Effect of in-Situ Gas Accumulation on the Hydraulic Conductivity of Peat

Reynolds, W. D.; Brown, D. Ann; Mathur, Shivani; Overend, R. P.

doi:10.1097/00010694-199205000-00007

Cited by 70 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The well known low hydraulic conductivity of subsurface peat, despite high porosities and low bulk densities has been considered as an inexplicable fact for a long time. However, a recent study showed a high negative correlation between an increase in anaerobe-generated methane concentration and a decrease in hydraulic conductivity (Reynolds et al, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Concentration and chemical species of iron in soils from groundwater/surface water ecotones

Norrström¹

1995

Hydrological Sciences Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Concentration and chemical species of iron in soils from groundwater/surface water ecotones

Norrström¹

1995

Hydrological Sciences Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would lead to an increase in the export of carbon from permafrost terrains. The hydraulic conductivity of peat can vary widely (Holden and Burt, 2003) but is generally considered low (Reynolds et al, 1992). Low hydraulic conductivities increase the residence time of water in peatlands and increase the potential for decomposition and leaching of DOM, but this also slows the rate of export from peatlands to nearby waterways.…”

Section: Observed Carbon F Luxes From Terrestrial Ecosystems As a Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources and sinks of carbon in boreal ecosystems of interior Alaska: A review

Douglas

Jones

Hiemstra

et al. 2014

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Boreal ecosystems store large quantities of carbon but are increasingly vulnerable to carbon loss due to disturbance and climate warming. The boreal region in Alaska and Canada, largely underlain by discontinuous permafrost, presents a challenging landscape for itemizing carbon sources and sinks in soil and vegetation. The roles of fire, forest succession, and the presence (or absence) of permafrost on carbon cycle, vegetation, and hydrologic processes have been the focus of multidisciplinary research in boreal ecosystems for the past 20 years. However, projections of a warming future climate, an increase in fire severity and extent, and the potential degradation of permafrost could lead to major landscape and carbon cycle changes over the next 20 to 50 years. To assist land managers in interior Alaska in adapting and managing for potential changes in the carbon cycle we developed this review paper by incorporating an overview of the climate, ecosystem processes, vegetation, and soil regimes. Our objective is to provide a synthesis of the most current carbon storage estimates and measurements to guide policy and land management decisions on how to best manage carbon sources and sinks. We surveyed estimates of aboveground and belowground carbon stocks for interior Alaska boreal ecosystems and summarized methane and carbon dioxide f luxes. These data have been converted into similar units to facilitate comparison across ecosystem compartments. We identify potential changes in the carbon cycle with climate change and human disturbance. A novel research question is how compounding disturbances affect carbon sources and sinks associated with boreal ecosystem processes. Finally, we provide recommendations to address the challenges facing land managers in efforts to manage carbon cycle processes. The results of this study can be used for carbon cycle management in other locations within the boreal biome which encompasses a broad distribution from 45° to 83° north.

show abstract

“…Increasing peat density and gas accumulation lowers peat hydraulic conductivity and volumetric water content [Reynolds et al, 1992]; bacterial biomass which can reduce permeability in sands [Delozada et al, 1994] may also contribute. A boundary layer between 2 and 2.5 m depth separates the '"dynamic" gas reservoir from the underlying "static" reservoir.…”

Section: Methanogenic Pathway and Substrate Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%