Technical note: Comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland models

Emission via bubbling, i.e. ebullition, is one of the main methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) emission pathways from wetlands to the atmosphere. Direct measurement of gas bubble formation, growth and release in the peat–water matrix is challenging and in consequence these processes are relative...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: O. Peltola, M. Raivonen, X. Li, T. Vesala
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2018-02-01
Series:Biogeosciences
Online Access:https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/937/2018/bg-15-937-2018.pdf
id doaj-a1d1d918b3cf427a8080331545d23aef
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a1d1d918b3cf427a8080331545d23aef2020-11-24T23:16:34ZengCopernicus PublicationsBiogeosciences1726-41701726-41892018-02-011593795110.5194/bg-15-937-2018Technical note: Comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland modelsO. Peltola0M. Raivonen1X. Li2T. Vesala3T. Vesala4Institute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 68, 00014 Helsinki, FinlandInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 68, 00014 Helsinki, FinlandInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 68, 00014 Helsinki, FinlandInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 68, 00014 Helsinki, FinlandInstitute for Atmospheric and Earth System Research/Forest Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, 00014 Helsinki, FinlandEmission via bubbling, i.e. ebullition, is one of the main methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) emission pathways from wetlands to the atmosphere. Direct measurement of gas bubble formation, growth and release in the peat–water matrix is challenging and in consequence these processes are relatively unknown and are coarsely represented in current wetland CH<sub>4</sub> emission models. In this study we aimed to evaluate three ebullition modelling approaches and their effect on model performance. This was achieved by implementing the three approaches in one process-based CH<sub>4</sub> emission model. All the approaches were based on some kind of threshold: either on CH<sub>4</sub> pore water concentration (ECT), pressure (EPT) or free-phase gas volume (EBG) threshold. The model was run using 4 years of data from a boreal sedge fen and the results were compared with eddy covariance measurements of CH<sub>4</sub> fluxes.</p><p class="p">Modelled annual CH<sub>4</sub> emissions were largely unaffected by the different ebullition modelling approaches; however, temporal variability in CH<sub>4</sub> emissions varied an order of magnitude between the approaches. Hence the ebullition modelling approach drives the temporal variability in modelled CH<sub>4</sub> emissions and therefore significantly impacts, for instance, high-frequency (daily scale) model comparison and calibration against measurements. The modelling approach based on the most recent knowledge of the ebullition process (volume threshold, EBG) agreed the best with the measured fluxes (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.63) and hence produced the most reasonable results, although there was a scale mismatch between the measurements (ecosystem scale with heterogeneous ebullition locations) and model results (single horizontally homogeneous peat column). The approach should be favoured over the two other more widely used ebullition modelling approaches and researchers are encouraged to implement it into their CH<sub>4</sub> emission models.https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/937/2018/bg-15-937-2018.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author O. Peltola
M. Raivonen
X. Li
T. Vesala
T. Vesala
spellingShingle O. Peltola
M. Raivonen
X. Li
T. Vesala
T. Vesala
Technical note: Comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland models
Biogeosciences
author_facet O. Peltola
M. Raivonen
X. Li
T. Vesala
T. Vesala
author_sort O. Peltola
title Technical note: Comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland models
title_short Technical note: Comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland models
title_full Technical note: Comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland models
title_fullStr Technical note: Comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland models
title_full_unstemmed Technical note: Comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland models
title_sort technical note: comparison of methane ebullition modelling approaches used in terrestrial wetland models
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Biogeosciences
issn 1726-4170
1726-4189
publishDate 2018-02-01
description Emission via bubbling, i.e. ebullition, is one of the main methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) emission pathways from wetlands to the atmosphere. Direct measurement of gas bubble formation, growth and release in the peat–water matrix is challenging and in consequence these processes are relatively unknown and are coarsely represented in current wetland CH<sub>4</sub> emission models. In this study we aimed to evaluate three ebullition modelling approaches and their effect on model performance. This was achieved by implementing the three approaches in one process-based CH<sub>4</sub> emission model. All the approaches were based on some kind of threshold: either on CH<sub>4</sub> pore water concentration (ECT), pressure (EPT) or free-phase gas volume (EBG) threshold. The model was run using 4 years of data from a boreal sedge fen and the results were compared with eddy covariance measurements of CH<sub>4</sub> fluxes.</p><p class="p">Modelled annual CH<sub>4</sub> emissions were largely unaffected by the different ebullition modelling approaches; however, temporal variability in CH<sub>4</sub> emissions varied an order of magnitude between the approaches. Hence the ebullition modelling approach drives the temporal variability in modelled CH<sub>4</sub> emissions and therefore significantly impacts, for instance, high-frequency (daily scale) model comparison and calibration against measurements. The modelling approach based on the most recent knowledge of the ebullition process (volume threshold, EBG) agreed the best with the measured fluxes (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.63) and hence produced the most reasonable results, although there was a scale mismatch between the measurements (ecosystem scale with heterogeneous ebullition locations) and model results (single horizontally homogeneous peat column). The approach should be favoured over the two other more widely used ebullition modelling approaches and researchers are encouraged to implement it into their CH<sub>4</sub> emission models.
url https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/937/2018/bg-15-937-2018.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT opeltola technicalnotecomparisonofmethaneebullitionmodellingapproachesusedinterrestrialwetlandmodels
AT mraivonen technicalnotecomparisonofmethaneebullitionmodellingapproachesusedinterrestrialwetlandmodels
AT xli technicalnotecomparisonofmethaneebullitionmodellingapproachesusedinterrestrialwetlandmodels
AT tvesala technicalnotecomparisonofmethaneebullitionmodellingapproachesusedinterrestrialwetlandmodels
AT tvesala technicalnotecomparisonofmethaneebullitionmodellingapproachesusedinterrestrialwetlandmodels
_version_ 1725586693114822656