This mesocosm experiment reveals how water table levels and biochar use influence greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands, suggesting effective management strategies.
Peat soils are major terrestrial carbon stores, yet drainage alters redox conditions that stimulate CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O emissions. We conducted a two-year mesocosm experiment to quantify how water table level (0, 20, and 40 cm) interacts with organic amendments to regulate gaseous C and N fluxes from lowland peat. Amendments included Miscanthus biochar, Miscanthus chip, paper waste, biosolids, and cereal straw. Results revealed that moderate drainage (WTL 20 ) provided the optimal balance between carbon loss and CH 4 suppression compared to saturated (WTL 0 ). Although CO 2 emissions increased under WTL 20 , CH 4 fluxes declined by over 90% relative to WTL 0 , where methanogenesis dominated. This shift in the Control (from WTL 0 toWTL 20 ), reduced overall CO 2 -equivalent emissions by 17 t CO 2 eq ha −1 yr −1 , highlighting the critical GHG balance of maintaining a WTL 20 in lowland peatlands. Among the amendments, labile, low C:N amendments (cereal straw, biosolids) increased CO 2 and N 2 O emissions under WTL 20 , indicating enhanced aerobic mineralization following oxygen exposure. In contrast, biochar consistently outperformed all treatments, reducing cumulative CO 2 emissions by up to 52% compared with the Control-WTL 40 when assessed over the full 730-day experimental period. The consistent reduction in GHG emissions indicates constrained peat carbon mineralization under biochar amendment across contrasting hydrological conditions (WTL 0 and WTL 20 ) in two consecutive years. Overall, this study demonstrates that integrating WTL 0 and WTL 20 water table manipulations alternatively with stable, recalcitrant amendments such as biochar substantially altered greenhouse gas fluxes, offering a promising strategy to mitigate emissions while adding to and maintaining peat carbon stocks and fluxes from lowland bare peat.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeewani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: