Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 145, Issue 1–2, pp 63–79 | Cite as

Decadal carbon decomposition dynamics in three peatlands in Northern Minnesota

  • C. FissoreEmail author
  • E. A. Nater
  • K. J. McFarlane
  • A. S. Klein
Article

Abstract

The uppermost portion of the peat profile, an area of active diagenetic processes, is exceedingly important for understanding peatland dynamics and the diagenesis and geochemistry of atmospherically-deposited materials. We investigated high resolution carbon (C) accrual and peat decomposition rates at two Sphagnum-rich ombrotrophic bogs and one fen in northern Minnesota, USA by analyzing 1 cm increments from 30 cm thick intact frozen blocks of peat soil. We conducted radiocarbon analysis of Sphagnum cellulose to determine peat age and net C accumulation at each depth interval. Calibrated peat ages were determined using CALIBomb and a compilation of calibration datasets for the pre-bomb period. We fit data with a negative exponential accumulation model and used model-derived parameters to estimate net primary productivity (NPP) and a peat decomposition rate constant k. FTIR spectroscopy and C:N were used to derive humification indices and to chemically characterize the peat. NPP ranged from 180 to 266 g C m−2 year−1, k ranged from 0.015 to 0.019 year−1. Net C accumulation rates ranged from 112 to 174 g C m−2 year−1 at 25 years and 70 to 113 g C m−2 year−1 at 50 years. Mass loss was up to 55% during the first 50 years of peat accumulation. Decomposition is greater at depth in the bogs—where 25 cm of peat correspond to 55 years of peat accumulation—than in the fen, where peat age is approximately 25 years at 25 cm depth. Information on fine-scale variations in peat mass decomposition and loss across ombrotrophic bogs and a fen help interpret other diagenetic processes in peatlands.

Keywords

Peatland Carbon accrual Radiocarbon FTIR Sphagnum moss Humification indices 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded through a Whittier College Faculty Research Grant to C.F. and the work of students was supported in part through Exception Funds Granted to C.F. by Whittier College. A portion of this work was supported by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Laboratory Research and Development project 14-ERD-038 (under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344, LLNL-JRNL-749770). We thank S. Sebestyen and R. Kolka for early feedback on the manuscript, D. Kyllander for helping with site identification and core extraction and T. Sellie for help subsampling the cores, L. Aguayo, M. Voegtle, and J. Lindvai for laboratory work, C. Hicks Pries for her advice on cellulose extraction procedures and carbon accumulation model fitting, N. Jelinski for statistical advice, and M. Tfaily and C. Bauer for support concerning IR techniques. We thank our collaborators at the Marcell Experimental Forest and the US Forest Service Northern Research Station for site access and support.

Supplementary material

10533_2019_591_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (106 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 105 kb)

References

  1. Artz RRE, Chapman SJ, Robertson AHJ, Potts JM, Laggoun-Défarge F, Gogo S, Comont L, Disnar J-R, Francez A-J (2008) FTIR spectroscopy can be used as a screening tool for organic matter quality in regenerating cutover peatlands. Soil Biol Biochem 40:515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beer J, Blodeau C (2007) Transport and thermodynamics constrain belowground carbon turnover in a northern peatland. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71:2989–3002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaauw M, Christen TA (2005) Radiocarbon peat chronologies and environmental change. J R Stat Soc Ser C (Appl Stat) 54:805–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgmark A, Schoning K (2006) A comparative study of peat proxies from two eastern central Swedish bogs and their relation to meteorological data. J Quat Sci 21:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broder T, Blodau C, Biester H, Knorr KH (2012) Peat decomposition records in three pristine ombrotrophic bogs in southern Patagonia. Biogeosciences 9:1479–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappuccio JA, Falso MJ, Kashgarian M (2014) Buchholz BA (2014) 14C Analysis of protein extracts from Bacillus spores. Forensic Sci Int 240:54–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman SJ, Campbell CD, Fraser AR, Puri G (2001) FTIR spectroscopy of peat in and bordering Scots pine woodland: relationship with chemical and biological properties. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1193–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen TR, Michelsen A, Jonasson S, Schmidt IK (1997) Carbon dioxide and methane exchange of a subarctic heath in response to climate change related environmental manipulations. Oikos 79:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clymo RS (1984) The limits to peat bog growth. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 303:605–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clymo RS, Hayward PM (1982) The ecology of Sphagnum. In: Smith AJE (ed) Bryophyte ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 229–289.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5891-3_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cocozza C, D’Orazio V, Miano TM, Shotyk W (2003) Characterization of solid and aqueous phases of a peat bog profile using molecular fluorescence spectroscopy, ESR and FT-IR, and comparison with physical properties. Org Geochem 34(1):49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett JE, Tfaily MM, Burdige DJ, Cooper WT, Glaser PH, Chanton JP (2013) Partitioning pathways of CO2 production in peatlands with stable carbon isotopes. Biogeochemistry 114:327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9813-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dise NB, Verry ES (2001) Suppression of peatland methane emission by cumulative sulfate deposition in simulated acid rain. Biogeochemistry 53:143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dise N, Shurpali NJ, Weishampel P, Verma SB, Verry ES, Gorham E, Crill PM, Harriss RC, Kelley CA, Yavitt JB, Smemo KA, Kolka RK, Smith K, Kim J, Clement RJ, Arkebauer TJ, Bartlett KB, Billesbach DP, Bridgham SD, Elling AE, Flebbe PA, King JY, Martens CS, Sebacher DI, Williams CJ, Wieder RK (2011) Carbon emissions from peatlands, in Peatland biogeochemistry and watershed hydrology at the Marcell Experimental Forest. In: Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD, Verry ES, Brooks KN (eds) Peatland biogeochemistry and watershed hydrology at the Marcell Experimental Forest. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 297–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frolking S, Roulet NT, Moore T, Richard PJH, Lafleur PM (2001) Modeling short-term, and long-term carbon accumulation in northern peatlands. In: Yu ZC, Bhatti JS, Apps MJ (eds) Long term dynamics and contemporary carbon budget of northern peatlands. Information report NOR-X-383. Canadian Forest Service, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaundiski JB, Dawson TE, Quideau S, Schuur EAG, Roden JS, Trumbore SE, Sandquist DR, Oh SW, Wasylishen RE (2005) Comparative analysis of cellulose preparation techniques for use with C-13, C-14 and O-18 isotopic measurements. Anal Chem 77:7212–7224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glaser PH, Volin JC, Givnish TJ, Hansen BCS, Stricker CA (2012) Carbon and sediment accumulation in the Everglades (USA) during the past 4000 years: rates, drivers, and sources of error. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 117:G03026.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JG001821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gorham E (1991) Northern Peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorham E, Janssens JA, Glaser PH (2003) Rates of peat accumulation during the postglacial period in 32 sites from Alaska to Newfoundland, with special emphasis on northern Minnesota. Can J Bot 81:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goslar T, van der Knaap WO, Hicks S, Andric M, Czernik J, Goslar E, Räsänen S, Hyötylä H (2005) Radiocarbon dating of modern peat profiles: pre- and post-bomb 14C variations in the construction of age-depth models. Radiocarbon 47:115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths NA, Sebestyen SD (2016) Dynamic vertical profiles of peat porewater chemistry in a Northern Peatland. Wetlands 36:1119–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gupta V, Smemo KA, Yavitt JB, Fowle D, Branfireun B, Basiliko N (2013) Stable isotopes reveal widespread anaerobic methane oxidation across latitude and Peatland type. Environ Sci Technol 47:8273–8279Google Scholar
  23. Hicks Pries CE, Schuur EAG, Crummer KG (2011) Holocene carbon stocks and carbon accumulation rates altered in soils undergoing permafrost thaw. Ecosystems 15(1):162–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hicks Pries CE, Schuur EAG, Crummer KG (2013) Thawing permafrost increases old soil and autotrophic respiration in tundra: partitioning ecosystem respiration using d13C and Δ14C. Glob Change Biol 19:649–661.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill BH, Jicha TM, Lehto LLP, Elonen CM, Sebestyen SD, Kolka RK (2016) Comparison of soil nitrogen mass balance for an ombrotrophic bog and a minerotrophic fen in northern Minnesota. Sci Total Environ 550:880–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hua Q, Barbetti M, Rakowski A (2013) Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period 1950-2010. Radiocarbon 55:2059–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD, Verry ES, Brooks KN (2011) Peatland biogeochemistry and watershed hydrology at the Marcell Experimental Forest. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leifeld J, Manichetti L (2018) The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nat Commun 9:1071.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03406-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leifeld J, Steffens M, Galego-Sala A (2012) Sensitivity of peatland carbon loss to organic matter quality. Geophys Res Lett 39:L14704.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. León C, Oliván G (2014) Recent rates of carbon and nitrogen accumulation in peatlands of Isla Grande de Chiloé-Chile. Rev Chil Hist Nat 87:26.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40693-014-0026-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin X, Tfaily MM, Green SJ, Steinweg JM, Chanton P, Imvittaya A, Chanton JP, Cooper W, Schadt C, Kostka JE (2014) Microbial metabolic potential for carbon degradation and nutrient (Nitrogen and Phosohorus) acquisition in an ombrotrophic peatland. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:3531–3540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malmer N, Wallén B (2004) Input rates, decay losses and accumulation rates of carbon in bogs during the last millennium: internal processes and environmental changes. Holocene 14:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McFarlane KJ, Hanson PJ, Iversen CM, Phillips JR, Brice DJ (2018) Local spatial heterogeneity of Holocene carbon accumulation throughout the peat profile of an ombrotrophic northern Minnesota bog. Radiocarbon.  https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLaughlin J, Webster K (2014) Effects of climate change on peatlands in the far North of Ontario, Canada: a synthesis. Arct Antarct Alp Res 46:84–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nichols DS (1998) Temperature of upland and peatland soils in a north central Minnesota forest. Can J Soil Sci 78:493–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nyberg PR (1987) Soil survey of Itasca County, Minnesota. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Parsekian AD, Slater L, Ntarlagiannis D, Nolan J, Sebestyen SD, Kolka RK, Hanson PJ (2012) Uncertainty in peat volume and soil carbon estimated using ground-penetrating radar and probing. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:1911–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Preston MD, Smemo KA, McLaughlin JW, Basiliko N (2012) Peatland microbial communities and decomposition processes in the James Bay Lowlands, Canada. Front Microbiol 3:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Price GD, McKenzie JE, Pilcher JR, Hoper ST (1997) Carbon-isotope variation in Sphagnum from hummock-hollow complexes: implications for Holocene climate reconstruction. Holocene 7:229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  41. Reimer PJ, Brown TA, Reimer RW (2004) Discussion: reporting and calibration of post-bomb 14C data. Radiocarbon 46:1299–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk RC, Buck CE, Cheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C, Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J (2013) IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50 000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1869–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sebestyen SD, Dorrance C, Olson DM, Verry ES, Kolka RK, Elling AE, Kyllander R (2011) Long-term monitoring sites and trends at the Marcell Experimental Forest. In: Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD, Verry ES, Brooks KN (eds) Peatland biogeochemistry and watershed hydrology at the Marcell Experimental Forest. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 15–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smolders AJP, Tomassen HBM, Pijnappel H, Lamers LPM, Roelofs JGM (2001) Substrate-derived CO2 is important in the development of Sphagnum spp. New Phytol 152:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spalding KL, Buchholz BA, Bergman L-E, Druid H, Frisén J (2005) Age written in teeth by nuclear tests. Nature 437:333–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Straková P, Niemi RM, Freeman C, Peltoniemi K, Toberman H, Heiskanen I, Fritze H, Laiho R (2011) Litter type affects the activity of aerobic decomposers in a boreal peatland more than site nutrient and water table regimes. Biogeosciences 8:2741–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stuiver M, Polach H (1977) Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tfaily MM, Cooper WT, Kostka JE, Chanton PR, Schadt W, Hanson PJ, Iversen CM, Chanton JP (2014) Organic matter transformation in the peat column at Marcell Experimental Forest: humification and vertical stratification. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 119:661–675.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thormann MN, Szumigalski AR, Bayley SE (1999) Aboveground peat and carbon accumulation potentials along a bog-fen-marsh wetland gradient in southern boreal Alberta, Canada. Wetlands 19:305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trumbore SE, Harden JW (1997) Accumulation and turnover of carbon in organic and mineral soils of the BOREAS northern study area. J Geophys Res 102:817–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turunen J, Roulet N, Moore T, Richard PJH (2004) Nitrogen deposition and increased carbon accumulation in ombrotrophic peatlands in Eastern Canada. Global Biogeochem Cycles.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van der Linden M, Heijmans MMPD, van Geel B (2014) Carbon accumulation in peat deposits from northern Sweden to northern Germany during the last millennium. Holocene 24:1117–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Verry ES, Janssens J (2011) Geology, vegetation, and hydrology of the S2 bog at the MEF: 12,000 years in Northern Minnesota. In: Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD, Verry ES, Brooks KN (eds) Peatland biogeochemistry and watershed hydrology at the Marcell Experimental Forest. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 93–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Verry ES, Boelter DH, Päivänen J, Nichols DS, Malterer TJ, Gafni A (2011) Physical properties of organic soils, in peatland biogeochemistry and watershed hydrology at the Marcell Experimental Forest. In: Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD, Verry ES, Brooks KN (eds) Peatland biogeochemistry and watershed hydrology at the Marcell Experimental Forest. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 135–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vogel JS, Nelson DE, Southon JR (1987) C-14 background levels in an accelerator mass-spectrometry system. Radiocarbon 29:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walker AP, Carter KR, Gu L, Hanson PJ, Malhotra A, Norby RJ, Sebestyen SD, Wullschleger SD, Weston DJ (2017) Biophysical drivers of seasonal variability in Sphagnum gross primary production in a northern temperate bog. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 122:1078–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yu Z, Loisel J, Brosseau DP, Beilman DW, Hunt SJ (2010) Global peatland dynamics since the last glacial maximum. Geophys Res Lett 37:L13402.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zaccone C, Plaza C, Ciavatta C, Miano TM, Shotyk W (2018) Advances in the determination of humification degree in peat since Achard (1786): applications in geochemical and paleoenvironmental studies. Earth Sci Rev 185:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Science Program, Department of Biology and Environmental ScienceWhittier CollegeWhittierUSA
  2. 2.Department of Soil, Water and ClimateUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  3. 3.Center for Accelerator Mass SpectrometryLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations