Winter flooding to conserve agricultural peat soils in a temperate climate: Effect on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential

Abstract

This study investigated the CO 2 and CH 4 emission rates from agricultural operations on peat soils in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, comparing two common soil management treatments: leaving the field fallow in the winter and flooding the field in winter. Winter flooding is intended to reduce the oxidative loss of soil organic matter to CO 2 , as well as other putative benefits. The goal of the study was to assess if winter flooding lowers overall net carbon loss from the field and if it increases the net CH 4 emissions to a degree that results in a net increase in Global Warming Potential (GWP). The two treatments had similar annual carbon emissions (1.7–1.8 g C/m 2 /d) with the measured annual CO 2 flux rates for both among the highest previously reported, indicating that the flooding treatment did not effectively mitigate subsidence and loss of soil carbon. The flooded treatment had among the highest annual CH 4 emissions previously reported (64.1 mg C/m 2 /d), an order of magnitude greater than that measured on the fallow treatment (5.9 mg C/m 2 /d). Despite the much larger flux of CH 4 from the flooded treatment, when the net carbon export associated with grain harvest and hydrologic transport is included, the differences in the carbon balance and GWP (equivalent to CO 2 emissions of ~775 g C/m 2 /yr) between treatments is insignificant. Total greenhouse gas emissions and GWP of both sites are among the largest previously documented from cultivated peat systems, putting their climatic effect on par with freshwater wetlands, but without the concomitant soil conservation and carbon sequestration benefits of continuous flooding.