A decade of boreal rich fen greenhouse gas fluxes inresponse to natural and experimental water tablevariabilityDAV ID OLEFELDT 1 , 2 , EUG �EN IE S . EUSK IRCHEN3 , J ENN I FER HARDEN4 , EVAN KANE 5 ,
A . DAV ID MCGU IRE 6 , MARK P . WALDROP 4 and MERRITT R. TURETSKY1
1Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Science Complex, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada, 2Department of
Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1, Canada, 3Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA, 4U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA, 5School of Forest Resources and
Environmental Sciences, and USDA Forest Service, Michigan Tech University, Northern Research Station, Houghton, MI 49931,
USA, 6U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks,
AK 99775, USA
Abstract
Rich fens are common boreal ecosystems with distinct hydrology, biogeochemistry and ecology that influence their
carbon (C) balance. We present growing season soil chamber methane emission (FCH4), ecosystem respiration (ER),
net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and gross primary production (GPP) fluxes from a 9-years water table manipulation
experiment in an Alaskan rich fen. The study included major flood and drought years, where wetting and drying
treatments further modified the severity of droughts. Results support previous findings from peatlands that drought
causes reduced magnitude of growing season FCH4, GPP and NEE, thus reducing or reversing their C sink function.
Experimentally exacerbated droughts further reduced the capacity for the fen to act as a C sink by causing shifts in
vegetation and thus reducing magnitude of maximum growing season GPP in subsequent flood years by ~15% com-
pared to control plots. Conversely, water table position had only a weak influence on ER, but dominant contribution
to ER switched from autotrophic respiration in wet years to heterotrophic in dry years. Droughts did not cause inter-
annual lag effects on ER in this rich fen, as has been observed in several nutrient-poor peatlands. While ER was
dependent on soil temperatures at 2 cm depth, FCH4 was linked to soil temperatures at 25 cm. Inter-annual variability
of deep soil temperatures was in turn dependent on wetness rather than air temperature, and higher FCH4 in flooded
years was thus equally due to increased methane production at depth and decreased methane oxidation near the sur-
face. Short-term fluctuations in wetness caused significant lag effects on FCH4, but droughts caused no inter-annual
lag effects on FCH4. Our results show that frequency and severity of droughts and floods can have characteristic
effects on the exchange of greenhouse gases, and emphasize the need to project future hydrological regimes in rich
fens.
Keywords: carbon dioxide, climate change, ecosystem respiration, methane, peatland, soil temperature, water table, wetland
Received 7 April 2016; revised version received 6 November 2016 and accepted 7 December 2016
Introduction
Northern peatlands cover ~3% of the global land cover
and are dominant ecosystems in many boreal regions.
As the end of the last glaciation, peatlands have accumu-
lated ~500 Tg carbon (C) in the form of peat (Yu, 2012).
This represents ~15–30% of the total current global soil C
pool (Batjes, 1996). Accumulation of soil C in northern
peatlands is primarily a result of restricted rates of
decomposition under cool and often anaerobic soil con-
ditions (Clymo et al., 1998; Roulet et al., 2007; Yu, 2012).
However, anaerobic conditions also promote the
production and release of methane (CH4), and northern
peatlands are responsible for ~20% of all natural CH4
sources to the atmosphere (Bergamschi et al., 2007).
Although CH4 is a more potent greenhouse gas than
CO2, it has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere
(Hartmann et al., 2013). The net effect of sustained CO2
uptake and CH4 release from northern peatlands over
the Holocene has overall resulted in a net cooling effect
on the global climate system (Frolking & Roulet, 2007).
The future greenhouse gas exchange of northern peat-
lands is uncertain, but will likely be strongly influenced
by interactions between peatland type and climate
change impacts on hydrological regimes.
Recent climate change at high latitudes has been
occurring at rates faster than the global average. InteriorCorrespondence: David Olefeldt, tel. 780 248 1814, fax 780 492 4323,
e-mail: [email protected]
2428 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Global Change Biology (2017) 23, 2428–2440, doi: 10.1111/gcb.13612
Alaska has over the last few decades experienced both
increasing air temperatures and an amplification of the
hydrological cycle that includes increases in precipita-
tion, potential evapotranspiration and river discharge
(Hinzman et al., 2005; Serreze & Francis, 2006; Wendler
& Shulski, 2009; Rawlins et al., 2010). An amplified
hydrological cycle is likely to redistribute soil moisture
at the landscape scale and is expected to cause reduced
summer soil moisture conditions in ecosystems that are
largely dependent on precipitation inputs (Rouse, 1998;
Lafleur et al., 2005; Berg et al., 2009). Rich fens, which
receive substantial water inputs from their surrounding
landscapes, could, however, experience a differential
response due to potentially coinciding greater surface
water and groundwater runoff (Walvoord & Striegl,
2007; Olefeldt & Roulet, 2012; Tardif et al. 2015).
The position of the water table in a peatland often
has strong influences on the greenhouse gas exchange.
A higher water table is generally associated with higher
net methane emissions (FCH4), as the balance between
anaerobic methane production and aerobic oxidation is
shifted, but vegetation composition can modify this
relationship significantly (Segers, 1998; Limpens et al.,
2008; Olefeldt et al., 2013; Turetsky et al., 2014). Differ-
ent peatland ecosystems have also shown positive, neg-
ative and no relationships between ecosystem
respiration (ER) and water table position (Chimner &
Cooper, 2003; Lafleur et al., 2005; Ballantyne et al., 2014;
Juszczak et al., 2013; McConnell et al., 2013). This is
potentially due to independent responses of constituent
autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration. Peat miner-
alization, i.e., heterotrophic respiration, increases sub-
stantially under aerobic conditions (Moore & Knowles,
1989; Silvola et al., 1996). However, droughts can also
influence gross primary productivity (GPP) of wetland
plant species (Sulman et al., 2009; Adkinson et al., 2011;
Lund et al., 2012) and thus affect rates of autotrophic
respiration (Crow & Wieder, 2005; Han et al., 2014).
Vegetation composition further influences the location
of optimal water table position for maximum GPP and
net ecosystem exchange (NEE) (Yurova et al., 2007;
Adkinson et al., 2011). Altered frequencies or severities
of droughts and floods are thus likely to affect the C
sink function of peatlands, but responses are also likely
to depend on peatland type.
Droughts and floods can further impact peatland C
balance through lag effects over various timescales.
Water table fluctuations can cause short-term lag effects
on FCH4 through transient soil conditions, including the
regeneration or depletion of terminal electron acceptors
and re-establishment of microbial communities (Dow-
rick et al., 2006; Knorr & Blodau, 2009; Deppe et al.,
2010; Sun et al., 2012). In nutrient-poor peatlands, the
degradation of phenolic compounds during severe
droughts has been shown to enable drastically
increased rates of anaerobic heterotrophic respiration
in subsequent wet years (Fenner & Freeman, 2011).
Over longer timescales, it is likely that the most impor-
tant effects of altered drought and flood characteristics
are due to induced shifts in vegetation composition, as
individual vegetation communities have specific rela-
tionships between C fluxes and abiotic variables such
as water table position, soil temperatures and light con-
ditions (Laiho, 2006; Lindroth et al., 2007; Olefeldt et al.,
2013; Ward et al., 2013).
The Alaska Peatland Experiment (APEX) was initi-
ated in a rich fen in 2005 as a long-term ecosystem-scale
experiment designed to study potential effects of cli-
mate change on peatland greenhouse gas exchange.
One goal at APEX was to create a lowered and a raised
water table regime through water table manipulations,
yet without altering the natural inter- and intra-annual
water table variability that characterizes these ecosys-
tems. In this study, our objective is to investigate the
influences of water table position and variability on rich
fen C fluxes, including long-term influences arising due
to experimentally altered drought severity.
Materials and methods
Study site and experimental design
The Alaska Peatland Experiment is located adjacent to the
Bonanza Creek Long-Term Ecological Research forest, ~35 km
southwest of Fairbanks, Alaska, USA (64.82°N, 147.87 W).
Mean annual temperature (1917–2000) is �3.1 °C, and mean
annual precipitation is 287 mm (Hinzman et al., 2006). The site
is positioned within the Tanana River floodplain and is char-
acterized as a rich fen (surface water pH 5.2–5.4), with vegeta-
tion dominated by marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris),
wheat sedge (Carex atherodes), water horsetail (Equisetum fluvi-
atile) and a ground cover mostly comprised of brown mosses
(Drepanocladus aduncus and Hamatocaulis vernicosus) and sparse
Sphagnum spp. (Churchill et al., 2015). Biomass harvest indi-
cates an aboveground net primary productivity of vascular
plants of ~300 g m�2 yr�1. A maximum vascular green area of
~2.5 m2 m�2 is attained between late June and mid-August
(Churchill et al., 2015). Peat depth is ~1 m, the site lacks per-
mafrost, and it has no distinct microtopography.
In the spring of 2005, three 120-m2 plots were randomly
assigned to a control, raised and lowered water table treat-
ment. Drainage channels were dug around the lowered water
table plot to divert water ~20 m downslope to a surface well,
from which solar-powered bilge pumps added up to
100 mm day�1 to the raised plot during the thawed seasons
(for further information, see Turetsky et al., 2008). No signifi-
cant difference in water table position or vegetation composi-
tion among plots was observed prior to treatment initiation.
Within each plot, six subplots were established for greenhouse
gas flux measurements.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
WATER TABLE CONTROL ON FEN GHG EXCHANGE 2429
Water table and temperature records
Data loggers (CR10x, Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT)
recorded hourly air temperature at 1.5 m height, hourly water
table positions in 1-m-long 5-cm-diameter PVC wells in each
treatment plot and hourly soil temperatures at 2 and 25 cm
depths in all 18 subplots and at 50 cm depth in six subplots.
Daily data records were compiled using the hourly data.
There were several gaps in the continuous temperature and
water table records due to sensor or logger malfunctions dur-
ing the 9-year study period. Soil temperature records had 75%
data coverage on average, ranging between 23 and 90% cover-
age for individual sensors. Variation in soil temperature
among subplots was not associated with water table treat-
ments, or an intended warming treatment (see supplementary
information; Fig. S1). Hence, we compiled single site common
soil temperature records for each depth by using the average
of daily soil temperatures across subplots (Fig. 1a). Weekly
manual measurements of water table position within each plot
were used to linearly gap-fill the continuous records during
parts of 2006 (lowered and control plots) and for all of 2007
(all plots) (Fig. 1b).
Measuring greenhouse gas fluxes
Greenhouse gas flux measurements were taken using static
chamber techniques (Carrol & Crill, 1997). Collars (0.36 m2)
were inserted to 10 cm depth at all 18 subplots in 2005. A clear
chamber (0.23 m3) was constructed out of 0.6-cm-thick Lexan,
and an airtight seal was created between base and chamber
using foam tape applied during each measurement campaign.
Two internal fans were used to mix the air within the chamber
during measurements.
Fluxes of CO2 were measured under ambient light condi-
tions (measuring NEE) followed by dark conditions using a
dark shroud (ER measurement). The difference between NEE
and ER equals our GPP estimate. Chambers were closed for 2–3 min, and CO2 concentrations were determined every 1.6 s
using a PP Systems EGM-4 portable infrared gas analyzer
(IRGA; Amesbury, MA, USA). The IRGA was calibrated
before each measurement campaign, using external CO2 stan-
dards. From 2006 and onward, a PP Systems TRP-1 measured
temperature and photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD,
lmol m�2 s�1) within the chamber. Chamber measurements
of CH4 were typically taken on days immediately following
CO2 measurements due to time constraints. Chambers were
closed for 30–40 min, and four 20 mL gas samples were taken,
using plastic syringes with three-way stop cocks. Samples
were analyzed within 24 h, using a Varian 3800 gas chro-
matograph with a FID detector with a Haysep N column (Var-
ian Analytical Inc., Palo Alto, California). We report net CO2
(reported in lmol CO2 m�2 s�1) and net CH4 (reported in mg
CH4 m�2 day�1) fluxes to the atmosphere as positive and net
uptake as negative.
Sampling was initiated between May 20 and June 15 each
year except during 2012 and 2013 when the site was flooded
and measurements could not start until July 1 and August 5,
respectively. Weekly sampling was carried out in 2005–2007and 2010–2013, while 2008 and 2009 had biweekly sampling.
Last samplings were carried out between September 1 and
October 1 except in 2008 and 2009 when they were completed
in mid-July. A total of 1380 paired NEE and ER flux measure-
ments and 918 FCH4 measurements were accepted after data
quality check (see supplementary information). Maximum
and minimum measurements per year were 259 and 46 for
2005 and 2013, respectively, for CO2 and 219 and 31 in 2006
and 2013, respectively, for FCH4.
We define fluxes measured between day-of-year (DOY) 165
and 235 (June 13 to August 21 in non-leap years) as peak
growing season fluxes (NEEPeak, GPPPeak, ERPeak, FCH4Peak).
–75
–50
–25
0
25
50
Wat
er ta
ble
posi
tion
(cm
)
ControlLoweredRaised
0
5
10
15
20
25
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
) Air Temp. 2 cm 25 cm 50 cm
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1 Peak growing season (June 13–August 22) data from 2005 to 2013, including (a) site common air and soil temperatures at 2, 25
and 50 cm and (b) water table position for each treatment plot (positive values indicate water table above peat surface).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
2430 D. OLEFELDT et al.
Peak growing season was defined to include the period of
maximum vascular green area (Churchill et al., 2015). As sam-
pling periods varied substantially among years, using peak
growing season data allows for a better comparison of abiotic
controls on C fluxes among years and treatments as it reduces
confounding influences that arise due to seasonally develop-
ing phenology (Peichl et al. 2015). Peak growing seasons
included 65% of CO2 flux measurements and 74% of CH4 mea-
surements (Figs S2 and S3). Whether all data or only peak
growing season data are used is explicitly stated for each anal-
ysis.
Data modeling and statistical analysis
We used both linear and nonlinear analyses to assess abiotic
controls on FCH4, ER, NEE and GPP. All statistical analyses
were conducted in MatLab R2014a, with the Statistics Toolbox
and the Curve Fitting Toolbox (v 3.4.1) (MathWorks, Natick,
Massachusetts). The linear mixed effects models (function:
fitlme) included a categorical variable for water table
treatment (control, raised, lowered) and continuous abiotic
variables as fixed effects. Collar ID was included as a ran-
dom effect nested within treatment plots to account for the
lack of independence of repeated measurements. Abiotic
variables included water table position (WT), soil tempera-
tures at 2 and 25 cm depth (T2 and T25) and PPFD (only
included for NEE and GPP analysis). Interactions between
water table treatments and all abiotic variables were also
included as fixed effects. The analysis was carried out on
log10-transformed FCH4 fluxes [log10(FCH4)], due to a non-
normal distribution. Logarithmic transformation excluded
negative FCH4 fluxes, representing 8% of FCH4 measure-
ments. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the
marginal effects, and yielded F and P values for each fixed
effect, including interactions. Significant variables, as indi-
cated by the linear mixed effects model, were subsequently
included in a forward stepwise multiple linear regression
(function: stepwise) to estimate parameter coefficients for
each variable.
We used residuals from the stepwise linear model to assess
potential time lags in relationships between water table posi-
tion and ER and FCH4. Coefficients of determination were
determined for linear correlations between model residuals
and the net shift in water table position over a time period
preceding a flux measurement. Time periods for lag effects
ranging from 1 to 50 days were considered. Inter-annual time-
lag effects, i.e., the effect of the wetness of the preceding year
on the current year fluxes, were assessed by linear correlations
between the current year average model residual within each
plot and its average water table position during the preceding
year.
A nonlinear model was used to assess temperature
sensitivity:
Flux ¼ A�QðT10Þ10 ð1Þ
where Flux is either FCH4 or ER, A is Flux at 0 °C, Q10 is the
temperature dependence of Flux and T is soil temperature at
either 2 or 25 cm below the surface. The analysis was carried
out for parsed datasets to assess differences in temperature
dependence under four water table ranges; <�25 cm, �25 to
�10 cm, �10 to 0 cm and >0 cm (positive values indicate
water table above the surface).
Nonlinear dependence of GPP on variation in PPFD was
modeled using:
GPP ¼ GPPmax � PPFD
kþ PPFDð2Þ
where GPPmax is the maximum rate of GPP under light satura-
tion and k is the PPFD level where half of GPPmax is attained.
Our analysis estimated parameters using only peak growing
season GPP data, for six groups based on water table treat-
ment and annual wetness (dry years vs. wet years; see below).
Optimal water table position and the range over which
maximum fluxes occur were estimated as:
Flux ¼ Fbase þ Fopt � exp�0:5� ðWT�WToptÞ2
WT2rng
� �ð3Þ
where Flux is either log10(FCH4Peak), ERPeak, GPPPeak or
NEEPeak, Fbase is Flux outside the range of optimal water table
position, Fopt is the addition to Fbase at the optimal water table
position (i.e., Fbase + Fopt = maximum Flux), WT is the water
table position at the time of flux measurement, WTopt is the
water table position where maximal Flux occurs and WTrng is
the distance of the water table range around WTopt where
increased Flux occurs. Unit of Fbase and Fopt is the same as for
Flux, while the unit for WT, WTopt and WTrng is in cm. Equa-
tion 2 is a modified version of an equation used by Tuitilla
et al. (2004) and Chivers et al. (2009), but it assumes that fluxes
can be 6¼ 0 outside the water table range for optimal fluxes.
For NEE and GPP, we used only data measured when
PPFD > 400 lmol m�2 s�1, i.e., when light limitation was
minimal (see Results). Data from all water treatment plots
were pooled for this analysis, as data from each treatment sep-
arately did not yield significant model parameters.
Results
Climate and abiotic variables
During our measurement period, mean annual air tem-
peratures ranged from �1.7 °C (2005) to �4.9 °C (2012),
while peak growing season average air temperatures
varied between 14.4 °C (2008) to 17.0 °C (2013)
(Fig. 1a). Average peak growing season soil tempera-
tures were more variable than air temperatures, and
inter-annual variability increased with soil depth
(Fig. 1a). The standard deviation of average growing
season temperatures over the nine study years was
0.9 °C for air temperature, 1.1 °C for soil temperature
at 2 cm, 2.0 °C at 25 cm and 2.8 °C at 50 cm. Average
peak growing season soil temperature at 2 cm was sig-
nificantly correlated with average peak growing season
air temperatures, while soil temperature at 25 cm was
significantly correlated with average peak growing
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
WATER TABLE CONTROL ON FEN GHG EXCHANGE 2431
season water table position (Fig. S4). The average peak
growing season temperature at 25 cm depth was ~8and ~12 °C in dry and wet years (see below), respec-
tively (Fig. 1a, b).
Water table position varied greatly between years,
with average peak growing season water table posi-
tions in the control plot varying between �32 cm (2006)
and +21 cm (2013) (Fig. 1b). In subsequent analysis, we
define years when the control plot had average grow-
ing season water table position below �20 cm as dry
years (2006, 2010 and 2011) and other years as wet
years. The water table treatments had no effect on
water table position among treatments in wet years, but
in dry years the lowered plot had an average water
table position that was 9 cm lower than the control and
the raised plot had an average water table position
11 cm higher than the control plot (Fig. 1b).
Methane fluxes
The linear model found measured log-transformed
FCH4 fluxes [log10(FCH4)] to be strongly related to WT
and T25, with minor, but significant, influences from
both T2 and the interaction between water table treat-
ment and WT (Table S1; overall R2adj = 0.63). The non-
linear model showed that variability of T25 explained
between 28 and 33% of the variability in FCH4, except
for during the driest periods (WT < �25 cm) when
only 10% of variability was explained (Fig. 2a,
Table S2). Variability in T2 only explained between 4%
and 9% of FCH4 (Table S2). The seasonal trend in FCH4
during wet years thus followed the seasonal trend of
T25, leading to a late peak emissions period between
mid-August and late September (Fig. S2). Higher water
table led to higher FCH4 (Fig. 2a), and maximum
log10(FCH4) was modeled (Eqn 3) to occur when the
water table was well above the peat surface
(WTopt = 8.0 � 3.4 cm) (Table 1). As a result of the
influences of wetness and T25, wet years with associ-
ated warmer T25 (see above) had 4–20 times greater
average FCH4Peak than dry years associated with colder
T25 (Fig. 3a).
Significant short-term lags were present in the rela-
tionship between FCH4 and water table position. The
residuals from the linear model were significantly
correlated with the net shift in water table position
that occurred 3–7 days prior to FCH4 measurements
(maximum R2 = 0.08, P < 0.01, Fig. 4). For example,
this lag effect indicated that measured FCH4 was
~25% higher than predicted by the linear model
when the water table had been dropping by 5 cm
over the last 5 days, and equally lower than pre-
dicted when the water table had been rising. We
found no evidence of inter-annual lag effects, as
residuals in average annual FCH4 were not signifi-
cantly related to the average water table position of
the preceding year in any plot.
Ecosystem respiration
The linear mixed effects model indicated significant
influences on measured ER fluxes from T2, T25, WT and
the interaction between T2 and treatment, but the
model explained only 20% of the variation in ER
(Table S1). The most important predictor of higher ER
was increasing T2 (Fig. 2b). The general dependency of
0
50
100
150
200
250
Met
hane
flux
(mg
CH
4 d–
1 )
Water table interval (cm)
3-66-99-1212-15
0
1
2
3
4
5
Eco
syst
em re
spira
tion
(μm
ol C
O2
m–2
s–1
)
Water table interval (cm)
4-1010-1515-21
Soil T2 (˚C)
Soil T25 (˚C)
(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Influence of water table position and soil temperature on a) measured methane fluxes and b) measured ecosystem respiration.
Data from both outside and within peak growing season are included. Bars represent median fluxes measured within specified water
table and soil temperature intervals. Positive water table position indicates water table above the peat surface. Error bars represent first
and third quartiles of the data. Note that soil temperatures at 25 and at 2 cm were used for methane fluxes and ecosystem respiration,
respectively, as data at these depths had the greatest explanatory power (see Table S2).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
2432 D. OLEFELDT et al.
ER on T2 led to a seasonal pattern with a period of max-
imum fluxes between June ~20 and August 10 (Fig. S2),
i.e., a longer and earlier peak period than for maximum
FCH4 (see above). Nonlinear analysis showed that T2
was a better predictor than T25 for ER, except under the
driest conditions when the water table was below
�25 cm (Table S2). The interactive effect of the water
table treatment and T2 on ER suggested that the low-
ered water table treatment plot had lower temperature
sensitivity of ER than the other plots – although this
effect may be an indirect consequence of treatment
effect on NEE/GPP through autotrophic respiration
Table 1 Estimated parameters for models examining the nonlinear effects of water table position for measured FCH4 and CO2
fluxes during peak growing season (Eqn 3). Fbase indicates the flux rates outside the water table optima, Fadd the increase in flux at
the water table optima, WTopt the position of the water table optima and WTrng the width of the water table optima. For WTopt, pos-
itive values represent water table positions above the peat surface. Parameters with 95% confidence bounds are presented. All mod-
els were significant (P < 0.01). Models applied to measured NEE and estimated GPP included only measurements taken under high
light conditions (PPFD > 400 lmol m�2 s�1)
Fbase Fadd WTrng WTopt R2adj
Methane flux
(mg CH4 m�2 day�1)
(mg CH4 m�2 day�1) (mg CH4 m�2 day�1) (cm) (cm)
Log10(FCH4Peak) 0.76 � 0.11 1.13 � 0.13 17.4 � 3.9 8.0 � 3.8 0.43
CO2 fluxes
(lmol CO2 m�2 s�1)
(lmol CO2 m�2 s�1) (lmol CO2 m�2 s�1) (cm) (cm)
ERPeak 2.97 � 0.07 1.31 � 0.22 5.4 � 2.1 �5.2 � 0.4 0.05
NEEPeak 0.30 � 0.81 �3.54 � 0.77 21.9 � 6.6 1.3 � 3.8 0.29
GPPPeak �3.34 � 0.86 �3.23 � 0.86 17.1 � 6.6 �1.8 � 4.0 0.14
–8
–6
–4
–2
0Wet Years Dry Years
Gro
ss p
rimar
y pr
oduc
tion
(μm
olC
O2
m–2
s–1
)
–4
–3
–2
–1
0Wet Years Dry Years
Net
eco
syst
em e
xcha
nge
(μm
olC
O2
m–2
s–1
)
0
1
2
3
4Wet Years Dry Years
Eco
syst
em re
spira
tion
(μm
ol C
O2
m–2
s–1
)
Control
LoweredRaised
a ab ab c d b
a a a a a a
a b ab bc c ab
0
25
50
75
100
125Wet years Dry Years
Met
hane
flux
(mg
CH
4 d–
1 )
a a a
c c b
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 3 Average peak growing season (13 June–22 August) fluxes measured under high light conditions (PPFD > 400 lmol m�2 s�1) of
(a) methane fluxes, (b) ecosystem respiration, (c) net ecosystem exchange and (d) estimated gross primary production. Error bars repre-
sent �2 standard errors. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments based on a two-way ANOVA, followed by
a multiple comparison using a Bonferroni correction. Dry years were 2006, 2010 and 2011, and wet years were 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009,
2012 and 2013.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
WATER TABLE CONTROL ON FEN GHG EXCHANGE 2433
rates (see below) which were not accounted for in this
linear model (Table S1).
Links between ER and WT were complex and not
easily captured by either the linear or nonlinear
approaches (Fig. 2b). The linear model found ER to
decrease marginally with a higher WT position
(Table S1), while the nonlinear model indicated that ER
was on average ~30% higher when the water table was
just below the surface (WTopt = �5.4 � 0.9 cm) com-
pared to positions higher or lower (Table 1). While this
nonlinear relationship was consistent across all experi-
mental treatments, it had low explanatory power
(R2adj = 0.04). Qualitatively, ER appeared to have two
optima, with maximum ER when the water table was
~10 cm and >40 cm below the surface (Fig. 2b). Overall,
we found that average ERPeak was not significantly
affected by the water table treatment and that it did not
vary between wet and dry years (Fig. 3b).
Water table fluctuations were found to cause neither
short-term (1–40 days) nor inter-annual lag effects on
ER. The residuals from our linear ER model (Table S1),
using data from all periods, were not significantly
related to net shifts in water table position over 1–40 days preceding the flux measurements (Fig. 4). The
average annual model residual was neither related to
the average water table position of the preceding year
in any plot.
During wet years, we found that average ERPeak of
individual subplots had a significant relationship with
NEEPeak measured under high light conditions
(>400 lmol m�2 s�1), suggesting that higher plant
productivity among subplots was associated with
higher ERPeak (Fig. 5a). The slope of this relationship
shows that variability among subplot NEEPeak was
associated with shifts in ERPeak representing
53 � 26% (95% CI) of the magnitude of shifts in
NEEPeak. This implies that among subplots, a
1.0 lmol m�2 s�1 higher average GPPPeak is asso-
ciated with an increase in average ERPeak by
0.35 � 0.14 (95% CI) lmol m�2 s�1. During dry years,
we found that subplots of the raised water table treat-
ment maintained the relationship between average
ERPeak and NEEPeak observed in wet years, but that
average ERPeak of control and lowered water table
treatment subplots became unrelated to NEEPeak
(Fig. 5a). Consequently, the ratio –NEEPeak/ERPeak
(relative magnitude of NEEPeak to ERPeak) was found
to be influenced by water table position among years,
with the ratio starting to drop once the average peak
growing season water table position was below
�20 cm (Fig. 5b).
Gross primary production and net ecosystem exchange
Abiotic variables explained 36% and 33% of variation
in measured GPP and NEE fluxes in the linear
mixed effects model, respectively (Table S3). Both
GPP and NEE were related to WT, T2 and PPFD and
had significant Treatment x PPFD interactions. The
interaction term indicated that the lowered treatment
had lower sensitivity to increasing light levels
(Table S3). The nonlinear model showed that both
GPPpeak and NEEpeak had their greatest magnitude
(i.e., greatest productivity and net C uptake) when
the water table was level with the peat surface
(Table 1 and Fig. 6a, b). Water table position also
had a significant influence on maximum GPPPeak and
NEEPeak both among treatments and between wet
and dry years (Fig. 3c, d). However, reduced magni-
tude of NEEPeak and GPPPeak in the lowered water
table plot during wet years (Fig. 3c, d) was not due
to water table position, as there were no differences
among plots in water table position during wet years
(Fig. 1). This treatment effect on NEEPeak in the low-
ered water table plot occurred in both early (2007–2009) and late (2012–2013) wet years of the study
(Fig. 7). Light response curves for each plot similarly
showed that magnitude of GPPmax was reduced
under drier conditions, but that the lowered water
table treatment further had reduced magnitude of
GPPmax compared to the other plots also during wet
years despite no difference in water table position
(Fig. 8).
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 10 20 30 40
R2
of c
orre
latio
nm
odel
resi
dual
v.s
. ΔW
T
Time-lag considered (days)
Methane fluxEcosystem respiration
Fig. 4 Lag effect of changing water table for methane emissions
and ecosystem respiration, considered over time periods
between 1 and 40 days prior to flux measurement. Lag effect
strength was assessed using the coefficient of determination
(R2) between shifts in water table over a period prior to flux
measurements and the residuals of the most parsimonious lin-
ear models for FCH4 and ER (Table S1). The correlations consis-
tently indicated that the linear mixed effects model
overestimated FCH4 when the water table was rising and con-
versely underestimated FCH4 when the water table was falling.
The influence of water table shifts was minor for ER.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
2434 D. OLEFELDT et al.
Discussion
Rich fens are a common peatland type in the boreal
biome (Vitt et al., 2000; Whitcomb et al., 2009), but tend
to be understudied compared to boreal poor fens and
bogs because of the complexity of these systems and
the difficulty of making measurements in systems that
flood and dry regularly (Lund et al., 2009; Turetsky
et al., 2014). The experimental design and nine-year
duration of the study allowed the exploration of long-
and short-term effects of water table fluctuations.
Results discussed below further show that the studied
rich fen has both similarities and differences to the
likely impacts of altered hydrological regimes of other
boreal peatland types. Understanding impacts of
altered hydrological regimes, and potential differences
among peatland types, is critical for making predictions
about the future greenhouse gas balance of boreal peat-
lands under future climates.
Long-term effects of experimentally modified droughtseverity
The effects of our wetting and drying treatment on veg-
etation composition were assessed in 2010, six years
after the establishment of the water table manipulations
(Churchill et al., 2015). In brief, the study found that
water table treatment led to no significant changes in
total biomass or vascular net primary productivity, but
that the raised water table plot had slightly increased
abundance of sedges, while the lowered plot had
reduced brown moss cover and increased total vascular
ER = –0.53xNEE + 1.4R² = 0.52 P < 0.01
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1
Eco
syst
em re
spira
tion
(μm
ol C
O2
m–2
s–1
)
Net ecosystem exchange(μmol CO2 m–2 s–1)
Control (Wet) Control (Dry)Lowered (Wet) Lowered (Dry)Raised (Wet) Raised (Dry)
–0.3
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
–45 –30 –15 0 15
–NE
E/E
R
Water table position (cm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 5 Relationships between (a) average measured peak growing season (13 June–22 August) ecosystem respiration and net ecosystem
exchange fluxes and (b) the average ratio of measured peak growing season net ecosystem exchange to ecosystem respiration magni-
tude and water table position. Each symbol represents an individual subplot, and error bars represent �1 standard error. Only fluxes
measured under high light conditions (PPFD > 400 lmol m�2 s�1) were included in analysis. Positive water table position indicates
water table above the peat surface. Fitted line shows a significant linear relationship between subplot NEEPeak and ERPeak during wet
years across all treatments. Dry years were 2006, 2010 and 2011, and wet years were 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2013.
–10
–8
–6
–4
–2
0
2
4
–60 –40 –20 0 20
Net
eco
syst
em e
xcha
nge
(μm
olC
O2
m–2
s–1
)
Water table position (cm)
ControlLoweredRaised
–9
–12
–15
–6
–3
0
3
–60 –40 –20 0 20Gro
ss –
15–1
2prim
ary
prod
uctio
n(μ
mol
CO
2 m
–2 s
–1)
Water table (cm)
ControlLoweredRaised
(a) (b)
Fig. 6 Relationship between peak growing season (13 June–22 August) net ecosystem exchange and water table position. Only mea-
surements taken under high light conditions (PPFD > 400 lmol m�2 s�1) are included. The dashed line represents a nonlinear regres-
sion based on data from all subplots using Eqn (2), which is described in Table 1. Positive water table position indicates water table
above the peat surface.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
WATER TABLE CONTROL ON FEN GHG EXCHANGE 2435
green area in comparison with the control plot. The
abundance of drought-tolerant shrub species did not
increase in the lowered water table treatment, which
has been observed in long-term water table manipula-
tions in nutrient-poor peatlands (Laine et al., 1996;
Weltzin et al., 2000). This is likely due to how our mea-
surement period included years when the water table
remained above the peat surface throughout the grow-
ing season even in the lowered water table plot. Hence,
in the lowered water table plot, exacerbated drought
conditions during dry years caused the loss of drought-
sensitive brown mosses but wet years still likely pre-
vented the establishment of drought-tolerant but
flood-sensitive shrubs. This highlights how natural
hydrological variability of rich fens influences stability of
vegetation communities, which in turn has implications
for impacts of hydrological variability on C cycling.
The lowered water table treatment exhibited altered
relationships between CO2 fluxes and abiotic variables
relative to the other treatment plots, likely linked to
shifts in vegetation composition. Under conditions
optimal for maximum GPPpeak and ERpeak, i.e., mea-
surements taken under full sunlight when the water
table was near the peat surface, the lowered treatment
plot had GPP and ER fluxes that were reduced in
magnitude by ~15% compared with control and
raised water table plots. Reduced GPP is likely to
have led to lower rates of autotrophic respiration
(Han et al., 2014) and thus caused the observed reduc-
tion in ER. The net effect was reduced magnitude of
NEE, indicating reduced capacity for C uptake during
summers. These treatment effects on the lowered
water table plot were evident in the lowered plot
after just 2 years of water table manipulation (Chivers
et al., 2009; Churchill et al., 2015), and this study
shows that these effects have been maintained over
the 9 years of the experiment.
Water table variability and CO2 fluxes
Our chamber flux measurements corroborate results
from an eddy covariance study carried out at the site
(Euskirchen et al., 2014), showing that both NEE and
GPP peak (i.e., have maximum rates of photosynthesis
and C uptake) when the water table is approximately
level with the peat surface. The optimal water table
position at the APEX fen for NEE (�2 to +5 cm) is wet-
ter than has been observed in a boreal poor fen (�10 to
�20 cm) (Yurova et al., 2007), likely due to differences
in vegetation composition and rooting depths, where
the APEX fen has relatively more emergent vascular
plants and less Sphagnum mosses than the poor fen.
Reduced photosynthetic uptake of mosses is likely
when the water table is above the peat surface. Con-
versely, reduced uptake during drier periods could be
due to plant moisture stress – particularly for bryo-
phytes (Turetsky, 2003) and dwarf shrubs (Lindroth
et al., 2007).
Relative to relationships with NEE and GPP, the
influence of water table position on ER was weaker but
indicated two optima: when the water table was just
under the peat surface and again once the water table
dropped below �40 cm. Previous peatland studies
have found conflicting relationships (including posi-
tive, negative and no relationships) between ER and
water table position (Chimner & Cooper, 2003; Lafleur
et al., 2005; Juszczak et al., 2013; McConnell et al., 2013;
Ballantyne et al., 2014). These conflicting results may
partially be due to previous studies not being able, as
in this study, to determine the influence of water table
position over a wide water table range under compara-
ble soil temperatures. The influence of water table posi-
tion on ER is also likely obscured by the fact that ER is
the sum of autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration
that each is affected independently by water table posi-
tion. Peat mineralization rates (heterotrophic respira-
tion) are expected to decrease with wetter conditions as
incubation experiments show rates reduced by on aver-
age by 80% under anaerobic conditions compared to
aerobic conditions (Schuur et al., 2015). However, pho-
tosynthetically driven respiration, including both strict
–5
–4
–3
–2
–1
0
Early Wet Years(2007-09)
Late Wet Years(2012-13)
Net
eco
syst
em e
xcha
nge
(μm
ol C
O2
m–2
s–1
)
ControlLoweredRaised
Fig. 7 Average peak growing season (13 June–22 August) net
ecosystem exchange fluxes among treatments measured under
high light conditions (PPFD > 400 lmol m�2 s�1) during early
(2007–2009) and late (2012–2013) wet years in the study. Error
bars represent �2 standard errors. Two-way ANOVA followed by
a multiple comparison using a Bonferroni correction indicated
that the lowered treatment had lower magnitude fluxes during
both periods (P < 0.1). In wet years, there was no difference in
water table position among treatments (control, lowered and
raised) (see Fig. 1). Lower magnitude fluxes during the late wet
years are primarily due to measurements being taken later in
the season on average, with average dates July 3 and August 7
for early and late wet years, respectively (see Fig. S3 for season-
ality of NEE).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
2436 D. OLEFELDT et al.
autotrophic respiration (foliage, stems and roots) and
rhizospheric respiration of root exudates, often domi-
nates wetland ER (Frolking et al., 2002; Crow & Wieder,
2005) and can be highly responsive to short-term varia-
tion in GPP (Han et al., 2014). The observed relation-
ship in this study between NEE and ER among
subplots under high light conditions in wet years sug-
gested that photosynthetically driven respiration repre-
sented 35 � 14% of GPP under such conditions. This
implies that photosynthetically driven respiration rep-
resented ~70 � 28% of ER during such periods
(GPPpeak 9 0.35 � 0.14/ERpeak). If photosynthetically
driven respiration as a fraction of GPP can be assumed
similar during dry years, it follows that photosyntheti-
cally driven respiration as a fraction of ER under simi-
lar light conditions in dry years drops to 63 � 25,
50 � 20 and 41 � 16%, respectively, in the raised, con-
trol and lowered treatment subplots, with concurrent
increases in heterotrophic contribution.
Increased importance of heterotrophic respiration
during drier periods was further supported by the
increasing predictive capability of soil temperatures at
25 cm depth for ER during the driest periods. A poten-
tially interesting influence on heterotrophic respiration
is thus that deep soil temperatures in dry years are sub-
stantially colder than in wet years, thus suppressing
rates of peat mineralization despite aerobic conditions
(c.f. Ise et al., 2008).
Lag effects on ER following droughts have been
observed in nutrient-poor peatlands due to temporary
reductions of biogeochemical constraints on anaerobic
microbial activity. In nutrient-poor peatlands, droughts
initiate a biogeochemical cascade where increased aero-
bic microbial activity causes a release of nutrients and
increased pH, which in turn significantly increases
anaerobic rates of peat mineralization following rewet-
ting when compared to before the drought (Fenner &
Freeman, 2011). In this study, we found neither short-
term (1–50 days) nor inter-annual lag effects on ER
linked to shifts in water table position. Furthermore, a
peat incubation experiment using soil organic matter
from the APEX treatments showed only a minor differ-
ence between aerobic and anaerobic rates of peat min-
eralization (Kane et al., 2013), with much higher rates of
anaerobic CO2 production than expected. These results
support the interpretation that biogeochemical con-
straints on anaerobic microbial activity are less strict in
more nutrient rich peatlands with higher pH (Ye et al.,
2012) and that ER in rich fens thus is less likely to exhi-
bit inter-annual lag effects following drought.
Methane emissions and water table variability
It is well established in the literature, and corroborated
in our results, that the balance between anaerobic CH4
production below the water table and oxidation above
–15
–12
–9
–6
–3
0
0 1000 2000–15
–12
–9
–6
–3
0
0 1000 2000–15
–12
–9
–6
–3
0
0 1000 2000
Photosynthetic photon flux density (μmol m–2 s–1)
Gro
ss p
rimar
y pr
oduc
tion
(μm
ol C
O2
m–2
s–1
)(a) Control treatment (b) Lowered treatment (c) Raised treatment
Wet: –8.5 ±2.0, 290 ±180Dry: –8.0 ±2.2, 670 ±420
Wet: –7.2 ±1.8, 440 ±310Dry: –4.4 ±0.8, 120 ±130
Wet: –8.7 ±1.9, 420 ±170Dry: –8.6 ±2.3, 490 ±340
Fig. 8 Relationships between gross primary production and photosynthetic photon flux density among treatments and between dry
and wet years. Comparison uses data from peak growing season only. Parameters estimates � 95% CI are reported for GPPmax (maxi-
mum rate of GPP under light saturation) and k (light level where half of GPPmax is attained) (Eqn 2). Dotted lines are fits (Eqn 2) for
dry years, and continuous lines are for wet years. Water table position varied among treatment plots during dry years, but not during
wet years (Fig. 1).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
WATER TABLE CONTROL ON FEN GHG EXCHANGE 2437
it leads to rapidly increasing CH4 fluxes with a higher
water table position (Bridgham et al., 2013). Our results
further showed short-term lag effects on CH4 emissions
due to water table fluctuation. This lag effect was eco-
logically significant as our linear model over- and
underestimated CH4 emissions by ~25% when the
water table had raised or dropped by 5 cm over the
preceding 5 days, respectively. These short-term lag
effects may arise due to physical processes such as
changes in hydrostatic pressure, due to suppression of
methanogens until alternate electron acceptors are
depleted (Knorr and Blodau, 2009; Deppe et al., 2010)
or due to differential growth rates between methano-
gens and methanotrophs (Segers, 1998). Given that
water table position generally drops over the season,
our results suggest that short-term lag effects are
required to be taken into account when modeling
methane emissions from northern peatlands.
Methane emissions were strongly associated with
soil temperatures at 25 cm depth. Average peak
growing season soil temperature at 25 cm over the
9 years was uncorrelated with air temperatures, but
was on average ~3.5 °C warmer in wet than in dry
years. Higher deep soil temperatures in wet years are
likely due to increased soil thermal conductivity of
flooded soils. Our empirical models indicate that a
3.5 °C increase at 25 cm soil depth when the water
table is level with the peat surface leads to 85% to
120% increases in methane emissions. As such, higher
methane emissions in wet years are indicated to be
equally due to increased rates of methanogenesis in
warmer anaerobic peat layers as it due to reduced
capacity for methanotrophy in a thinner aerobic layer.
A coupled hydrological and biogeochemical model of
wetland greenhouse gases has accordingly shown that
wet years can lead to increased soil temperatures,
which in turn raise CH4 emissions (Grant, 2015). This
connection between water table position and deep soil
temperatures is thus important to consider not to
underestimate future methane emissions in wetlands
that occasionally flood.
Climate change implications for boreal rich fens
Studies of water table and soil temperature influences
on methane emissions and the balance between GPP
and ER for the overall C balance of northern peat-
lands have shown that different peatland types can
be expected to respond differently (Bubier et al., 1998;
Sulman et al., 2010; Turetsky et al., 2014). Our results
show that altered frequency and severity of droughts
and floods will have a strong influence on the overall
C balance of rich fens like APEX. Eddy covariance
measurements have found the site to be a significant
C sink (~80 g C m�2 yr�1) during wet years (2012
and 2013), but the record does not yet include a dry
year for comparison (Euskirchen et al., 2014). Our
results show that dry years lead to reduced capacity
for C uptake as a result of inhibited GPP, while ER
magnitude is sustained by a shift in dominance from
autotrophic to heterotrophic respiration. Similar nega-
tive influence of dry years on photosynthetic capacity
has been suggested based on eddy covariance mea-
surements for a boreal rich fen in Finland (Aurela
et al., 2009). However, we further observed reduced
rates of peak growing season GPP and NEE in the
lowered treatment during subsequent wet years
despite there being no difference in water table posi-
tion among treatments in wet years. This indicates
that extreme droughts have long-term, inter-annual,
effects on C uptake in rich fens, likely due to reduced
photosynthetic capacity of an altered vegetation com-
munity.
It is not certain that climate change will lead to
increased frequency or severity of summer droughts in
rich fens as is expected for boreal nutrient-poor peat-
lands (Wu & Roulet, 2014). Given the amplification of
the hydrological cycle, wetness of rich fens may not
respond to climate like the overall landscape given the
importance surface water and groundwater inflows
(Walvoord & Striegl, 2007; Olefeldt & Roulet, 2012). For
example, the APEX rich fen is located on a floodplain
and remained flooded throughout the 2013 growing
season despite less than average seasonal precipitation.
There is currently a limited understanding of how cli-
mate change may affect regional hydrology and thus
hydrological regimes of rich fens. Projecting future
hydrological regimes of rich fens thus represents a key
uncertainty future greenhouse gas exchange of north-
ern peatlands overall.
Acknowledgements
This APEX has been supported by National Science Founda-tion grants (DEB-0425328, DEB-0724514 and DEB-0830997) toM.R.T, A.D.M, J.H., E.E. and E.S.K., the Bonanza Creek Long-Term Ecological Research program (funded jointly by NSFGrant DEB-0620579, an USDA Forest Service Pacific NorthwestResearch Grant PNW01-JV11261952-231) and U.S. GeologicalSurvey Climate and Land Use Change Program and ClimateScience Center grant funds to J.H., A.D.M., M.W. and E.E.During manuscript compilation and writing, D.O. was sup-ported by a Campus Alberta Innovates Program grant. Anyuse of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive pur-poses only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.Government. We thank all collaborators and students whohave contributed over the years to the APEX project, namelyBill Cable, Colin Edgar, Michael Waddington, Jamie Hollings-worth, Teresa Hollingsworth, Rebecca Finger, Amy Churchill,Nicole McConnell and Molly Chivers. The authors claim noconflicts of interest.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
2438 D. OLEFELDT et al.
References
Adkinson AC, Syed KH, Flanagan LB (2011) Contrasting responses of growing season
ecosystem CO2 exchange to variation in temperature and water table depth in two
peatlands in northern Alberta, Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, G01004.
Aurela M, Lohila A, Tuovinen J-P, Hatakka J, Riutta T, Laurila T (2009) Carbon diox-
ide exchange of a northern boreal fen. Boreal Environmental Research, 14, 699–710.
Ballantyne DM, Hribljan JA, Pypker TG, Chimner RA (2014) Long-term water table
manipulations alter peatland gaseous carbon fluxes in Northern Michigan. Wet-
lands Ecology and Management, 22, 35–47.
Batjes NH (1996) Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European Journal
of Soil Science, 47, 151–163.
Berg EE, McDonnel Hillman K, Dial R, DeRuwe A (2009) Recent woody invasion of
wetlands on the Kenai Peninsula Lowlands, south-central Alaska: a major regime
shift after 18 000 years of wet Sphagnum-sedge peat recruitment. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research, 39, 2033–2046.
Bergamschi P, Frankenberg C, Meirink JF et al. (2007) Satellite chartography of atmo-
spheric methane from SCIAMACHY on board ENVISAT: 2. Evaluation based on
inverse model simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 112,
D02304.
Bridgham SD, Cadillo-Quiroz H, Keller JK, Zhuang Q (2013) Methane emissions from
wetlands: biogeochemical, microbial, and modeling perspectives from local to glo-
bal scales. Global Change Biology, 19, 1325–1346.
Bubier JL, Crill PM, Moore TR, Savage K, Varner RK (1998) Seasonal patterns and
controls on net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland complex. Global Bio-
geochemical Cycles, 12, 703–714.
Carrol P, Crill P (1997) Carbon balance of a temperate poor fen. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 11, 349–356.
Chimner RA, Cooper DJ (2003) Influence of water table levels on CO2 emissions in a
Colorado subalpine fen: an in situ microcosm study. Soil Biology and Biogeochem-
istry, 35, 345–351.
Chivers MR, Turetsky MR, Waddington JM, Harden JW, McGuire AD (2009) Effects
of experimental water table and temperature manipulations on ecosystem CO2
fluxes in an Alaskan rich fen. Ecosystems, 12, 1329–1342.
Churchill AC, Turetsky MR, McGuire AD, Hollingsworth TN (2015) Response of
plant community structure and primary productivity to experimental drought and
flooding in an Alaskan fen. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 45, 185–193.
Clymo RS, Turunen J, Tolonen K (1998) Carbon accumulation in peatland. Oikos, 81,
368–388.
Crow SE, Wieder KR (2005) Sources of CO2 emissions from a northern peatland: root
respiration, exudation, and decomposition. Ecology, 86, 1825–1834.
Deppe M, McKnight D, Blodau C (2010) Effects of short-term drying and irrigation
on electron flow in mesocosms of a northern bog and an alpine fen. Environmental
Science and Technology, 44, 80–86.
Dowrick DJ, Freeman C, Lock MA, Reynolds B (2006) Sulphate reduction and the
suppression of peatland methane emissions following summer drought. Geoderma,
132, 384–390.
Euskirchen ES, Edgar CW, Turetsky MR, Waldrop MP, Harden JW (2014) Differential
response of carbon fluxes to climate in three peatland ecosystems that vary in the
presence and stability of permafrost. Journal of Geophysical Research, 119, 1576–1595.
Fenner N, Freeman C (2011) Drought-induced carbon loss in peatlands. Nature Geo-
science, 4, 895–900.
Frolking S, Roulet NT (2007) Holocene radiate forcing impact of northern peatland
carbon accumulation and methane emissions. Global Change Biology, 13, 1079–1088.
Frolking S, Roulet NT, Moore TR, Lafleur PM, Bubier JL, Crill PM (2002) Modeling
seasonal to annual carbon balance of Mer Bleue Bog, Ontario, Canada. Global Bio-
geochemical Cycles, 16. doi:10.1029/2001GB001457.
Grant RF (2015) Ecosystem CO2 and CH4 exchange in a mixed tundra and a fen
within a hydrologically diverse Arctic landscape: 2. Modeled impacts of climate
change. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences, 120, 1388–1406.
Han G, Luo Y, Li D, Xia J, Xing Q, Yu J (2014) Ecosystem photosynthesis regulates soil
respiration on a diurnal scale with a short-term time lag in a coastal wetland. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry, 68, 85–94.
Hartmann DL, Klein Tank AMG, Rusticucci M et al. (2013) Observations: atmosphere
and surface. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Work-
ing Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (eds Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J,
Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM), pp. 159–254. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
Hinzman LD, Bettez ND, Bolton WR et al. (2005) Evidence and implications of recent cli-
mate change in northern Alaska and other arctic regions. Climatic Change, 72, 251–298.
Hinzman LD, Viereck LA, Adams PC, Romanovsky VE, Yoshikawa K (2006) Climatic
and permafrost dynamics of the Alaskan boreal forest. In: Alaska’s Changing Boreal
Forest (eds Chapin FS III, Oswood MW, Van Cleve K, Viereck LA, Verbyla DL),
pp. 39–61. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.
Ise T, Dunn AL, Wofsy SC, Moorcroft PR (2008) High sensitivity of peat decom-
position to climate change through water-table feedback. Nature Geoscience, 1,
763–766.
Juszczak R, Humphreys E, Acosta M, Michalak-Galczewska M, Kayzer D, Olejnik J
(2013) Ecosystem respiration in a heterogeneous temperate peatland and its sensi-
tivity to peat temperature and water table depth. Plant and Soil, 366, 505–520.
Kane ES, Chivers MR, Turetsky MR et al. (2013) Response of anaerobic carbon cycling
to water table manipulations in an Alaskan rich fen. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,
58, 50–60.
Knorr K-H, Blodau C (2009) Impact of experimental drought and rewetting on redox
transformations and methanogenesis in mesocosms of a northern fen soil. Soil Biol-
ogy and Biochemistry, 41, 1187–1198.
Lafleur PM, Moore TR, Roulet NT, Frolking S (2005) Ecosystem respiration in a cool
temperate bog depends on peat temperature but not water table. Ecosystems, 8,
619–629.
Laiho R (2006) Decomposition in peatlands: reconciling seemingly contrasting
results on the impacts of lowered water levels. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38,
2011–2024.
Laine J, Silvola J, Tolonen K et al. (1996) Effect of water-level drawdown on global cli-
matic warming: northern peatlands. Ambio, 25, 179–184.
Limpens J, Berendse F, Blodau C et al. (2008) Peatlands and the carbon cycle: from
local processes to global implications – a synthesis. Biogeosciences, 5, 1475–1491.
Lindroth A, Lund M, Nilsson M et al. (2007) Environmental controls on the CO2
exchange in north European mires. Tellus, 59B, 812–825.
Lund M, Lafleur PM, Roulet NT et al. (2009) Variability in exchange of CO2
across 12 northern peatland and tundra sites. Global Change Biology, 16, 2436–
2448.
Lund M, Christensen TR, Lindroth A, Schubert P (2012) Effects of drought conditions
on the carbon dioxide dynamics in a temperate peatland. Environmental Research
Letters, 7, 045704.
McConnell NA, Turetsky MR, McGuire AD, Kane ES, Waldrop MP, Harden JW
(2013) Controls on ecosystem and root respiration across a permafrost and wet-
land gradient in interior Alaska. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 045029.
Moore TR, Knowles R (1989) The influence of water table levels on methane and carbon
dioxide emissions from peatland soils. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 69, 33–38.
Olefeldt D, Roulet N (2012) Effects of permafrost and hydrology on the composition
and transport of dissolved organic carbon in a subarctic peatland complex. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 117, G01005.
Olefeldt D, Turetsky MR, Crill PM, McGuire AD (2013) Environmental and physical
controls on northern terrestrial methane emissions across permafrost zones. Global
Change Biology, 19, 589–603.
Peichl M, Sonnentag O, Nilsson M (2015) Bringing color into the picture: using digital
repeat photography to investigate phenology controls of the carbon dioxide
exchange in a boreal mire. Ecosystems, 18, 115–131.
Rawlins MA, Steele M, Holland MM et al. (2010) Analysis of the arctic system for
freshwater cycle intensification: observations and expectations. Journal of Climate,
23, 5715–5737.
Roulet NT, Lafleur PM, Richard PJ, Moore TR, Humphreys ER, Bubier J (2007) Con-
temporary carbon balance and late Holocene carbon accumulation in a northern
peatland. Global Change Biology, 13, 397–411.
Rouse WR (1998) A water balance model for a subarctic sedge fen and its application
to climate change. Climatic Change, 38, 207–234.
Schuur EAG, McGuire AD, Sch€adel C et al. (2015) Climate change and the permafrost
carbon feedback. Nature, 520, 171–179.
Segers R (1998) Methane production and methane consumption: a review of pro-
cesses underlying wetland methane fluxes. Biogeochemistry, 41, 23–51.
Serreze MC, Francis JA (2006) The Arctic amplification debate. Climatic Change, 76,
241–261.
Silvola J, Alm J, Ahlholm U, Nyk€anen H, Martikainen PJ (1996) CO2 fluxes from peat
in boreal mires under varying temperature and moisture conditions. Journal of
Ecology, 84, 219–228.
Sulman BN, Desai AR, Cook BD, Saliendra N, Mackay DS (2009) Contrasting carbon
dioxide fluxes between a drying shrub wetland in Northern Wisconsin, USA, and
nearby forests. Biogeosciences, 6, 1115–1126.
Sulman BN, Desai AR, Saliendra NZ et al. (2010) CO2 fluxes at northern fens and bogs
have opposite responses to inter-annual fluctuations in water table. Geophysical
Research Letters, 37, L19702.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
WATER TABLE CONTROL ON FEN GHG EXCHANGE 2439
Sun CL, Brauer SL, Cadillo-Quiroz H, Zinder SH, Yavitt JB (2012) Seasonal changes
in methanogenesis and methanogenic community in three peatlands, New York
State. Frontiers in Microbiology, 3, 81.
Tardif S, St-Hilaire A, Roy R, Payette S (2015) Water budget analysis of small forested
boreal watersheds: comparison of Sphagnum bog, patterned fen and lake domi-
nated downstream areas in the La Grande River Region, Quebec. Hydrology
Research, 46, 106–120.
Tuitilla E-S, Vasander H, Laine J (2004) Sensitivity of C sequestration in reintroduced
sphagnum to water-level variation in a cutaway peatland. Restoration Ecology, 12,
483–493.
Turetsky MR (2003) The role of bryophytes in carbon and nitrogen cycling. The Bryol-
ogist, 106, 395–409.
Turetsky MR, Treat CC, Waldrop MP, Waddington JM, Harden JW, McGuire AD
(2008) Short-term response of methane fluxes and methanogen activity to water
table and soil warming manipulations in an Alaskan peatland. Journal of Geophysi-
cal Research, 113, G00A10.
Turetsky MR, Kotowska A, Bubier J et al. (2014) A synthesis of methane emissions from
71 northern, temperate, and subtropical wetlands. Global Change Biology, 20, 2183–2197.
Vitt DH, Halsey LA, Bauer IE, Campbell C (2000) Spatial and temporal trends in car-
bon storage of peatlands of continental western Canada through the Holocene.
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 37, 683–693.
Walvoord MA, Striegl RG (2007) Increased groundwater to stream discharge from
permafrost thawing in the Yukon River basin: potential impacts on lateral export
of carbon and nitrogen. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L12402.
Ward SE, Ostle NJ, Oakley S, Quirk H, Henrys PA, Bardgett RD (2013) Warming
effects on greenhouse gas fluxes in peatlands are modulated by vegetation compo-
sition. Ecology Letters, 16, 1285–1293.
Weltzin JF, Pastor J, Harth C, Bridgham SD, Updegraff K, Chapin C (2000) Respone
of bog and fen plant communities to warming and water table manipulations.
Ecology, 81, 3464–3478.
Wendler G, Shulski M (2009) A century of climate change for Fairbanks, Alaska. Arc-
tic, 62, 295–300.
Whitcomb J, Moghaddam M, McDonald K, Kellndorfer J, Podest E (2009) Mapping
vegetated wetlands of Alaska using L-band radar satellite imagery. Canadian Jour-
nal of Remote Sensing, 35, 54–72.
Wu J, Roulet NT (2014) Climate change reduces the capacity of northern peatlands to
absorb the atmospheric carbon dioxide: the different responses of bogs and fens.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 28, 1005–1024.
Ye R, Jin Q, Bohannan B, Keller JK, McAllister SA, Bridgham SD (2012) pH controls
over anaerobic carbon mineralization, the efficiency of methane production, and
methanogenic pathways in peatlands across an ombrotrophic–minerotrophic gra-
dient. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 54, 36–47.
Yu Z (2012) Northern peatland carbon stocks and dynamics: a review. Biogeosciences,
9, 4071–4085.
Yurova A, Wolf A, Sagerfors J, Nilsson M (2007) Variations in net ecosys-
tem exchange of carbon dioxide in a boreal mire: modeling mechanisms
linked to water table position. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences,
112, G02025.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article:
Figure S1. Relationships between (a) average daily soil temperature at 25 cm depth and soil temperatures at 25 cm in the raisedand lowered water table treatment, and (b) average daily soil temperature in subplots without open top chambers (OTC) and sub-plots with OTC.Figure S2. Median measured daytime fluxes of methane fluxes and ecosystem respiration throughout the season.Figure S3. Median measured fluxes under high light conditions (PPFD > 400 lmol m�2 s�1) throughout the season of (a) NEE and(b) GPP. Dry years were 2006, 2010 and 2011, while wet years were 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2013.Figure S4. Average peak growing season (DOY 165-234) soil temperatures (2005–2013) at 2 and 25 cm peat depths plotted against(a) average peak growing season air temperatures, and (b) average peak growing season water table position in the control plot.Table S1. Results from linear mixed effects model analyzing controls on measured daytime ER and Log10 transformed CH4 fluxesacross three water table treatments: ANOVA of the marginal effects of the parameters and the final regression model with estimates ofsignificant fixed effects coefficients.Table S2. Estimated parameters for models examining the non-linear temperature dependencies of methane fluxes and ecosystemrespiration (Eq. 1: Flux = A 9 QT=10
A ).Table S3. Results from linear mixed effects model analyzing controls on measured GPP and NEE fluxes across three water tabletreatments: ANOVA of the marginal effects of the parameters and the final regression model with estimates of significant fixed effectscoefficients.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Global Change Biology, 23, 2428–2440
2440 D. OLEFELDT et al.