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...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |