Comparison of greenhouse gas emission estimates from six hydropower reservoirs using modeling versus field surveys

IF 3.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Rachel M. Pilla, Natalie A. Griffiths, Carly Hansen, DeMarcus Turner, Allison M. Fortner, R. Trent Jett, Michael W. Jones, Nikki J. Jones, Jana R. Phillips
{"title":"Comparison of greenhouse gas emission estimates from six hydropower reservoirs using modeling versus field surveys","authors":"Rachel M. Pilla,&nbsp;Natalie A. Griffiths,&nbsp;Carly Hansen,&nbsp;DeMarcus Turner,&nbsp;Allison M. Fortner,&nbsp;R. Trent Jett,&nbsp;Michael W. Jones,&nbsp;Nikki J. Jones,&nbsp;Jana R. Phillips","doi":"10.1007/s10533-025-01211-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As with most aquatic ecosystems, reservoirs play an important role in the global carbon (C) cycle and emit greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>). However, GHG emissions from reservoirs are poorly quantified, especially in temperate systems, resulting in high uncertainty. We compared reservoir C emission estimates and uncertainty of diffusive, ebullitive, and degassing pathways in six hydropower reservoirs in the southeastern United States among four data sources: two field-based surveys and two models (including the GHG Reservoir “G-res” Tool). We found that CH<sub>4</sub> diffusion was most similar across data sources (modeled minus observed, bias = − 21 g CO<sub>2-eq</sub> m<sup>−2</sup> y<sup>−1</sup>) and had low relative uncertainty (coefficient of variation, CV = 0.98). On the other hand, CO<sub>2</sub> diffusion was least consistent across data sources (bias = − 518 g CO<sub>2-eq</sub> m<sup>−2</sup> y<sup>−1</sup>). Both field surveys indicated strong negative CO<sub>2</sub> diffusion (i.e., CO<sub>2</sub> uptake) at all reservoirs, while G-res estimated positive CO<sub>2</sub> diffusion. By extension, total C emissions showed similar discrepancies, leading to high uncertainty in upscaling and interpreting reservoir source-sink dynamics. Finally, CH<sub>4</sub> ebullition had the highest relative uncertainty (CV = 2.77) due to high variability across sites. We discuss limitations of field surveys and these models, including temperature-based annualization methods, varying definitions of ebullition zones, low sampling resolution, and lack of dynamism. Future field efforts focused on capturing variability in CO<sub>2</sub> diffusion and CH<sub>4</sub> ebullition will be especially valuable in reducing uncertainty and improving models to advance our understanding reservoir GHG emissions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8901,"journal":{"name":"Biogeochemistry","volume":"168 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10533-025-01211-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biogeochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10533-025-01211-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As with most aquatic ecosystems, reservoirs play an important role in the global carbon (C) cycle and emit greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). However, GHG emissions from reservoirs are poorly quantified, especially in temperate systems, resulting in high uncertainty. We compared reservoir C emission estimates and uncertainty of diffusive, ebullitive, and degassing pathways in six hydropower reservoirs in the southeastern United States among four data sources: two field-based surveys and two models (including the GHG Reservoir “G-res” Tool). We found that CH4 diffusion was most similar across data sources (modeled minus observed, bias = − 21 g CO2-eq m−2 y−1) and had low relative uncertainty (coefficient of variation, CV = 0.98). On the other hand, CO2 diffusion was least consistent across data sources (bias = − 518 g CO2-eq m−2 y−1). Both field surveys indicated strong negative CO2 diffusion (i.e., CO2 uptake) at all reservoirs, while G-res estimated positive CO2 diffusion. By extension, total C emissions showed similar discrepancies, leading to high uncertainty in upscaling and interpreting reservoir source-sink dynamics. Finally, CH4 ebullition had the highest relative uncertainty (CV = 2.77) due to high variability across sites. We discuss limitations of field surveys and these models, including temperature-based annualization methods, varying definitions of ebullition zones, low sampling resolution, and lack of dynamism. Future field efforts focused on capturing variability in CO2 diffusion and CH4 ebullition will be especially valuable in reducing uncertainty and improving models to advance our understanding reservoir GHG emissions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biogeochemistry
Biogeochemistry 环境科学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
3.2 months
期刊介绍: Biogeochemistry publishes original and synthetic papers dealing with biotic controls on the chemistry of the environment, or with the geochemical control of the structure and function of ecosystems. Cycles are considered, either of individual elements or of specific classes of natural or anthropogenic compounds in ecosystems. Particular emphasis is given to coupled interactions of element cycles. The journal spans from the molecular to global scales to elucidate the mechanisms driving patterns in biogeochemical cycles through space and time. Studies on both natural and artificial ecosystems are published when they contribute to a general understanding of biogeochemistry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信