Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw

View ORCID ProfileGustaf Hugelius, View ORCID ProfileJulie Loisel, View ORCID ProfileSarah Chadburn, View ORCID ProfileRobert B. Jackson, View ORCID ProfileMiriam Jones, Glen MacDonald, Maija Marushchak, View ORCID ProfileDavid Olefeldt, Maara Packalen, View ORCID ProfileMatthias B. Siewert, View ORCID ProfileClaire Treat, Merritt Turetsky, View ORCID ProfileCarolina Voigt, and View ORCID ProfileZicheng Yu
  1. aDepartment of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden;
  2. bBolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden;
  3. cDepartment of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  4. dDepartment of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843;
  5. eDepartment of Mathematics, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, United Kingdom;
  6. fWoods Institute for the Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  7. gFlorence Bascom Geoscience Center, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192;
  8. hDepartment of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1524;
  9. iDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland;
  10. jDepartment of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada;
  11. kDepartment of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada;
  12. lDepartment of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University, 907 36 Umeå, Sweden;
  13. mEarth Systems Research Center, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824;
  14. nDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada;
  15. oInstitute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;
  16. pDepartment of Geography, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC H2V 0B3, Canada;
  17. qDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015;
  18. rInstitute for Peat and Mire Research, School of Geographical Sciences, Northeast Normal University, 130024 Changchun, China

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS August 25, 2020 117 (34) 20438-20446; first published August 10, 2020; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916387117
Gustaf Hugelius
aDepartment of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden;
bBolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden;
cDepartment of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gustaf Hugelius
  • For correspondence: gustaf.hugelius@natgeo.su.se
Julie Loisel
dDepartment of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Julie Loisel
Sarah Chadburn
eDepartment of Mathematics, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sarah Chadburn
Robert B. Jackson
cDepartment of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
fWoods Institute for the Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Robert B. Jackson
Miriam Jones
gFlorence Bascom Geoscience Center, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Miriam Jones
Glen MacDonald
hDepartment of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1524;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maija Marushchak
iDepartment of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Olefeldt
kDepartment of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David Olefeldt
Maara Packalen
jDepartment of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias B. Siewert
lDepartment of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University, 907 36 Umeå, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthias B. Siewert
Claire Treat
mEarth Systems Research Center, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claire Treat
Merritt Turetsky
nDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada;
oInstitute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carolina Voigt
pDepartment of Geography, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC H2V 0B3, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carolina Voigt
Zicheng Yu
qDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015;
rInstitute for Peat and Mire Research, School of Geographical Sciences, Northeast Normal University, 130024 Changchun, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Zicheng Yu
  1. Edited by Tim R. Moore, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and accepted by Editorial Board Member B. L. Turner June 5, 2020 (received for review September 20, 2019)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

Over many millennia, northern peatlands have accumulated large amounts of carbon and nitrogen, thus cooling the global climate. Over shorter timescales, peatland disturbances can trigger losses of peat and release of greenhouses gases. Despite their importance to the global climate, peatlands remain poorly mapped, and the vulnerability of permafrost peatlands to warming is uncertain. This study compiles over 7,000 field observations to present a data-driven map of northern peatlands and their carbon and nitrogen stocks. We use these maps to model the impact of permafrost thaw on peatlands and find that warming will likely shift the greenhouse gas balance of northern peatlands. At present, peatlands cool the climate, but anthropogenic warming can shift them into a net source of warming.

Abstract

Northern peatlands have accumulated large stocks of organic carbon (C) and nitrogen (N), but their spatial distribution and vulnerability to climate warming remain uncertain. Here, we used machine-learning techniques with extensive peat core data (n > 7,000) to create observation-based maps of northern peatland C and N stocks, and to assess their response to warming and permafrost thaw. We estimate that northern peatlands cover 3.7 ± 0.5 million km2 and store 415 ± 150 Pg C and 10 ± 7 Pg N. Nearly half of the peatland area and peat C stocks are permafrost affected. Using modeled global warming stabilization scenarios (from 1.5 to 6 °C warming), we project that the current sink of atmospheric C (0.10 ± 0.02 Pg C⋅y−1) in northern peatlands will shift to a C source as 0.8 to 1.9 million km2 of permafrost-affected peatlands thaw. The projected thaw would cause peatland greenhouse gas emissions equal to ∼1% of anthropogenic radiative forcing in this century. The main forcing is from methane emissions (0.7 to 3 Pg cumulative CH4-C) with smaller carbon dioxide forcing (1 to 2 Pg CO2-C) and minor nitrous oxide losses. We project that initial CO2-C losses reverse after ∼200 y, as warming strengthens peatland C-sinks. We project substantial, but highly uncertain, additional losses of peat into fluvial systems of 10 to 30 Pg C and 0.4 to 0.9 Pg N. The combined gaseous and fluvial peatland C loss estimated here adds 30 to 50% onto previous estimates of permafrost-thaw C losses, with southern permafrost regions being the most vulnerable.

  • northern peatlands
  • carbon stocks
  • nitrogen stocks
  • greenhouse gas fluxes
  • permafrost thaw

Northern peatlands are an important and dynamic component of the climate system. They hold large stocks of organic C and N and have been a persistent long-term sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), but are a source of methane (CH4) (1⇓⇓–4). Climate warming and increased atmospheric CO2 are projected to generally increase northern peat C sequestration as increases in vegetation productivity exceed increases in decomposition (5⇓–7). However, it remains unclear to what degree this increased peat growth may be offset by climate-driven increases in peatland disturbances, including higher fire frequency (8), drought (9), and thawing of permafrost (10). There is field-based evidence of both net losses and net gains of peat resulting from thaw of permafrost peatlands, and the variability in greenhouse gas (GHG) and fluvial fluxes is often governed by permafrost properties and local-scale hydrology and vegetation dynamics (11⇓–13).

Despite their important role in global climate dynamics, peatland-specific processes remain unrepresented in broad-scale estimates of GHG feedbacks from thawing permafrost (10, 14⇓–16). Permafrost thaw in ice-rich peatlands often occurs as abrupt thaw, resulting in thermokarst (ground collapse), a process that leads to wet postthaw environments with high rates of CH4 release (increasing radiative forcing). A dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) that includes peatlands as well as permafrost, but not abrupt thaw and thermokarst processes, projects an increased C sink in permafrost peatlands under warming (7, 17). An inventory-based model suggests that abrupt thaw and thermokarst in high-latitude peatlands will trigger large losses of C to the atmosphere that are only partially offset by new vegetation and peat C storage (18).

Estimates of the total northern peatland C stocks remain variable and uncertain [300 to 600 Pg C (19); but see also ref. 20]. Our ability to assess peatland carbon–climate feedbacks is partly limited due to a lack of spatially explicit, observation-based maps of northern peatland extent and stocks of C and N. An inability to model present-day peatland C stocks has been a major source of systematic errors in Earth system models (ESMs) (21), which hinders predictions of changes in peatland C dynamics with future warming. A new generation of DGVMs is able to dynamically model peatland extent and C stocks but such models lack high-quality validation data and do not account for key permafrost processes such as thermokarst (4, 17, 22). Some previous map-based studies of soil C stocks have distinguished peatland coverage (23, 24), but these datasets lack explicit information on peat depth. Because these soil maps cannot separate peat layers from the underlying mineral subsoil, they are of limited use for understanding processes specific to peat formation and decay, and therefore future dynamics of peat.

Here, we aim to fill some of these knowledge gaps by mapping northern peatlands and assessing their vulnerability to permafrost thaw. We present maps of peatland depth and C and N stocks across the Northern Hemisphere (>23° latitude). These maps are based on peat core data compiled from multiple sources (n > 7,000 cores) that we combined with a range of global environmental datasets using a machine-learning approach. Estimates of peatland GHG and lateral flux budgets at steady state and under future permafrost degradation scenarios were derived from a spatial model based on meta-analyses of peatland flux observations combined with paleo-reconstructions. Using ensemble ESM projections of global warming stabilization scenarios, we provide spatially explicit projections of C and N dynamics and radiative forcing during peatland permafrost thaw and thermokarst development.

Results and Discussion

Mapped Peatland Extent and Peat C and N Stocks.

Based on the peatland map products compiled in this study (25), we estimate northern peatland extent to be 3.7 ± 0.5 million km2 (mean ± root-mean-square error [RMSE]), including 1.7 ± 0.5 million km2 in permafrost (Fig. 1 A and B, Table 1, and SI Appendix, Table S1; peatlands defined as >40-cm surface organic soil material). This extent is similar to inventory-based estimates (1, 19, 26, 27) but suggests that both the global soil map WISE30sec (23) and the global PEATMAP dataset (28) underestimate northern peatland extent by ∼1 million km2. Our map is relatively consistent with the global maps in areas of very high peatland cover (e.g., West Siberian Lowlands and Hudson Bay Lowlands), but we identify more small peatland complexes outside of the core peatland regions (e.g., in central and eastern Siberia and the European Arctic west of the Ural Mountains). Our map of peatland extent was derived from the mean of two independent soil maps, which are the highest-resolution maps for delineating northern peatlands we know of, that is, harmonized national soil inventory maps (29, 30) and the global digital soil map SoilGrids250m (31). These maps separate peatlands with and without permafrost, but we include a maximum threshold for permafrost occurrence at mean annual air temperature (MAAT) of greater than or equal to +1 °C. See SI Appendix, supplement section S1 for detailed information on ground-truthing the peat extent maps using local observations.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Peatland data and properties north of 23°N latitude. (A) Estimated areal coverage (in percentage) of peatlands based on the national soil inventory maps and SoilGrids250m. (B) Estimated areal coverage (in percentage) of permafrost in mapped peatlands based on the national soil inventory maps and SoilGrids250m, including a maximum threshold for permafrost at MAAT +1 °C (use the same legend as in A). (C) Spatial distribution of peat core sites with peat depth data (n = 7,111) and peat organic C storage (n = 782) over a map of biome distributions (biomes adapted from ref. 32). Sites with peat N stock data (n = 105) are not shown in the map (see Dataset S6), but are predominantly located in boreal forest and tundra biomes. (D) Sites with peat organic C storage data, with the size of site symbols proportional to measured peat organic C storage, over a map of permafrost zonation (33). (E) Estimated total peatland C storage and (F) permafrost peatland C storage.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of estimated peatland area and upscaled (area-weighted) peat depth, peat C storage, total peat C stock, peat N storage, and total peat N stock derived from the map products

We determine peatland C stocks using a newly compiled dataset of peat cores with observations of peat depths (n = 7,111) of which some cores include peat organic C and N storage (n = 782 and 105, respectively) distributed across the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 1C and Dataset S6). Based on the peat core data, the average peat C storage is 106 ± 66 kg C⋅m−2, ranging from 0.4 to 593 kg C⋅m−2 with substantial variability over short distances (Fig. 1D). From these, peat cores maps of peat C and N stocks (Fig. 1 E and F) are made by combining a machine-learning model of peat depth, the maps of peatland extent, and linear models for predicting peat C and N storage from peat depth (SI Appendix, Fig. S3). The machine-learning model of peat depth combines peat core data with spatial environmental data (summarized in SI Appendix, Table S2) and shows that underlying mineral soil texture, the extent of peatlands in the area, photosynthetically active radiation, and mean summer temperature were the most important variables for predicting peat depth (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). The maps show a mean peat depth across the circumpolar north (mean ± SD) is 249 ± 97 cm and that total peat C and N stocks are 415 ± 150 and 10 ± 7 Pg (mean ± RMSE), respectively (Table 1). We estimate that permafrost peatlands store 185 ± 70 Pg C and 7 ± 4 Pg N, a substantial part of the total stocks (Table 1). These estimates are largely consistent with most of previous estimates based on data aggregated from tables (1, 19, 26). However, the spatially explicit maps reveal patterns in peat C and peat N stock distribution that have been missed previously. We map larger extent of permafrost peatlands, but we also find these peatlands to be shallower with lower C stocks per area unit than previously assumed. Permafrost peatlands are on average ∼80 cm shallower than permafrost-free peatlands. This confirms that earlier local/regional findings of limited vertical peat accumulation in permafrost peatlands (34) are applicable across the permafrost region.

Combining our peatland C stock estimates with existing estimates for peatlands in the tropics [105 Pg C (35, 36) and the extratropical Southern Hemisphere (15 Pg C (2)], we estimate that peatlands store 530 ± 160 Pg C globally, with northern peatlands accounting for ∼80% of the total. The maps of northern peatlands reveal a very pronounced latitudinal pattern in peatland extent, with nearly half the global peatland C stored between latitudes of 60 and 70° N (SI Appendix, Fig. S7).

Our estimated peatland C stocks are difficult to reconcile with a recent estimate of >1,000 Pg C in northern peatlands (20). That study uses a conservative estimate of peatland areal extent (2.9 million km2) and argues that early onset of peatland expansion after deglaciation caused very high, sustained, C accumulation. Our approaches differ notably, e.g., in their inclusion of data from outside the northern peatland region, their lack of direct bulk density data, and their lack of any observational constraints to peat depth. To accumulate >1,000 Pg C in 2.9 million km2, mean peatland depths of ∼5 to 6 m are needed—twice as deep as suggested by our >7,000 data points. There is also a difficulty in reconciling a >1,000 Pg peatland C stock within the global carbon budget constraints offered by marine and ice-core paleo records of atmospheric CO2 concentration and isotopic composition (37), whereas our study can be reconciled with those top-down estimates. We also note that this high C stock estimate is currently being questioned elsewhere (37, 38).

Present-Day Peatland C and N Balance.

Combining the peatland maps with syntheses of peatland annual flux and C accumulation observations, we calculate present-day peatland GHG fluxes as a sink of atmospheric CO2 at 0.10 ± 0.02 Pg C⋅y−1, a source of CH4 at 0.026 ± 0.002 Pg C⋅y−1, and a source of nitrous oxide (N2O) at 0.022 ± 0.005 Tg N⋅y−1. These are empirically based spatial estimates of northern peatland GHG balances, and the results are similar to previous estimates (3, 6). We estimate losses into aquatic systems (dissolved and particulate organic matter) to be 0.022 ± 0.02 Pg C⋅y−1 and 0.7 ± 0.5 Tg N⋅y−1. We note that the observational GHG data, for CO2 and especially N2O, remain very limited from northern peatlands.

Our estimated net C sink varies with MAAT. We find a significant relationship between MAAT and C accumulation rates over the past 2,000 y (logistic growth model, n = 129, P < 0.05, R2 = 0.3; SI Appendix, Fig. S8). By extrapolating this relationship spatially, we found an average accumulation rate of 34 g C⋅m−2⋅y−1 across the northern peatland region. We note that such long-term C accumulation estimates also implicitly include fire dynamics occurring naturally over time at these sites. Our meta-analyses reveal no clear climatic controls on CH4 and N2O fluxes; but these GHGs vary depending on peatland types (Dataset S1). The variability from different peatland types is accounted for by mapping distributions of permafrost peatlands, and estimating bog and fen cover from biome distributions (SI Appendix, Table S5).

As sinks of CO2, but net sources of CH4, peatlands cool the climate over long timescales. Using a snapshot of annual peatland flux, peatlands warm the climate over decadal time horizons, but cool it over longer time periods (39). Using a radiative forcing model (39), we estimate that the isolated radiative forcing from one year of present-day peatland GHG exchange peaks after 30 to 40 y at +0.075 W⋅m−2, mainly caused by net CH4 emissions (SI Appendix, Fig. S9). Over centuries, there is a net cooling, caused by CO2 sequestration through photosynthesis, which is reached after ∼350 y. These time constraints on radiative forcing are sensitive to the ratio of CH4 emission to CO2 uptake, which changes under peatland disturbances such as permafrost thaw.

Peatland Permafrost Thaw and Postthaw C and N Balances.

Based on an equilibrium model, we estimate that the preindustrial extent of permafrost in peatlands was ∼2 million km2, with a present-day coverage of 1.7 million km2. This area is projected to decrease to 1 million km2 at a 2 °C global warming stabilization above the preindustrial (Fig. 2B). At 6 °C global warming, we project that almost no peatland permafrost would remain. To model these permafrost losses, we used the present-day relationship between peatland permafrost extent and MAAT, extracted from maps (SI Appendix, Fig. S10), and projected it into future scenarios of global average warming stabilization above preindustrial (from +0.5° to +6 °C) using ensemble ESMs (Fig. 2A). This approach essentially adapts the method of ref. 40 specifically to permafrost peatlands. Because our approach was based on assumptions of equilibrium rather than transient responses processes, we cannot project how long it will take permafrost to thaw, but rather what the net, long-term effect will be.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Projected permafrost loss from peatlands and the conceptual model of permafrost thaw impacts on GHG fluxes. (A) Map of projected permafrost loss from peatlands. Colors indicate temperature thresholds when equilibrium permafrost extent drops to less than 10%. (B) Projected equilibrium extent of permafrost in peatlands for global warming stabilization scenarios. Note that zero degree reflects preindustrial warming, with present-day climate already being close to +1 °C. (C) Spatial model of peatland transitions, including the properties and GHG balances of the different degradation and recovery stages. (D) Schematic mean (±SD) annual peatland GHG balances for the different stages of thaw and recovery (weighted average of all pixels). Negative numbers indicate C loss from peatlands, that is, a flux to the atmosphere (upward in the figure). Fluxes of CO2 for the transient permafrost thaw stages, as well as CH4 and N2O fluxes, are synthesized from observed fluxes in field or experimental studies (Datasets S1 and S5).

To assess the effect of permafrost thaw on peatland C and N budgets, we distinguish four main potential stages in the long-term transition from stable permafrost to nonpermafrost peatlands (Fig. 2 C and D, Dataset S1, and SI Appendix, Fig. S11A). 1) Intact permafrost peatlands are sinks of CO2 and have near-neutral CH4 and N2O balances (41⇓⇓–44). 2) Gradual active layer warming and deepening cause releases of CO2 and N2O from the active layer and from newly thawed peat while CH4 remains near neutral (45⇓–47). If thaw progresses into ice-rich permafrost, thermokarst may occur (18). 3) Young thermokarst stage fens and bogs are CO2 sinks and CH4 sources (44, 48, 49). There is no evidence of strong GHG losses from thawed peat (12, 50, 51), but chronosequence studies suggest large net losses of previously frozen peat (13, 18, 52), which we suggest may occur via dissolved or particulate organic C (DOC or POC) fluxes into aquatic ecosystems or through shorter transport and reposition. Young thermokarst lakes are sources of both CO2 and CH4 (53, 54). 4) Stabilization of postthaw peatland stages over centuries leads to weaker CH4 sources with time, and lakes that were CO2 sources transition into CO2 sinks (18, 54⇓–56). We note that all four stages may not occur everywhere, and in many cases different stages may occur simultaneously across a peatland complex. In some sites, a permafrost peatland may experience, under drier conditions, a more extended stage 2 of thaw (active layer deepening) and then progress to a postthaw stage. The spatial model approximates this variability with probability distributions for different stages (SI Appendix, Fig. S11A). Our model framework allows us to explore postthaw C balances with simplified process representation, including the extent to which changes in peatland C stocks are attributable to active layer deepening or thermokarst expansion (18), but does not include other disturbances. Long-term data on C accumulation rates inherently include peat losses to fire, but our framework does not account for C and N losses from rapidly increasing peatland fire frequencies (8) or droughts (9). Our model does not account for landscape-scale hydrological impacts of thaw, such as increased hydrological connectivity (57) or increased evapotranspiration (58).

Our modeling projects that permafrost thaw will cause a transient period of positive radiative forcing from peatlands, which will last one to three centuries (Fig. 3). This added radiative forcing is calculated from the difference between baseline peatland GHG balances at present climate and thaw scenarios. Under warming scenarios across the full range of +1.5 to +6 °C, transient losses of 2 to 6 Pg C as CO2 and CH4, but no significant losses of N2O are projected (Dataset S2 and SI Appendix, Fig. S11B). Two centuries after initial thaw, the combined radiative forcing of this transitional GHG release reaches 0.05 and 0.13 W⋅m−2, respectively, for +2 and +4 °C global warming scenarios (Fig. 3 A and B). The radiative effect is mainly caused by CH4 release. For CO2, initial release from peat decomposition during active-layer deepening is compensated by a net sink effect in the thermokarst stage. We project smaller CO2 losses, but similar fluxes of methane CH4, compared to a previous study of abrupt thaw (18). We estimate a minimal radiative forcing contribution from N2O, allaying concerns of potential added N2O forcing from peatland thaw (46). After long-term stabilization of the thaw-pulse (>200 y), the peatlands will be an annual net sink of C, a source of CH4, and near neutral for N2O (SI Appendix, Fig. S11C). Both the strength of the CO2 sink and the CH4 source increase with MAAT. This is because a warmer climate increases the peatland CO2 sink capacity (due to higher plant productivity), but also increases the fraction of peatlands that change from dry permafrost peatlands to wetter permafrost-free peatlands, thus increasing CH4 emissions. Warmer and wetter climates in the future may also lead to the formation of new peatlands, and C accumulation, in high-latitude regions (4, 59), but this is not addressed in our model calculations.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Projected GHG flux and radiative forcing from peatland permafrost thaw (calculated from the net change in GHG flux relative to stable peatlands) under different global warming stabilization scenarios. (A and B) Projected radiative forcing from GHG fluxes for three centuries for +2 and +4 °C global warming. (C) Added radiative forcing from peatlands in relation to human GHG emissions for this century, assuming that the +0.5 °C degree warming was passed in 1990 and starting the peatland thaw scenarios from that year (human radiative forcing consistent with the different warming trajectories) (60). (D) Projected gross lateral losses of peat C into aquatic systems (mainly as DOC/POC) inferred from permafrost thaw chronosequences. (E and F) Net peatland C-balance following the active layer deepening and young thermokarst thaw stages at +2 and +4 °C global warming.

To assess the societal relevance of the projected GHG fluxes, we compare estimated net added GHG fluxes from the permafrost thaw to full anthropogenic radiative forcing scenarios consistent with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties negotiations (60). Across the full range of +1.5 to 6 °C global warming, northern peatland emissions amount to adding +0.4% to +0.8% onto the forcing from projected anthropogenic emissions by the year 2050 (Fig. 3C). For the low-emission scenarios, the contributions from permafrost thaw in northern peatlands peak near +2% of human emissions, but not until the next century.

Losses of Deep Permafrost Carbon and Its Potential Fate in the Aquatic System.

In addition to GHG losses to the atmosphere, we project additional net cumulative lateral losses to aquatic systems of 10 to 30 Pg C and 0.4 to 1.1 Pg N from permafrost thaw under +1.5 to +6 °C global warming (Fig. 3 D–F). These projections are based on spatial modeling of synthesized peatland permafrost-thaw chronosequences, which have shown rapid (decadal) postthaw losses of deep permafrost peat (13, 18, 61) (SI Appendix, Table S7). These estimates are based on only five chronosequence studies and are more speculative than our other projections. Similar data have been used to infer C losses as CO2 (18), but because GHG flux observations do not seem to support thaw-induced losses of this magnitude (Dataset S1 and refs. 12, 50, 51), we suggest these would most likely occur laterally. This putative lateral loss may occur as DOC or POC fluxes into aquatic ecosystems or through shorter transport and reposition in adjacent ecosystems. If correct, such losses of peat C could have significant implications for aquatic biogeochemistry and ecosystems (62). Averaged over space and time, our modeled losses add up to 11 to 18 kg C⋅m−2 per unit of thawed peatland over the full ∼100-y postthaw period. Although limited, there are observations of lateral flux from thawing permafrost peatlands against which these numbers can be compared (SI Appendix, section S4), and we conclude that fluvial losses of these magnitude can be supported by data from West Siberia (63, 64) but not from a Boreal peatland dominated catchment in western Canada (65). Our projected total net gaseous and lateral C losses are 5 to 10 Pg C higher than those estimated in ref. 18, a difference mainly attributable to a higher projected area of permafrost thaw and the inclusion of active layer deepening losses in this present study. We note that large fractions (half or more) of C transported as POC/DOC may be degassed as CO2 directly from inland water surfaces (63, 66), potentially increasing the total atmospheric burden caused by permafrost thaw in peatlands.

Conclusions

Our maps of northern peatlands are valuable tools for quantifying the role of peatlands in the global C and N cycles as well as for assessing peatland vulnerability to permafrost thaw. Further insights into the fate of northern peatlands under a changing climate can be gained from applying them in spatial studies of peatland fire or drought dynamics. Northern peatlands hold ∼80% of the global peatland C and N stocks and are presently a sink of atmospheric CO2 (0.1 ± 0.02 Pg C⋅y−1). However, the potential for peatlands to remain long-term C sinks may reverse due to permafrost thaw. If the global climate stabilizes at 2 °C warming, we estimate that only a half of the preindustrial permafrost peatland extent will remain; but at +6 °C warming, peatland permafrost essentially disappears. This thaw mobilizes the large currently frozen C and N stocks for decomposition. Methane dominates the radiative forcing from peatland permafrost loss, with a complex transient response of CO2 and minor contributions of N2O. The projected radiative forcing from direct peatland GHG emissions remains below 2% of human CO2 emissions.

Projected cumulative permafrost peatland C loss shows particularly vulnerable regions close to the southern margins of permafrost distribution. While observations of permafrost thaw effects remain scarce, our projections are consistent with observational evidence. Presently, broad-scale permafrost thaw is evident at +1 °C above preindustrial temperatures (67), and the effects on permafrost peatland extent and GHG release have already been observed for several decades (56, 68, 69). Widespread increase in thermokarst has been observed even in very cold permafrost (70). Observations from streams and rivers draining thawing peatland areas show mixed responses, with limited lateral losses in some sites but other data supporting scenarios of large lateral C losses into fluvial systems (63, 64). Our projections of permafrost peatland thaw causing net C losses over several centuries are contrary to some modeling studies (7, 17), but at present DGVMs or ESMs cannot simulate abrupt permafrost thaw. Similar to earlier studies, our data-constrained spatial modeling approach is limited by the scarcity and variability of permafrost peatland C and N flux data (18). The specific processes of peatland permafrost thaw we study here have been unaccounted for by previous spatial estimates of the permafrost carbon feedback. Our projected combined gaseous and aquatic C losses would add 30 to 50% onto previous spatially explicit estimates of permafrost-C losses under warming where abrupt thaw and peatland thaw was not quantified (10, 14).

Methods

The mapping and analyses of northern peatland properties and future vulnerability was based on compilation and analyses of peat core data, compilation and analyses of peatland extent from soil maps, upscaling peat depth, C stocks, and N stocks to the full region, compiling data on observed C and N balances under permafrost thaw, compiling paleo-evidence for long-term C balances, and scenarios projecting/modeling C and N balances at present and under permafrost thaw for different global warming scenarios. Here, we present a summary of methods and data sources, but see SI Appendix for a more detailed description of all methods and data sources.

Peat Core Data and Maps of Peatland Spatial Extent.

A total of 7,111 geolocated peat cores with peat depth data was compiled (Dataset S6). Only sites where basal peat was reached are included. A subset of 782 cores have data on peat organic carbon content (OC% by weight) and dry bulk density. A subset of 105 cores has additional data on peat total N content (weight % N). The sources of data were from refs. 26, 71⇓⇓⇓–75, and previously unpublished data.

This study based estimates of peatland spatial extent on soil classification maps. The study region is limited to the extratropical northern hemisphere (defined as north of 23° latitude). Three different map products were used or evaluated for their capacity to accurately map peatland extent: the global WISE30sec dataset (23), the global SoilGrids250m dataset (31), and harmonized national and regional soil maps (29, 30). We refer to these references for details about how the maps were made. The WISE30sec dataset was not used for peatland mapping as it had too low resolution. The SoilGrids250m and the national/regional soil maps were combined and harmonized for this study; see SI Appendix for more details. All datasets were projected using equal area projections and were resampled to 5-km grids using bilinear interpolation.

Spatial Analyses and Upscaling of Peatland Properties.

The spatial scaling of peat depths was carried out using random forest machine learning (RFML). Random forest is a tree-based machine-learning method that uses bootstrapped samples (here peat cores) to grow a large number of decision trees (ntree) with randomized environmental predictors at each tree node (mtry). These trees are then averaged to predict new data (76, 77). A RFML model, with 1,000 trees (ntree), was trained using the observational data. In total, 6,038 peat cores had sufficiently precise geolocation and matched point-to-pixel overlays for all of the environmental training variables (n = 12; SI Appendix, Table S2). We used a 10-fold cross-validation with five repetitions providing mtry as a tunable parameter for model training using the caret package in R (77, 78). We applied bias correction to the predicted peat depths using best angle residual rotation of the peat depth map (SI Appendix, Fig. S6, and ref. 79).

By combining the RFML model of potential peat depth with the map of peat coverage, we calculated area-weighted peat depths and peat volumes. To calculate stocks, the modeled peat depths were used to estimate peat organic C and N storage (kilograms of C or N per square meter) using linear relationships formulated based on the peat core data (SI Appendix, Fig. S3). The estimated C and N storage was then used to calculate total C and N mass per pixel. Uncertainties are reported as RMSE based on 5th/95th percentiles of residuals between modeled and observed values of peat depth.

Scaling C and N Balances and Projecting Permafrost Thaw.

The baseline C and N balances of peatlands, including GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O), were estimated based on paleo-reconstructions of C balances as well as syntheses of flux measurements from permafrost- and permafrost-free peatlands (Dataset S1). Paleo-observations were used for long-term net C budgets and syntheses of GHG flux measurements for shorter time intervals in projections of thaw. We developed a simple spatially explicit inventory model to assess the impact of peatland permafrost thaw scenarios on the stocks of C and N as well as GHG fluxes.

The applied permafrost thaw scenarios (SI Appendix, Fig. S2A) assume that, once the temperature threshold for thaw is crossed, the peatlands are affected by active-layer deepening for a period of ∼25 to 75 y (with a mean of 50 y) until the thaw progresses into ice-rich, deeper peat. This time period was calculated based on active-layer deepening of 1 cm per year (estimated from refs. 46, 80) and that the average depth to ice-rich peat from the bottom of the active layer in permafrost peatlands is ∼25 to 75 cm (calculated from data in refs. 72, 81⇓–83). If thaw progresses into the ice-rich core of the permafrost peatland, thermokarst (ground collapse) occurs. Postthaw thermokarst peatlands or lakes were assumed to gradually transition to mature thermokarst systems over 50 to 150 y (a mean of 100 y). This time period of transition into mature thermokarst was based on an average of studies on postthaw chronosequences, which suggested somewhat longer transition times of ∼150 to 200 y (estimated from refs. 13, 18, 54, 61) and remote-sensing studies that showed substantial lake drainage or fen-vegetation infilling in some areas over periods of a few decades (56, 83).

For flux scaling, we separated nonpermafrost and permafrost peatlands from postthaw peatlands. All classes were further separated into minerotrophic and ombrotrophic peatlands, but only if there were statistically significant differences in C accumulation rates or GHG balances. The spatial extent of minerotrophic and ombrotrophic peatlands was scaled from the Canadian Peatland Map (84), as fractions within tundra, boreal, and other biomes (includes temperate, oceanic, mountain, and prairie climate regions; biome distributions from ref. 32; SI Appendix, Table S5).

Calculations of C and N Balances.

The C balance of stable peatlands was modeled based on observed long-term apparent C accumulation in the late Holocene (last 2,000 y) from northern (n = 122; ref. 26) and tropical (n = 7; ref. 2) peatlands (Dataset S4). The best model fit was achieved with a logistic model (S-shaped curve) that is able to model growth with saturation at both high and low temperatures (85) (R2 = 0.3, Akaike information criterion = 28,822; SI Appendix, Fig. S9B). This model predicted mean potential C accumulation scaled for the extratropical northern hemisphere under present baseline climate is 34 g C⋅m−2⋅y−1.

The CO2-C fluxes during thaw stages were based on a meta-analysis of full year budgets from thawing permafrost in the literature (SI Appendix, section S1.5 and Dataset S1). The net C budget following permafrost thaw was based on chronosequence studies of postthaw permafrost peatlands (13). Old permafrost C is lost following thaw, while increased ecosystem productivity in the young thermokarst (postcollapse) means that the surface peat is gaining C. In the early thaw stages, the loss of old C is much more rapid than the gain of new C. The loss of old permafrost C can be estimated as a function of prethaw C stock (13, 18) (SI Appendix, Table S7). The C loss during the first 100 y after thaw was estimated from the peatland C stock maps using the simplified equation y = 1.1451x−0.0771, where y is the fraction of prethaw C that is lost in 100 y after thaw and x is the stock of prethaw C in kilograms of C per square meter (R2 = 0.93, from 100 y in SI Appendix, Table S12). We scaled the changes in N pools from the C pools based on typical C:N ratios of permafrost peatlands and nonpermafrost peatlands in tundra regions and boreal regions (SI Appendix, Table S6).

All data for estimated CH4 fluxes were from a recent synthesis of year-round CH4 fluxes in northern wetlands (86). We used only sites with organic soils and separated nonpermafrost, permafrost, and postthaw sites. We further distinguished the minerotrophic peatlands (swamp, marsh, and fen classes, following the Canadian wetland classification system) from ombrotrophic peatlands (bogs).

For minerotrophic and ombrotrophic permafrost-free peatlands, we used annual N2O budgets from a synthesis of N2O fluxes from northern soils (87). Annual/seasonal N2O data from Arctic peatlands are limited to a single site located in western Russia with discontinuous permafrost. We used published N2O flux data from this site (41, 88) as N2O emission estimates for minerotrophic and ombrotrophic (bare and vegetated) permafrost peatlands (Dataset S1). Data on N2O (46) and CO2 (47) fluxes from peat mesocosms during simulated permafrost thaw were used to develop a scaling ratio of N2O release relative to C release (see SI Appendix for more details).

Model of Permafrost Fraction in Peatlands.

The model of permafrost fraction in peatlands was derived using the method developed in ref. 40, where a relationship between permafrost fractional coverage and MAAT was fitted by minimizing RMSE between MAAT and mapped permafrost fraction in peatlands. The equation used is as follows:Permafrost fraction=0.5fmaxERFC(MAAT+μ2σ2),

where ERFC is the complementary error function (using the pracma R package).

As in ref. 40, the curve was refitted using “maximum” and “minimum” permafrost fraction to give upper and lower estimates of permafrost fraction, as well as a central estimate. The maximum and minimum extents were derived from the highest and lowest per-pixel estimates of permafrost fraction in the national polygon maps and SoilGrids, respectively. Thus, three different parameter values (for central, upper, and lower curves, respectively) were fitted for μ (1.95, 0.7, and 3.1), σ (7.35, 6.1, and 4.5), and fmax (0.92, 0.96, and 0.86). We assumed that mapped permafrost extent at +0.5 °C global warming (relative to preindustrial levels) was in quasi-equilibrium with the climate of the 1960 to 1990 period, which we also consider to be representative for the permafrost extent in the maps. Global warming stabilization scenarios at 0.5 °C intervals up to a maximum of 6 °C were used for the future projections.

Modeling Radiative Forcing.

The projected GHG budgets, including CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes, from the spatial model were used to calculate the future radiative forcing effect. A range of GHG flux scenarios (available in Dataset S3) were exported from the spatial model and used as input in a radiative forcing model (39), with additional parameterization for N2O and modifications to atmospheric CO2 lifetimes (89). Separate GHG flux scenarios were calculated for stabilized permafrost conditions at 0.5° increments from 0° to +6 °C global warming stabilization (background concentrations were stable anthropogenic present-day emissions). Separate runs were also done for fluxes resulting from the transient thaw scenarios for each incremental warming, with the added radiative forcing from permafrost thaw calculated from the net changes in GHG fluxes relative to stable baseline peatland GHG balances at present (Fig. 2 and Dataset S1). The net radiative effect of the transient thaw is calculated as the difference between stable scenarios and the transient scenarios. To compare the magnitude of permafrost–peatland thaw emissions to anthropogenic emissions, radiative forcing from anthropogenic emissions together with peatland thaw emissions were compared to anthropogenic emissions alone. The projections for anthropogenic emissions were retrieved from Climate Scoreboard (60) and are computed using the C-ROADS climate policy model (90). For these calculations, we assume that +0.5 °C global warming is consistent with peatland fluxes in 1990 to 2000 (assuming decadal lags in thaw from the 1960 to 1990 climate normal) and that +1 °C warming is consistent with present day.

Data Availability.

The results and peat core data are summarized in Datasets S1–S6. Maps of predicted peatland extent, peat depth, and peat C and N storage (10-km pixels) are archived and freely available for download at https://bolin.su.se/data/hugelius-2020.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Swedish Research Council (2014-06417 and 2018-04516), the European Union Marie Skłodowska-Curie Co-Fund (INCA), the European Union Joint Programming Initiative–Climate COUP project, the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation project Nunataryuk (773421), and a grant from the Gordon and Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation (GBMF5439). The coordination of the research has been supported by the Global Carbon Project, the Permafrost Carbon Network, the Past Global Changes C-PEAT Working Group, and the World Climate Research Programme grand challenge Carbon Feedbacks in the Climate System. S.C. acknowledges funding from UK Natural Environment Research Council (NE/R015791/1). Z.Y. acknowledges the support from National Science Foundation (1802810) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (41877458).

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: gustaf.hugelius{at}natgeo.su.se.
  • ↵2Present address: Ontario Forest Research Institute, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2E5, Canada.

  • Author contributions: G.H., J.L., R.B.J., G.M., M.T., and Z.Y. designed research; G.H., S.C., M.M., M.B.S., C.T., M.T., and C.V. performed research; G.H., J.L., S.C., M.J., M.M., D.O., M.P., M.B.S., C.T., M.T., C.V., and Z.Y. analyzed data; and G.H., J.L., S.C., R.B.J., M.J., G.M., M.M., D.O., M.P., M.B.S., C.T., M.T., C.V., and Z.Y. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no competing interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. T.R.M. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.

  • Data deposition: The final dataset has been deposited with the Bolin Centre for Climate Research Database, https://bolin.su.se/data/hugelius-2020.

  • This article contains supporting information online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1916387117/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

References

  1. ↵
    1. E. Gorham
    , Northern peatlands: Role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol. Appl. 1, 182–195 (1991).
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Z. Yu,
    2. J. Loisel,
    3. D. P. Brosseau,
    4. D. W. Beilman,
    5. S. J. Hunt
    , Global peatland dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L13402 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. S. Frolking et al.
    , Peatlands in the Earth’s 21st century climate system. Environ. Rev. 19, 371–396 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. C. C. Treat et al.
    , Widespread global peatland establishment and persistence over the last 130,000 y. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 4822–4827 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. D. J. Charman et al.
    , Climate-related changes in peatland carbon accumulation during the last millennium. Biogeosciences 10, 929–944 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. A. V. Gallego-Sala et al.
    , Latitudinal limits to the predicted increase of the peatland carbon sink with warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 907–913 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. N. Chaudhary et al.
    , Modelling past and future peatland carbon dynamics across the pan-Arctic. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4119–4133 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. M. R. Turetsky et al.
    , Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nat. Geosci. 8, 11–14 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. N. Fenner,
    2. C. Freeman
    , Drought-induced carbon loss in peatlands. Nat. Geosci. 4, 895–900 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. E. A. G. Schuur et al.
    , Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520, 171–179 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. P. Camill,
    2. J. A. Lynch,
    3. J. S. Clark,
    4. J. B. Adams,
    5. B. Jordan
    , Changes in biomass, aboveground net primary production, and peat accumulation following permafrost thaw in the boreal peatlands of Manitoba, Canada. Ecosystems 4, 461–478 (2001).
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. C. Estop-Aragonés et al.
    , Limited release of previously-frozen C and increased new peat formation after thaw in permafrost peatlands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 118, 115–129 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. M. C. Jones et al.
    , Rapid carbon loss and slow recovery following permafrost thaw in boreal peatlands. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1109–1127 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. C. D. Koven et al.
    , A simplified, data-constrained approach to estimate the permafrost carbon-climate feedback. Philos. Trans. A Math Phys. Eng. Sci. 373, 20140423 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. T. Kleinen,
    2. V. Brovkin
    , Pathway-dependent fate of permafrost region carbon. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 94001 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. E. J. Burke,
    2. S. E. Chadburn,
    3. C. Huntingford,
    4. C. D. Jones
    , CO2 loss by permafrost thawing implies additional emissions reductions to limit warming to 1.5 or 2 °C. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 24024 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. N. Chaudhary,
    2. P. A. Miller,
    3. B. Smith
    , Modelling past, present and future peatland carbon accumulation across the pan-Arctic region. Biogeosciences 14, 4023–4044 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. M. R. Turetsky et al.
    , Carbon release through abrupt permafrost thaw. Nat. Geosci. 13, 138–143 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Z. C. Yu
    , Northern peatland carbon stocks and dynamics: A review. Biogeosciences 9, 4071–4085 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. J. E. Nichols,
    2. D. M. Peteet
    , Rapid expansion of northern peatlands and doubled estimate of carbon storage. Nat. Geosci. 12, 917–921 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. H. Tian et al.
    , Global patterns and controls of soil organic carbon dynamics as simulated by multiple terrestrial biosphere models: Current status and future directions. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 775–792 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. T. Kleinen,
    2. V. Brovkin,
    3. R. J. Schuldt
    , A dynamic model of wetland extent and peat accumulation: Results for the Holocene. Biogeosciences 9, 235–248 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. N. H. Batjes
    , Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks. Geoderma 269, 61–68 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. G. Hugelius et al.
    , Estimated stocks of circumpolar permafrost carbon with quantified uncertainty ranges and identified data gaps. Biogeosciences 11, 6573–6593 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. G. Hugelius et al.
    , Maps of northern peatland extent and depth. Bolin Centre Database. https://bolin.su.se/data/hugelius-2020. Deposited 4 July 2020.
  26. ↵
    1. J. Loisel et al.
    , A database and synthesis of northern peatland soil properties and Holocene carbon and nitrogen accumulation. Holocene 24, 1028–1042 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. J. Loisel et al.
    , Insights and issues with estimating northern peatland carbon stocks and fluxes since the Last Glacial Maximum. Earth Sci. Rev. 165, 59–80 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. J. Xu,
    2. P. J. Morris,
    3. J. Liu,
    4. J. Holden
    , PEATMAP: Refining estimates of global peatland distribution based on a meta-analysis. Catena 160, 134–140 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Cryosol Working Group
    , “Northern and mid latitudes soil database, Version 1. National Soil Database” (Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada).
  30. ↵
    1. G. Hugelius et al.
    , The Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database: Spatially distributed datasets of soil coverage and soil carbon storage in the northern permafrost regions. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5, 3–13 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. T. Hengl et al.
    , SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One 12, e0169748 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. D. M. Olson et al.
    , Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. J. Brown,
    2. O. Ferrians,
    3. J. A. Heginbottom,
    4. E. Melnikov
    , Circum-Arctic Map of Permafrost and Ground-Ice Conditions, Version 2, (USA NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO, 2002).
  34. ↵
    1. M. S. Packalen,
    2. S. A. Finkelstein,
    3. J. W. McLaughlin
    , Climate and peat type in relation to spatial variation of the peatland carbon mass in the Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 1104–1117 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. S. E. Page,
    2. J. O. Rieley,
    3. C. J. Banks
    , Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 798–818 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. G. C. Dargie et al.
    , Age, extent and carbon storage of the central Congo Basin peatland complex. Nature 542, 86–90 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Z. Yu, et al
    ., No support for carbon storage of >1000 GtC in northern peatlands. EarthArXiv:10.31223/osf.io/hynm7 (26 March 2020).
  38. ↵
    1. J. L. Ratcliffe,
    2. H. Peng,
    3. J. Nijp,
    4. M. B. Nilsson
    , Northern peatland depth and lateral expansion is inconsistent with a 1055 GtC estimate of carbon storage. EarthArXiv: 10.31223/osf.io/kafcu (26 March 2020).
  39. ↵
    1. S. Frolking,
    2. N. T. Roulet
    , Holocene radiative forcing impact of northern peatland carbon accumulation and methane emissions. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1079–1088 (2007).
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. S. E. Chadburn et al.
    , An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 340–344 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. M. E. Marushchak et al.
    , Hot spots for nitrous oxide emissions found in different types of permafrost peatlands. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2601–2614 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. M. E. Marushchak et al.
    , Carbon dioxide balance of subarctic tundra from plot to regional scales. Biogeosciences 10, 437–452 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. E. S. Euskirchen,
    2. C. W. Edgar,
    3. M. R. Turetsky,
    4. M. P. Waldrop,
    5. J. W. Harden
    , Differential response of carbon fluxes to climate in three peatland ecosystems that vary in the presence and stability of permafrost: Carbon fluxes and permafrost thaw. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 1576–1595 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. M. Helbig et al.
    , The positive net radiative greenhouse gas forcing of increasing methane emissions from a thawing boreal forest-wetland landscape. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2413–2427 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. K. Backstrand,
    2. P. M. Crill,
    3. D. Bastviken
    , Annual carbon gas budget for a subarctic peatland, Northern Sweden. Biogeosciences 7, 95–108 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. C. Voigt et al.
    , Increased nitrous oxide emissions from Arctic peatlands after permafrost thaw. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 6238–6243 (2017).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. C. Voigt et al.
    , Ecosystem carbon response of an Arctic peatland to simulated permafrost thaw. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1746–1764 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. T. R. Christensen
    , Thawing sub-arctic permafrost: Effects on vegetation and methane emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L04501 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. K. P. Wickland,
    2. R. G. Striegl,
    3. J. C. Neff,
    4. T. Sachs
    , Effects of permafrost melting on CO2 and CH4 exchange of a poorly drained black spruce lowland. J. Geophys. Res. 111, G02011 (2006).
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. M. D. A. Cooper et al.
    , Limited contribution of permafrost carbon to methane release from thawing peatlands. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 507–511 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. C. Estop-Aragonés et al.
    , Respiration of aged soil carbon during fall in permafrost peatlands enhanced by active layer deepening following wildfire but limited following thermokarst. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 85002 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. L. Heffernan,
    2. C. Estop‐Aragonés,
    3. K.-H. Knorr,
    4. J. Talbot,
    5. D. Olefeldt
    , Long-term impacts of permafrost thaw on carbon storage in peatlands: Deep losses offset by surficial accumulation. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125, e2019JG005501 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. K. Walter Anthony et al.
    , 21st-century modeled permafrost carbon emissions accelerated by abrupt thaw beneath lakes. Nat. Commun. 9, 3262 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    1. K. M. Anthony et al.
    , A shift of thermokarst lakes from carbon sources to sinks during the Holocene epoch. Nature 511, 452–456 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. J. van Huissteden et al.
    , Methane emissions from permafrost thaw lakes limited by lake drainage. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 119–123 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. A. B. K. Sannel,
    2. P. Kuhry
    , Warming-induced destabilization of peat plateau/thermokarst lake complexes. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G03035 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. R. F. Connon,
    2. W. L. Quinton,
    3. J. R. Craig,
    4. J. Hanisch,
    5. O. Sonnentag
    , The hydrology of interconnected bog complexes in discontinuous permafrost terrains: Hydrology of interconnected bogs in discontinuous permafrost. Hydrol. Processes 29, 3831–3847 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. M. Helbig et al.
    , Regional atmospheric cooling and wetting effect of permafrost thaw-induced boreal forest loss. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 4048–4066 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. P. J. Morris et al.
    , Global peatland initiation driven by regionally asynchronous warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 4851–4856 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. L. Siegel
    , Scoreboard science and data. Climate Interactive (2017). https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard/scoreboard-science-and-data/. Accessed 28 September 2018.
  61. ↵
    1. J. A. O’Donnell et al.
    , The effects of permafrost thaw on soil hydrologic, thermal, and carbon dynamics in an Alaskan peatland. Ecosystems 15, 213–229 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. J. E. Vonk et al.
    , Reviews and syntheses: Effects of permafrost thaw on Arctic aquatic ecosystems. Biogeosciences 12, 7129–7167 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. S. Serikova et al.
    , High riverine CO2 emissions at the permafrost boundary of Western Siberia. Nat. Geosci. 11, 825–829 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. B. Wild et al.
    , Rivers across the Siberian Arctic unearth the patterns of carbon release from thawing permafrost. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 10280–10285 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. K. Burd et al.
    , Seasonal shifts in export of DOC and nutrients from burned and unburned peatland-rich catchments, Northwest Territories, Canada. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 4455–4472 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. R. G. Striegl,
    2. M. M. Dornblaser,
    3. C. P. McDonald,
    4. J. R. Rover,
    5. E. G. Stets
    , Carbon dioxide and methane emissions from the Yukon River system. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 26, GB0E05 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. B. K. Biskaborn et al.
    , Permafrost is warming at a global scale. Nat. Commun. 10, 264 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. M. Johansson,
    2. T. R. Christensen,
    3. H. J. Akerman,
    4. T. V. Callaghan
    , What determines the current presence or absence of permafrost in the Torneträsk region, a sub-Arctic landscape in northern Sweden? Ambio 35, 190–197 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. S. Payette
    , Accelerated thawing of subarctic peatland permafrost over the last 50 years. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L18208 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. ↵
    1. L. M. Farquharson et al.
    , Climate change drives widespread and rapid thermokarst development in very cold permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 6681–6689 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  71. ↵
    1. E. Gorham,
    2. C. Lehman,
    3. A. Dyke,
    4. D. Clymo,
    5. J. Janssens
    , Long-term carbon sequestration in North American peatlands. Quat. Sci. Rev. 58, 77–82 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. G. Hugelius et al.
    , A new data set for estimating organic carbon storage to 3 m depth in soils of the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5, 393–402 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. G. M. Macdonald et al.
    , Rapid early development of circumarctic peatlands and atmospheric CH4 and CO2 variations. Science 314, 285–288 (2006).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. M. S. Packalen,
    2. S. A. Finkelstein,
    3. J. W. McLaughlin
    , Carbon storage and potential methane production in the Hudson Bay Lowlands since mid-Holocene peat initiation. Nat. Commun. 5, 4078 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. C. C. Treat et al.
    , Effects of permafrost aggradation on peat properties as determined from a pan-Arctic synthesis of plant macrofossils: Permafrost effects on peat properties. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 78–94 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    1. L. Breiman
    , Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. A. Liaw,
    2. M. Wiener
    , Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. M. Kuhn
    , Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 28, 1–26 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. J. Song
    , Bias corrections for Random Forest in regression using residual rotation. J. Korean Stat. Soc. 44, 321–326 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  80. ↵
    1. H. J. Åkerman,
    2. M. Johansson
    , Thawing permafrost and thicker active layers in sub-Arctic Sweden. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 19, 279–292 (2008).
    OpenUrl
  81. ↵
    1. G. Hugelius,
    2. P. Kuhry,
    3. C. Tarnocai,
    4. T. Virtanen
    , Soil organic carbon pools in a periglacial landscape: A case study from the central Canadian Arctic. Permafr. Periglac. Process. 21, 16–29 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. G. Hugelius et al.
    , High-resolution mapping of ecosystem carbon storage and potential effects of permafrost thaw in periglacial terrain, European Russian Arctic. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G03024 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. G. Grosse,
    2. B. Jones,
    3. C. Arp
    , “Thermokarst lakes, drainage, and drained basins” in Treatise on Geomorphology, (Elsevier, 2013), pp. 325–353.
  84. ↵
    1. C. Tarnocai,
    2. I. M. Kettles,
    3. B. Lacelle
    , Peatlands of Canada (Natural Resources Canada, 2011).
  85. ↵
    1. D. Brown,
    2. P. Rothery
    , Models in Biology: Mathematics, Statistics and Computing, (Wiley, 1993).
  86. ↵
    1. C. C. Treat,
    2. A. A. Bloom,
    3. M. E. Marushchak
    , Nongrowing season methane emissions-a significant component of annual emissions across northern ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3331–3343 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  87. ↵
    1. M. Maljanen et al.
    , Greenhouse gas balances of managed peatlands in the Nordic countries—present knowledge and gaps. Biogeosciences 7, 2711–2738 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. C. Voigt et al.
    , Warming of subarctic tundra increases emissions of all three important greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3121–3138 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    1. R. Dommain et al.
    , A radiative forcing analysis of tropical peatlands before and after their conversion to agricultural plantations. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5518–5533 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. J. D. Sterman et al.
    , Management flight simulators to support climate negotiations. Environ. Model. Softw. 44, 122–135 (2013).
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw
Gustaf Hugelius, Julie Loisel, Sarah Chadburn, Robert B. Jackson, Miriam Jones, Glen MacDonald, Maija Marushchak, David Olefeldt, Maara Packalen, Matthias B. Siewert, Claire Treat, Merritt Turetsky, Carolina Voigt, Zicheng Yu
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2020, 117 (34) 20438-20446; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1916387117

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw
Gustaf Hugelius, Julie Loisel, Sarah Chadburn, Robert B. Jackson, Miriam Jones, Glen MacDonald, Maija Marushchak, David Olefeldt, Maara Packalen, Matthias B. Siewert, Claire Treat, Merritt Turetsky, Carolina Voigt, Zicheng Yu
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2020, 117 (34) 20438-20446; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1916387117
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 117 (34)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results and Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Methods
    • Data Availability.
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Smoke emanates from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant a few days after tsunami damage
Core Concept: Muography offers a new way to see inside a multitude of objects
Muons penetrate much further than X-rays, they do essentially zero damage, and they are provided for free by the cosmos.
Image credit: Science Source/Digital Globe.
Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Venus flytrap captures a fly.
Journal Club: Venus flytrap mechanism could shed light on how plants sense touch
One protein seems to play a key role in touch sensitivity for flytraps and other meat-eating plants.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Kuttelvaserova Stuchelova.
Illustration of groups of people chatting
Exploring the length of human conversations
Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Gilbert explore why conversations almost never end when people want them to.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Horse fossil
Mounted horseback riding in ancient China
A study uncovers early evidence of equestrianism in ancient China.
Image credit: Jian Ma.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490