, 37]. Soil respiration also varies with vegetation structure and composition [38, 39]. Therefore, sampling soil respiration and physical drivers across a range of climatic conditions, peat characteristics, vegetation, and land-use histories is valuable for understanding how CO2 emissions from peat decomposition in restored peatlands may respond to changes in easily measurable physical parameters such as depth to water table and soil temperature.

We compiled measurements of total soil respiration (combined root respiration and heterotrophic respiration from peat decomposition), water table level, and soil temperature from drained and restored peatlands at three locations in eastern North Carolina and one location in southeastern Virginia, to investigate relationships among soil respiration and physical drivers across a range of site characteristics and land-use histories, including drained and restored sites. We ask the following questions about the relationships among soil respiration and physical drivers in peatlands of the southeastern U.S. coastal plain: (1) Can water table level and soil temperature explain variation in soil respiration in drained and restored peatlands?, and (2) Do relationships among soil respiration, water table level, and soil temperature differ according to peatland drainage status? In this study, we focused on soil respiration as it is one of the main components of the peat C budget [4, 40].

Methods

Site descriptions

Study sites were located on drained and restored peatlands in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia (Fig. 1). Peatland soils in the region typically range from 1 to 3 m in depth [12]. A total of 822 observations of total soil respiration previously collected from 77 plots at 10 study sites located within Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GDS) [35], Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (PLNWR) [18, 33], Great Dismal Swamp Mitigation Bank Timberlake Restoration Project (TLRP) [19], and North Carolina State University Hofmann Forest (HF) [41] were included in our analysis (Table 1). Peatland sites included in our study represented a range of peat characteristics (Table 2). Land-use history and land management practices at each location are described in the Supplementary Information (Additional file 1). Site selection was based on availability of original data for analysis in this study and for consistency in data collection methods across sites. At each site, measurements were collected once every month to two months over partially overlapping study periods spanning eleven years (2007–2017). In all studies, total soil respiration was measured as soil-to-atmosphere CO2 flux from in situ dynamic or static, opaque chambers. Dynamic chambers were used at GDS (Los Gatos Research Ultra-Portable Greenhouse Gas Analyzer, San Jose, California; 35) and HF (EGM-4, SRC-1, PP Systems International, Inc., Amesbury, Massachusetts, USA; 41). At TLRP gas samples were collected from static chambers and analyzed on a Shimadzu 17A gas chromatograph [19]. At PLNWR CO2 fluxes were measured with a portable infrared gas analyzer (LiCor–6400–XT, Nebraska, USA; 33) from 2011 to 2013 and from 2016 to 2017 gas samples collected from static chambers were analyzed using a GC2014 Shimadzu gas chromatograph [18]. At all sites three to four replicate chambers were installed at each plot. Chamber placement excluded large trees and shrubs, and any herbaceous vegetation within chambers was clipped to the ground prior to measurement of CO2 flux. Therefore, CO2 flux measurements do not include plant uptake and should be interpreted as total soil respiration. Measurements of soil temperature and water table level were collected nearby at the same time as measurements of soil respiration. At TLRP soil temperature was measured at 5 cm and at all other locations at 10 cm. Water table level measurements were ordinarily collected from wells adjacent to chambers, but at GDS water table level measurements were obtained from continuously monitored U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) groundwater wells installed at sampling plots.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Geographic locations of peatland study sites in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. Boxed area within inset shows region within the United States. Study site locations are marked by circles. Peatlands are indicated by grey areas (Source: 1). GDS: Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge; PLNWR: Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge; TLRP: Great Dismal Swamp Mitigation Bank Timberlake Restoration Project; HF: Hofmann Forest

Full size image
Table 1 Location, measurement period and mean annual precipitation (mm), mean maximum (Max TA) and minimum (Min TA) daily air temperature (oC) during the measurement period, drainage status, dominant vegetation, number of plots and observations (n), and associated study at peatland sites in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia
Full size table
Table 2 Peat bulk density (BD), total carbon (C) content (%) and carbon to nitrogen ratio (CN) at peatland locations in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia
Full size table

At PLNWR, during the study period from April 2016 to October 2017, hydrological conditions at one site were restored in March 2017 (P-R-2), decreasing depth to water table by 65% compared to pre-restoration conditions [18]. One additional site at PLNWR was restored circa 1990 (P-R-1). At TLRP and HF restored sites water tables were raised to mimic pre-drainage levels in 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Statistical analysis

Annual total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil respiration were calculated for each plot using linear interpolation between measurement dates. Mean annual values were computed for multi-year studies. Site-level means were calculated by averaging the plot-level means. We used the Kruskal–Wallis test to compare mean annual total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil temperature among locations in drained (GDS, HF, PLNWR) and restored (HF, PLNWR, TLRP) peatlands. At locations with more than one site, the average of site-level values was calculated and error was propagated using the Gaussian error propagation method. We used the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test to compare total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil temperature in drained and restored peatlands using the mean annual site-level values (n = 6 and n = 4 for drained and restored peatlands, respectively).

To test for relationships among total soil respiration, water table level, and soil temperature within and across drained and restored sites we used simple regression using the monthly observations at each plot. We used multiple regression to investigate the combined influence of water table level and soil temperature on soil respiration across drained and restored sites. The response variable, total soil respiration, was transformed to meet normality and homoscedastic variance assumptions of ordinary least squares regression [43]. Since we had no a priori reason for selecting a specific transformation, we used the Box-Cox procedure for estimating the best transformation [44]. The result (λ = 0.25) is equivalent to the quadratic root transformation. This type of transformation is useful when the variance of the dependent variable is not independent of the mean [43] as was the case with our data.

The datasets from the four geographic locations included observations where only water table level (n = 709) or only soil temperature (n = 693) was measured concurrently with total soil respiration, as well as observations where both water table level and soil temperature were measured at the same time as total soil respiration (n = 583). For multiple linear regression, we used only observations where both water table level and soil temperature were measured concurrently with soil respiration. We selected a subset (n = 10) of concurrent measurements of soil respiration, water table level, and soil temperature at P-R-2 to withhold from regression analysis to test the univariate and multiple regression models. The subset was selected to cover the range of typical climatic conditions over a calendar year. Therefore, the models relating total soil respiration to water table level, to soil temperature, and to the combined influence of water table level and soil respiration, were trained with 699, 683, and 573 observations, respectively.

We used mixed-design Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to investigate potential effects of drainage status and location on the relationships among total soil respiration, water table level, and soil temperature [43]. We treated location (TLRP, HF, PLNWR, GDS) as a random effect nested within drainage status (drained, restored). All statistical analyses were computed using R Statistical Software (v4.2.0; 45). We set α equal to 0.05 for all tests of significance.

Results

Variation in total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil temperature

Total soil respiration rates measured over the study periods at the four locations ranged from 0.6 mg CO2 m−2 h−1 (TLRP, Apr 2009) to 2.4 g CO2 m−2 h−1 (HF, Jul 2012). Depth to water table ranged from 212.6 cm below the soil surface (GDS, Sep 2015) to 57 cm above the soil surface (TLRP, Jun 2009) while soil temperature ranged from 3.9 °C (TLRP, Jan 2008) to 42.2 °C (HF, Jul 2011). The extremely high soil temperature measurement in a drained, deforested peatland at HF in July 2011 coincided with a historic heat wave in the continental United States [46].

Table 3 presents mean annual total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil temperature at each site contributing data to model development as well as mean values in drained and restored peatlands at each location. Mean annual total soil respiration ranged from 20.8 Mg CO2 ha−1 yr−1 (P-R-1 and TLRP) to 71.2 Mg CO2 ha−1 yr−1 (H-R). At the restored forested site at HF (H-R) soil respiration was approximately three times greater than soil respiration at restored other sites, and it tended to be greater than the drained site with herbaceous vegetation cover at the same location (Table 3). Mean annual depth to water table ranged from 86.2 cm (GDS3) to 7.9 cm (TLRP). Mean annual depth to water table was significantly less at TLRP compared to restored sites at HF and PLNWR (Table 3). Mean annual soil temperature ranged from 15.0 °C (G-D-P) to 22.9 °C (P-R-2). Soil temperature measured at TLRP fell within this range, indicating that the impact of differences in measurement depth on soil temperature was negligible (Table 3). Soil temperature at HF was significantly higher at HF drained site compared to other drained sites.

Table 3 Mean annual total soil respiration (Mg CO2 ha−1 yr−1), depth to water table (cm), and soil temperature (oC) measured in peatland study sites in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia
Full size table

Mean annual depth to water table was greater in drained (66.0 ± 7.4 cm) than restored plots (29.6 ± 18.7 cm) (p = 0.04) but drainage status did not have a significant effect on total soil respiration or soil temperature (Table 4).

Table 4 Mean annual total soil respiration (Mg CO2 ha−1 yr−1), depth to water table (cm), and soil temperature (oC) in drained and restored peatlands in the southeastern United States
Full size table

Relationships between total soil respiration and environmental drivers

Relationships among total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil temperature are presented in Fig. 2. In drained and restored peatlands, total soil respiration increased as depth to water table increased (Fig. 2a). Total soil respiration increased with increasing soil temperature, peaking at 25 °C and decreasing at higher temperatures (Fig. 2b). Total soil respiration was more tightly linked to water table depth in restored than drained peatlands (Fig. 2a) while the opposite was true for soil temperature (Fig. 2b). The temperature sensitivity (Q10) of total soil respiration tended to increase with increasing average annual depth to water table (Additional file 1: Fig. S2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Power-transformed total soil respiration as a function of water table (a) and soil temperature (b) measured in drained and restored peatlands. Total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil temperature were measured in drained and restored peatlands at four locations in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia from 2007 to 2017. All coefficients are significant at P < 0.0001

Full size image

The relationship between total soil respiration and depth to water table level was functionally different for drained and restored peatlands (ANCOVA, p = 0.002). Likewise, drainage status was a significant factor in the model relating total soil respiration to soil temperature (ANCOVA, p < 0.0001). Location was a significant factor in both models, indicating that the relationships among total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil temperature differed among locations (ANCOVA, p < 0.0001 for both models).

When drained and restored peatlands were considered collectively, variation in soil respiration was not well explained by depth to water table (Fig. 2a) or soil temperature (Fig. 2b) alone. Together water table level and soil temperature explained 41% of the variation in power-transformed total soil respiration (p < 0.0001, n = 573) across drained and restored peatlands. Variance inflation factors (VIF) were equal to 1.0 for both independent variables in the multiple regression model.

Discussion

Linking total soil respiration to water table depth and soil temperature

Total soil respiration increased with increasing depth to water table and increasing temperature in drained and restored peatlands at three locations in eastern North Carolina and one location in southeastern Virginia, in agreement with previous studies in the region (34, 47—48). The strength of the relationship between soil respiration and soil temperature was enhanced in drained peatlands where soil temperature explained more variation in soil respiration than water table level (Fig. 2). This result, together with a trend towards rising temperature sensitivity of total soil respiration to soil temperature, or Q10, with increasing annual average water table depth (Additional file 1: Fig. S2), suggests that increasing drainage intensity amplifies peatland vulnerability to warming temperatures. This is an important finding of this meta-analysis that spanned a broad range of sites, implying exponential growth in future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands with global warming projections [49]. On the other hand, conservation of intact peatlands and restoration of drained peatlands may protect peatland soil carbon stocks from warming temperatures [50], offering climate benefits by avoiding increased CO2 emissions from peatlands in the future.

A reduction in depth to water table, as occurred during hydrologic restoration, increases water-filled pore space throughout the soil profile, imposing oxygen constraints on aerobic microbial respiration [51]. Indeed, depth to water table was a more important control on total soil respiration than soil temperature in restored peatlands (Fig. 2a, b), with soil respiration responding more strongly to changes in depth to water table in restored than drained peatland. SOM quality influences peat decomposition rate (52,53,54), and drained peats may have had a higher ratio of recalcitrant to labile carbon compounds than restored peats due to advanced peat decomposition after many years of drainage (Table 1), making them less sensitive to changes in depth to water table. Fires, which are more frequent in drained peatlands, also degrade SOM quality, creating recalcitrant “black carbon” at the soil surface [55, 56]. Wetland conversion and restoration also alters soil microbial communities [36, 37] which may influence the response of soil respiration to variation in physical drivers [57].

While direct comparison of restored sites to equivalent drained sites in southeastern U.S. peatlands indicates that raising water table levels reduces total soil respiration rates [18, 19], our experimental design did not control for the impact of variation in environmental variables such as peat chemistry and vegetation among locations and sites and inter-annual variation in precipitation and temperature on soil respiration. While mean annual depth to water table was greater in drained than restored plots, mean annual total soil respiration and soil temperature in drained and restored plots were not significantly different (Table 4), indicating that other factors such as differences in vegetation (Table 1) and peat chemistry (Table 2), that differed among locations, influenced soil respiration in addition to depth to water table and soil temperature. Indeed, location was a significant factor in ANCOVA. Total soil respiration also tended to be higher overall at HF compared to other locations, which may have been related to hotter and drier climatic conditions during the measurement period at this site compared to other sites included in our analysis (Table 1). At HF, total soil respiration tended to be greater in the forested restored site than the drained site with herbaceous vegetation cover (Table 3). This was likely due to a larger contribution of autotrophic respiration from forest vegetation compared to herbaceous vegetation in drained plots, as soil respiration has been found to be correlated with leaf area index and aboveground litterfall in peat-forming ecosystems [58]. Declining heterotrophic respiration has been linked to decreases in peat C:N ratio in simulations of drained tropical peatlands [59] and low peat C:N ratio at the restored TLRP site may have driven low total soil respiration rates in addition to high water table levels. By aggregating data from different locations and measurement periods (Table 1), we sampled a range of environmental conditions, thereby capturing the influence of a wide range of climatic conditions and variation in SOM substrate quality and vegetation on rates of peat decomposition.

Estimating CO2 emissions from peat decomposition

Raising water table levels in drained peatlands of the southeastern United States has been identified as an important mechanism for reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions [16]. Carbon offset markets can provide partial financing for hydrological restoration, but robust methods to estimate net GHG impacts are needed to quantify the atmospheric benefit of restoration to justify funding. Using models presented here, researchers and managers can estimate total soil respiration based on parameters that are easily measured and monitored in the field, partition model outputs to estimate the contribution of heterotrophic respiration from peat decomposition, and thereby contemplate potential climate change mitigation benefits of peatland hydrological restoration without having to undertake complex GHG flux assessments.

Complete peat CO2 budgets considering all sources of C inputs (litterfall and root mortality) and outputs (heterotrophic respiration and lateral carbon transport) are needed to assess the net impact of peatland drainage and hydrological restoration on peat CO2 emissions [60]. In addition, peatland drainage and restoration impact non-CO2 emissions (CH4, N2O) [8, 24, 61] as well as C storage in aboveground and belowground vegetation [62]. Our results also do not account for GHG emissions from CH4 or N2O, two potent greenhouse gases that are produced under anaerobic or transitional conditions in peatland soils [61, 63]. Further research can help to determine GHG emissions from CH4 and N2O as well as the influence of fluctuating C inputs to peat soil from litterfall and root mortality and C leaching. Nonetheless, empirical models relating soil respiration rates to environmental drivers could help to significantly decrease costs of quantifying the benefits of peatland restoration on CO2 emissions from peat decomposition, because direct measurements of soil respiration are time consuming and expensive. For example, according to the model relating total soil respiration to water table level presented here (Fig. 2a), extrapolating hourly fluxes to a full year, and applying a global average partitioning ratio to estimate the contribution of heterotrophic respiration (50%, 64), raising the mean annual depth to water table from 60 to 10 cm over an area of 500 ha would reduce CO2 emissions from peat soil by roughly 5000 Mg CO2e over a period of two years. At a price of 5 USD per Mg on the voluntary market [65], and accounting for buffer contributions to mitigate non-permanence risk, these credits could generate around 25,000 USD to fund restoration. The cost of measuring CO2 emissions at P-D-2 and P-R-2 for two years was approximately 90,000 USD (including personnel costs, travel to field sites, static chamber construction, and gas sample analyses). Equipment that can measure water table level and soil temperature can now be purchased for approximately 3000 USD. Though there will still be personnel costs associated with field deployment and data downloads, this represents a substantial cost reduction for land managers interested in using proxy measurements to estimate reductions in CO2 emissions from peat soil from peatland restoration.

With Mean Bias Error (MBE) < 0, the water table, soil temperature, and combined models all underestimated total soil respiration at P-R-2 (Additional file 1: Fig. S1), a site that had active restoration and relatively high rates of total soil respiration among the sites (Table 3). Nonetheless, large-scale application of the model across geographic locations, land use histories, and drainage would generate a largely unbiased estimate of reductions in CO2 emissions resulting from hydrological restoration (Additional file 1: Fig. S1). Our power-transformed model notably underestimated total soil respiration when observed values were larger than 1 g CO2 m−1 h−1 (Additional file 1: Fig. S1). However, in our dataset representing a decade of peatland measurements across two states, only 7.4% of total soil respiration observations were greater than 1 g CO2 m−1 h−1 and only 2.4% were greater than 1.5 g CO2 m−1 h−1. Therefore, our model performs adequately in 92.6% of conditions measured regionally over multiple years. In addition to functional differences in the relationships among total soil respiration, depth to water table, and soil temperature in drained and restored peatlands, differences amongst locations influenced variation in the response of soil respiration to physical drivers. Further refinement of the models presented in this study could reduce uncertainty in estimates of reduced CO2 emissions from peat decomposition resulting from hydrological restoration of drained peatlands. In particular, increased understanding of the influence of changes in peat chemistry and fluctuations in soil moisture in surface layers in drained and restored peatlands could improve model accuracy. Additional areas for improvement include studies that partition soil respiration into heterotrophic and autotrophic components in peatlands of the southeastern U.S. coastal plain as well as measurements of all peat C inputs and outputs to generate full net peat CO2 budgets.

Conclusions

Peatland restoration can contribute to nature-based solutions to mitigate climate change, while providing other benefits such as wildlife habitat, flood protection, and water quality improvements and catastrophic wildfire risk reduction. Our results suggest that drained peatlands in the southeastern United States are more vulnerable to warming temperatures than hydrologically restored peatlands. Applying models developed in this study with partitioning ratios to estimate the heterotrophic contribution to total soil respiration, water table level and soil temperature can be monitored to estimate the reductions in CO2 emissions from peat decomposition generated by hydrological restoration. Additional research on drivers of heterotrophic respiration in peatlands across the southeastern U.S. coastal plain could further reduce uncertainty in emissions from drained peatlands and the potential reduction in CO2 emissions generated by peatland restoration. Full accounting of GHG benefits, however, includes all emissions, sources, and sinks along with CO2 emissions from heterotrophic respiration. Growth in carbon offset markets could increase funding available for peatland restoration, and accurate estimates of GHG emission reductions resulting from raising water table levels in drained peatlands are important components of these initiatives.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the Harvard Dataverse repository, https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/QSMOI8

References

  1. Xu J, Morris PJ, Liu J, Holden J. PEATMAP: Refining estimates of global peatland distribution based on a meta-analysis. CATENA. 2018;1(160):134–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yu Z, Loisel J, Brosseau DP, Beilman DW, Hunt SJ. Global peatland dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophy Res lett. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV. Stocks and fluxes of carbon associated with land use change in Southeast Asian tropical peatlands: A review. Global Biogeochem Cyc. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hergoualc’h K, Verchot LV. Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use and land-use change in Southeast Asian peatlands. Mitig Adapt Strate Global Change. 2014;19(6):789–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hergoualc’h K, Hendry DT, Murdiyarso D, Verchot LV. Total and heterotrophic soil respiration in a swamp forest and oil palm plantations on peat in Central Kalimantan Indonesia. Biogeochemistry. 2017;5(3):203–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tiemeyer B, Albiac Borraz E, Augustin J, Bechtold M, Beetz S, Beyer C, Drösler M, Ebli M, Eickenscheidt T, Fiedler S, Förster C. High emissions of greenhouse gases from grasslands on peat and other organic soils. Glob Change Biol. 2016;22(12):4134–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Frolking S, Talbot J, Jones MC, Treat CC, Kauffman JB, Tuittila ES, Roulet N. Peatlands in the Earth’s 21st century climate system. Environ Rev. 2011;371:96.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Leifeld J, Menichetti L. The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Leifeld J, Wüst-Galley C, Page S. Intact and managed peatland soils as a source and sink of GHGs from 1850 to 2100. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9(12):945–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Le Quéré C, Andrew RM, Friedlingstein P, Sitch S, Pongratz J, Manning AC, Korsbakken JI, Peters GP, Canadell JG, Jackson RB, Boden TA. Global carbon budget 2017. Earth Sys Sci Data. 2018;10(1):405–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Evans CD, Peacock M, Baird AJ, Artz RR, Burden A, Callaghan N, Chapman PJ, Cooper HM, Coyle M, Craig E, Cumming A. Overriding water table control on managed peatland greenhouse gas emissions. Nature. 2021;593(7860):548–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Richardson CJ. Pocosins: hydrologically isolated or integrated wetlands on the landscape? Wetlands. 2003;23(3):563–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carter LJ. Agriculture: a new frontier in coastal North Carolina. Science. 1975;189(4199):271–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Richardson CJ. Pocosins: evergreen shrub bogs of the southeast. Wetland Habit North America: Ecol Conserv Conc. 2021;189:202.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Richardson CJ. Pocosins: vanishing wastelands or valuable wetlands? Bioscience. 1983;33(10):626–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fargione JE, Bassett S, Boucher T, Bridgham SD, Conant RT, Cook-Patton SC, Ellis PW, Falcucci A, Fourqurean JW, Gopalakrishna T, Gu H. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci Adv. 2018;4(11):eaat1869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mack SK, Lane RR, Cowan R, Cole JW. Status and challenges of wetlands in carbon markets. Wetland Carbon Environ Manag. 2021;19:411–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Armstrong L, Peralta A, Krauss KW, Cormier N, Moss RF, Soderholm E, McCall A, Pickens C, Ardón M. Hydrologic restoration decreases greenhouse gas emissions from shrub bog peatlands in Southeastern US. Wetlands. 2022;42(7):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Morse JL, Ardón M, Bernhardt ES. Greenhouse gas fluxes in southeastern US coastal plain wetlands under contrasting land uses. Ecol Appl. 2012;22(1):264–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang H, Ho M, Flanagan N, Richardson CJ. The effects of hydrological management on methane emissions from southeastern shrub bogs of the USA. Wetlands. 2021;41(7):1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Davidson SJ, Strack M, Bourbonniere RA, Waddington JM. Controls on soil carbon dioxide and methane fluxes from a peat swamp vary by hydrogeomorphic setting. Ecohydrology. 2019;12(8): e2162.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Strack M, Waddington JM. Response of peatland carbon dioxide and methane fluxes to a water table drawdown experiment. Global Biogeochem Cyc. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Strack M, Keith AM, Xu B. Growing season carbon dioxide and methane exchange at a restored peatland on the Western Boreal Plain. Ecol Eng. 2014;1(64):231–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huang Y, Ciais P, Luo Y, Zhu D, Wang Y, Qiu C, Goll DS, Guenet B, Makowski D, De Graaf I, Leifeld J. Tradeoff of CO2 and CH4 emissions from global peatlands under water-table drawdown. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(7):618–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Poulter B, Christensen NL Jr, Halpin PN. Carbon emissions from a temperate peat fire and its relevance to interannual variability of trace atmospheric greenhouse gases. J Geophy Res Atmosp. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rappold AG, Cascio WE, Kilaru VJ, Stone SL, Neas LM, Devlin RB, Diaz-Sanchez D. Cardio-respiratory outcomes associated with exposure to wildfire smoke are modified by measures of community health. Environ Health. 2012;11(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schulte ML, McLaughlin DL, Wurster FC, Balentine K, Speiran GK, Aust WM, Stewart RD, Varner JM, Jones CN. Linking ecosystem function and hydrologic regime to inform restoration of a forested peatland. J Environ Manage. 2019;1(233):342–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ardon M, Morse JL, Doyle MW, Bernhardt ES. The water quality consequences of restoring wetland hydrology to a large agricultural watershed in the southeastern coastal plain. Ecosystems. 2010;13(7):1060–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Richardson CJ, McCarthy EJ. Effect of land development and forest management on hydrologic response in southeastern coastal wetlands: a review. Wetlands. 1994;14(1):56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bourgault MA, Larocque M, Garneau M. Quantification of peatland water storage capacity using the water table fluctuation method. Hydrol Process. 2017;31(5):1184–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. American Carbon Registry. 2017. Methodology for the quantification, monitoring, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and removals from restoration of pocosin wetlands. Version 1.0. https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/greenhouse-gas-benefitsof-pocosin-restoration.

  32. Hirano T, Jauhiainen J, Inoue T, Takahashi H. Controls on the carbon balance of tropical peatlands. Ecosystems. 2009;12(6):873–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang H, Richardson CJ, Ho M. Dual controls on carbon loss during drought in peatlands. Nat Clim Chang. 2015;5(6):584–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bridgham SD, Richardson CJ. Mechanisms controlling soil respiration (CO2 and CH4) in southern peatlands. Soil Biol Biochem. 1992;24(11):1089–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gutenberg L, Krauss KW, Qu JJ, Ahn C, Hogan D, Zhu Z, Xu C. Carbon dioxide emissions and methane flux from forested wetland soils of the great dismal swamp, USA. Environ Manage. 2019;64(2):190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kluber LA, Miller JO, Ducey TF, Hunt PG, Lang M, Ro KS. Multistate assessment of wetland restoration on CO2 and N2O emissions and soil bacterial communities. Appl Soil Ecol. 2014;1(76):87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Drexler JZ, Fuller CC, Orlando J, Salas A, Wurster FC, Duberstein JA. Estimation and uncertainty of recent carbon accumulation and vertical accretion in drained and undrained forested peatlands of the southeastern USA. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2017;122(10):2563–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Raich JW, Tufekciogul A. Vegetation and soil respiration: correlations and controls. Biogeochemistry. 2000;48(1):71–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Warner DL, Bond-Lamberty B, Jian J, Stell E, Vargas R. Spatial predictions and associated uncertainty of annual soil respiration at the global scale. Global Biogeochem Cyc. 2019;33(12):1733–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Swails E, Hergoualc’h K, Verchot L, Novita N, Lawrence D. Spatio-temporal variability of peat CH4 and N2O fluxes and their contribution to peat GHG budgets in Indonesian forests and oil palm plantations. Front Environ Sci. 2021;9(6):17828.

    Google Scholar 

  41. O’Doherty C 2013 An assessment of soil carbon dioxide respiration and environmental influences for undisturbed, drained and restored wetlands. Masters thesis. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

  42. Stricker CA, Drexler JZ, Thorn KA, Duberstein JA, Rossman S. Carbon chemistry of intact versus chronically drained peatlands in the southeastern USA. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2019;124(9):2751–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry. 4th ed. New York (US): W.H. Freeman and Company, 2012.

  44. Box GE, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (Methodol). 1964;26(2):211–43.

    Google Scholar 

  45. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria; 2022. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.

  46. Wang H, Schubert S, Koster R, Ham YG, Suarez M. On the role of SST forcing in the 2011 and 2012 extreme US heat and drought: a study in contrasts. J Hydrometeorol. 2014;15(3):1255–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Miao G, Noormets A, Domec JC, Trettin CC, McNulty SG, Sun G, King JS. The effect of water table fluctuation on soil respiration in a lower coastal plain forested wetland in the southeastern US. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. 2013;118(4):1748–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Miao G, Noormets A, Domec JC, Fuentes M, Trettin CC, Sun G, McNulty SG, King JS. Hydrology and microtopography control carbon dynamics in wetlands: Implications in partitioning ecosystem respiration in a coastal plain forested wetland. Agric For Meteorol. 2017;15(247):343–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y, Goldfarb L, Gomis MI, Huang M. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change 2021

  50. Deshmukh CS, Julius D, Desai AR, Asyhari A, Page SE, Nardi N, Susanto AP, Nurholis N, Hendrizal M, Kurnianto S, Suardiwerianto Y. Conservation slows down emission increase from a tropical peatland in Indonesia. Nat Geosci. 2021;14(7):484–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Reddy KR, DeLaune RD. Biogeochemistry of wetlands: science and applications. CRC press 2008

  52. Scanlon D, Moore T. Carbon dioxide production from peatland soil profiles: the influence of temperature, oxic/anoxic conditions and substrate. Soil Sci. 2000;165(2):153–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Sjögersten S, Caul S, Daniell TJ, Jurd AP, O’Sullivan OS, Stapleton CS, Titman JJ. Organic matter chemistry controls greenhouse gas emissions from permafrost peatlands. Soil Biol Biochem. 2016;1(98):42–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Swails E, Jaye D, Verchot L, Hergoualc’h K, Schirrmann M, Borchard N, Wahyuni N, Lawrence D. Will CO2 emissions from drained tropical peatlands decline over time? Links between soil organic matter quality, nutrients, and C mineralization rates. Ecosystems. 2018;21(5):868–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. González-Pérez JA, González-Vila FJ, Almendros G, Knicker H. The effect of fire on soil organic matter—a review. Environ Int. 2004;30(6):855–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Singh N, Abiven S, Torn MS, Schmidt MW. Fire-derived organic carbon in soil turns over on a centennial scale. Biogeosciences. 2012;9(8):2847–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Dhandapani S, Ritz K, Evers S, Yule CM, Sjögersten S. Are secondary forests second-rate? comparing peatland greenhouse gas emissions, chemical and microbial community properties between primary and secondary forests in Peninsular Malaysia. Sci Total Environ. 2019;10(655):220–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lovelock CE. Soil respiration and belowground carbon allocation in mangrove forests. Ecosystems. 2008;11(2):342–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Swails E, Hergoualc’h K, Deng J, Frolking S, Novita N. How can process-based modeling improve peat CO2 and N2O emission factors for oil palm plantations? Sci Total Environ. 2022;21: 156153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Drösler M, Verchot LV, Freibauer A, Pan G, Evans CD, Bourbonniere RA, Alm JP, Page S, Agus F, Hergoualc'h K, Couwenberg J. Drained inland organic soils. In2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands: Methodological Guidance on Lands with Wet and Drained Soils, and Constructed Wetlands forWastewater Treatment 2014. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  61. Pärn J, Verhoeven JT, Butterbach-Bahl K, Dise NB, Ullah S, Aasa A, Egorov S, Espenberg M, Järveoja J, Jauhiainen J, Kasak K. Nitrogen-rich organic soils under warm well-drained conditions are global nitrous oxide emission hotspots. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sleeter R, Sleeter BM, Williams B, Hogan D, Hawbaker T, Zhu Z. A carbon balance model for the great dismal swamp ecosystem. Carbon Balance Manage. 2017;12(1):1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Strack M, Waddington JM, Tuittila ES. Effect of water table drawdown on northern peatland methane dynamics: Implications for climate change. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bond-Lamberty B, Wang C, Gower ST. A global relationship between the heterotrophic and autotrophic components of soil respiration? Glob Change Biol. 2004;10(10):1756–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Donofrio S, Maguire P, Merry W, Zwick S. Financing Emission Reductions for the Future: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2019 Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace Washington DC: Forest Trends. 2019.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the U.S. Geological Survey Land Carbon Program for supporting these research-management partnerships at Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Great Dismal Swamp NWR. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TerraCarbon LLC, Peoria, IL, USA

    E. E. Swails, D. Shoch & S. Settlemyer

  2. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    M. Ardón

  3. U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Lafayette, LA, USA

    K. W. Krauss & N. Cormier

  4. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

    A. L. Peralta

  5. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    R. E. Emanuel

  6. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

    A. M. Helton

  7. Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    J. L. Morse

  8. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    L. Gutenberg

  9. School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    N. Cormier

  10. The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Chapter, Durham, NC, USA

    E. Soderholm, B. P. Boutin & C. Peoples

  11. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, Raleigh, NC, USA

    S. Ward

  12. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia

    E. E. Swails

Authors
  1. E. E. Swails
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Ardón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. W. Krauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. L. Peralta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. E. Emanuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. M. Helton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. L. Morse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L. Gutenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. N. Cormier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. D. Shoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. S. Settlemyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. E. Soderholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. B. P. Boutin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. C. Peoples
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. S. Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Contributed to conception and design: EES, DS, CP, KWK, NC, MA. Contributed to acquisition of data: AMH, JLM, LG, ES, HP, SW, NC, MA. Contributed to analysis and interpretation of data: ES, MA, ALP, REE, AMH, JLM, KWK. Drafted and/or revised the article: EES, MA, ALP, REE, AMH, JLM, DS, SS, BPB, KWK, NC. Approved the submitted version for publication: EES, MA, ALP, REE, AMH, JLM, LG, DS, SS, ES, BPB, CP, SW, NC, KWK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. E. Swails.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to Carbon Balance and Management.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Total soil respiration predicted by depth to water table (CO2, g m-2 hr-1 ^0.25, = -0.0017 * depth to water table, cm + 0.63) (a), soil temperature (CO2, g m-2 hr-1 ^0.25, = -0.00094 * soil temperature, oC^2 + 0.049 * soil temperature, oC + 0.18) (b) and combined water table level and soil temperature (CO2, g m-2 hr-1 ^0.25 = 0.0016 * depth to water table, cm - 0.00077 * soil temperature, oC^2 + 0.040 * soil temperature, oC + 0.21) (c) versus observed values of total soil respiration. Black circles: Testing data withheld from model development (n = 10); Grey crosses: full dataset for model development. Figure S2. Q10 and mean annual depth to water table in drained and restored peatlands in the southeastern United States.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swails, E.E., Ardón, M., Krauss, K.W. et al. Response of soil respiration to changes in soil temperature and water table level in drained and restored peatlands of the southeastern United States. Carbon Balance Manage 17, 18 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-022-00219-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-022-00219-5

Keywords

Carbon Balance and Management

ISSN: 1750-0680

Contact us