2011
DOI: 10.1002/eco.230
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The DigiBog peatland development model 1: rationale, conceptual model, and hydrological basis

Abstract: Using a literature review, we argue that new models of peatland development are needed. Many existing models do not account for potentially important ecohydrological feedbacks, and/or ignore spatial structure and heterogeneity. Existing models, including those that simulate a near total loss of the northern peatland carbon store under a warming climate, may produce misleading results because they rely upon oversimplified representations of ecological and hydrological processes. In this, the first of a pair of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
83
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
(98 reference statements)
2
83
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The most recent of these point models computes water table depth from monthly rainfall, using a site-specific model (16). Meanwhile, numerical models have been used to simulate peat accumulation under constant rainfall (17,18). Although these subsequent works simulate the dynamics of peat production and decomposition in increasing detail, a strength of Ingram's model was that it provided quantitative intuition for how peat dome morphology depends on peat hydrologic properties and average rainfall.…”
Section: Significancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most recent of these point models computes water table depth from monthly rainfall, using a site-specific model (16). Meanwhile, numerical models have been used to simulate peat accumulation under constant rainfall (17,18). Although these subsequent works simulate the dynamics of peat production and decomposition in increasing detail, a strength of Ingram's model was that it provided quantitative intuition for how peat dome morphology depends on peat hydrologic properties and average rainfall.…”
Section: Significancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Peatland water table response to changes in climate is complex and dependant on a number of variables including, but not limited to; hydraulic conductivity, peat mass, porosity, dry bulk density, water table height, bog surface height, decay rate, underlying substrate and lateral extent (Baird et al, 2008;Baird et al, 2011;Frolking et al, 2010;Holden, 2005;Morris et al, 2011). There has recently been a concerted effort to improve the understanding of raised bog hydrological response to climatic factors through manipulation of a peatland development model (Swindles et al, submitted …”
Section: Improving Analoguesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the current study we deactivated DigiBog's peat accumulation, decomposition and hydrophysical subroutines described by Morris et al (2012). We refer the reader to Baird et al (2012) for a comprehensive description of DigiBog's governing equations and numerical implementation, although a few points are pertinent here. DigiBog represents a peatland as a grid of vertical peat columns; in plan each column is equivalent to one square grid cell in the SGCJ models, although DigiBog also allows for vertical variation in peat hydraulic properties.…”
Section: Hydrological Submodelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both the peat surface and the impermeable base had a constant slope of 1 : 50; the permeable upper peat had a uniform thickness of 0.2 m. In Models 3 and 4 we assumed the thick, lower peat layer is also permeable with its own hydraulic conductivity, K deep , meaning that K for each cell is depth-averaged to account for the vertical transition in K between the upper and lower layers. Baird et al (2012) provide a full description of DigiBog's calculation of K ave and inter-cell T . We used the groundwater mound equation (Ingram, 1982) to calculate the dimensions of a deep peat layer that is hemi-elliptical in cross section, has a uniform K of 1.25 × 10 −5 m s −1 , is 200 m from central axis to the margin, is underlain by a flat impermeable base, and receives a net water input (from an implied upper peat layer) of 155 mm yr −1 .…”
Section: Model Spatial and Temporal Domains; Boundary Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation