Hawliau Cyffredinol / General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Abstract. Drained peatlands are significant hotspots of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and may also be more vulnerable to fire with its associated gaseous emissions. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from peatlands managed for extraction are reported on an annual basis. However, the Tier 1 (default) emission factors (EFs) provided in the IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement for this land use category may not be representative in all cases and countries are encouraged to move to highertier reporting levels with reduced uncertainty levels based on country-or regional-specific data. In this study, we quantified (1) CO 2 -C emissions from nine peat extraction sites in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, which were initially disaggregated by land use type (industrial versus domestic peat extraction), and (2) a range of GHGs that are released to the atmosphere with the burning of peat. Drainagerelated methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions as well as CO 2 -C emissions associated with the off-site decomposition of horticultural peat were not included here. Our results show that net CO 2 -C emissions were strongly controlled by soil temperature at the industrial sites (bare peat) and by soil temperature and leaf area index at the vegetated domestic sites. Our derived EFs of 1.70 (±0.47) and 1.64 (±0.44) t CO 2 -C ha −1 yr −1 for the industrial and domestic sites respectively are considerably lower than the Tier 1 EF (2.8 ± 1.7 t CO 2 -C ha −1 yr −1 ) provided in the Wetlands Supplement. We propose that the difference between our derived values and the Wetlands Supplement value is due to differences in peat quality and, consequently, decomposition rates. Emissions from burning of the peat (g kg −1 dry fuel burned) were estimated to be approximately 1346 CO 2 , 8.35 methane (CH 4 ), 218 carbon monoxide (CO), 1.53 ethane (C 2 H 6 ), 1.74 ethylene (C 2 H 4 ), 0.60 methanol (CH 3 OH), 2.21 hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and 0.73 ammonia (NH 3 ), and this emphasises the importance of understanding the full suite of trace gas emissions from biomass burning. Our results highlight the importance of generating reliable Tier 2 values for different regions and land use categories. Furthermore, given that the IPCC Tier 1 EF was only based on 20 sites (all from Canada and Fennoscandia), we suggest that data from another 9 sites significantly expand the global data set, as well as adding a new region.

This study aimed to measure the effects of ecological restoration on blanket peat water in and around the gullies investigated whereas a blocked gully has water table depths comparable to a naturally revegetating gully. A 10 cm lowering in water table depth decreases the probability of observing a net CO2 sink, on a given site, by up to 30 %. The most i mportant conclusion of this research was that restoration interventions are effective at increasing the likelihood of net CO2 sink behaviour and raising water tables on degraded, climatically marginal blanket bog.

UK peatlands are affected by severe gully erosion with consequent impacts on ecosystem services from these areas. Incision into the peat can damage the vegetation and hydrology and lead to increases in carbon loss and sediment transfer downstream. Gullies represent then a conduit for and a hotspot of carbon loss but the relatively high water tables of gullies have meant that they have been identified as areas with a high restoration potential because of easily restored peat‐forming conditions. This study uses a series of gully sites, subject to different restoration interventions, to investigate differences in carbon pathways (DOC, CO2) and hydrology between restoration strategies and gully position. The results show that the position within the gully (interfluve, gully side, or gully floor) does not significantly affect water quality but that it plays a significant role in CO2 exchange. Gully floors are areas of high photosynthesis and ecosystem respiration, though net ecosystem exchange is not significantly different across the gully. While gully position plays a role in the cycling of some carbon species, this study highlights the importance of vegetation as a key control on carbon cycling. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Given continuing concern about rising concentrations of dissolved organic carbon 9 (DOC) in stream water leaving peat-covered catchments this study has 10 considered the impact of managed burning or cutting of Calluna vulgaris, a 11 dominant vegetation cover in many UK peatlands. The study considered pristine 12 mature Calluna stands in comparison to those that had been subject to cutting 13 and or managed burning up to 5 years after intervention. The study measured the 14 DOC concentration of both soil and surface runoff water over a period of 12 15 months in comparison to water ii) The DOC concentration of surface runoff water wa s not significantly 21 different (p < 0.05) between any of treatments and the control; 22iii) The DOC concentration in soil water significantly (p < 0.05) decreased 23 with both burning and cutting but that these differences could be 24 explained by differences in water table and soil water conductivity. 25

8This study seeks to address the proposition that the canopy height of Calluna vulgaris is a measure of 9 the CO2 balance of heathlands on ombrotrophic peatlands and thus can be used as an objective tool to 10 define when to manage (typically by prescribed burning) heathlands. To test this idea a monthly dataset 11 of CO2 flux and associated environmental variables was gathered from three localities in the South 12Pennines and the Peak District National Park of northern England between 2007 and 2010, covering a 13 range of C. vulgaris canopy heights. It was found that both gross fluxes of CO2 (ecosystem respiration 14 and photosynthesis) were modelled best by models incorporating a dependence on canopy height. 15

Abstract. Drained peatlands are significant hotspots of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and may also be more vulnerable to fire with its associated gaseous emissions. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from peatlands managed for extraction are reported on an annual basis. However, the Tier 1 (default) emission factors (EFs) provided in the IPCC 2013 Wetlands Supplement for this land use category may not be representative in all cases and countries are encouraged to move to higher Tier reporting levels with reduced uncertainty levels based on country or regional specific data. In this study, we quantified (1) CO2-C emissions from 9 peat extraction sites in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, which were initially disaggregated by land use type (industrial vs. domestic peat extraction), and (2) a range of GHGs that are released to the atmosphere with the burning of peat. CO2-C emissions were strongly controlled by soil temperature at the industrial sites (bare peat), and by soil temperature and leaf area index at the vegetated domestic sites. Our derived EFs of 1.70 (±0.47) and 1.64 (±0.44) t CO2-C ha−1 yr−1 for the industrial and domestic sites respectively, are considerably lower than the Tier 1 EF (2.8 ± 1.7 t CO2-C ha−1 yr−1) provided in the Wetlands Supplement. We propose that the difference between our derived values and the Wetlands Supplement value is due to differences in peat quality and, consequently, decomposition rates. Emissions from burning of the peat (g kg−1 dry fuel burned) were estimated to be approximately 1346 (CO2), 8.35 (methane, CH4), 218 (carbon monoxide, CO), 1.53 (ethane, C2H6), 1.74 (ethylene, C2H4), 0.60 (methanol, CH3OH), 2.21 (hydrogen cyanide, HCN) and 0.73 (ammonia, NH3) and emphasises the importance of understanding the full suite of trace gas emissions from biomass burning, rather than focussing solely on CO2 and CH4 emissions. Our results highlight the importance of generating reliable Tier 2 values for different regions and land-use categories. Furthermore, given that the IPCC Tier 1 EF was only based on 20 sites (all from Canada/Fenno-Scandia) we suggest that data from another 9 sites significantly expands the global dataset, as well as adding a new region.

No abstract