Significance

Arctic ecosystems are major global sources of methane. We report that emissions during the cold season (September to May) contribute ≥50% of annual sources of methane from Alaskan tundra, based on fluxes obtained from eddy covariance sites and from regional fluxes calculated from aircraft data. The largest emissions were observed at the driest site (<5% inundation). Emissions of methane in the cold season are linked to the extended “zero curtain” period, where soil temperatures are poised near 0 °C, indicating that total emissions are very sensitive to soil climate and related factors, such as snow depth. The dominance of late season emissions, sensitivity to soil conditions, and importance of dry tundra are not currently simulated in most global climate models.

Abstract

Arctic terrestrial ecosystems are major global sources of methane (CH4); hence, it is important to understand the seasonal and climatic controls on CH4 emissions from these systems. Here, we report year-round CH4 emissions from Alaskan Arctic tundra eddy flux sites and regional fluxes derived from aircraft data. We find that emissions during the cold season (September to May) account for ≥50% of the annual CH4 flux, with the highest emissions from noninundated upland tundra. A major fraction of cold season emissions occur during the “zero curtain” period, when subsurface soil temperatures are poised near 0 °C. The zero curtain may persist longer than the growing season, and CH4 emissions are enhanced when the duration is extended by a deep thawed layer as can occur with thick snow cover. Regional scale fluxes of CH4 derived from aircraft data demonstrate the large spatial extent of late season CH4 emissions. Scaled to the circumpolar Arctic, cold season fluxes from tundra total 12 ± 5 (95% confidence interval) Tg CH4 y−1, ∼25% of global emissions from extratropical wetlands, or ∼6% of total global wetland methane emissions. The dominance of late-season emissions, sensitivity to soil environmental conditions, and importance of dry tundra are not currently simulated in most global climate models. Because Arctic warming disproportionally impacts the cold season, our results suggest that higher cold-season CH4 emissions will result from observed and predicted increases in snow thickness, active layer depth, and soil temperature, representing important positive feedbacks on climate warming.

Continue Reading

Data Availability

Data deposition: The data reported in this paper have been deposited in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge data repository (https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1300 and https://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/hippo_010).

Acknowledgments

We thank the Global Change Research Group at San Diego State University, UMIAQ, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC), CH2M HILL Polar Services for logistical support; Salvatore Losacco, Owen Hayman, and Herbert Njuabe for help with field data collection; David Beerling for comments on the manuscript; Scot Miller for suggestions on the statistical analysis; and George Burba for suggestions on the data quality assessment. The statistical analysis was performed using R, and we thank the R Developing Core Team. This research was conducted on land owned by the UIC. This work was funded by the Division of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Award 1204263); Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE), an Earth Ventures (EV-1) investigation, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and Department of Energy (DOE) Grant DE-SC005160. Logistical support was funded by the NSF Division of Polar Programs.

Supporting Information

Supporting Information (PDF)
Supporting Information

References

1
S Kirschke, et al., Three decades of global methane sources and sinks. Nat Geosci 6, 813–823 (2013).
2
G Yvon-Durocher, et al., Methane fluxes show consistent temperature dependence across microbial to ecosystem scales. Nature 507, 488–491 (2014).
3
EAG Schuur, et al., Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520, 171–179 (2015).
4
RV Bekryaev, IV Polyakov, VA Alexeev, Role of polar amplification in long-term surface air temperature variations and modern Arctic warming. J Clim 23, 3888–3906 (2010).
5
R Fraser, T Lantz, I Olthof, S Kokelj, R Sims, Warming-induced shrub expansion and lichen decline in the Western Canadian Arctic. Ecosystems (N Y) 17, 1151–1168 (2014).
6
C Wille, L Kutzbach, T Sachs, D Wagner, E-M Pfeiffer, Methane emission from Siberian arctic polygonal tundra: Eddy covariance measurements and modeling. Glob Change Biol 14, 1395–1408 (2008).
7
M Mastepanov, et al., Large tundra methane burst during onset of freezing. Nature 456, 628–630 (2008).
8
AD McGuire, et al., An assessment of the carbon balance of Arctic tundra: Comparisons among observations, process models, and atmospheric inversions. Biogeosciences 9, 3185–3204 (2012).
9
CS Sturtevant, WC Oechel, D Zona, Y Kim, CE Emerson, Soil moisture control over fall season methane flux, Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska. Biogeosciences 9, 1423–1440 (2012).
10
M Mastepanov, et al., Revisiting factors controlling methane emissions from high-Arctic tundra. Biogeosciences 10, 5139–5158 (2013).
11
G Hugelius, et al., Estimated stocks of circumpolar permafrost carbon with quantified uncertainty ranges and identified data gaps. Biogeosciences 11, 6573–6593 (2014).
12
GL Vourlitis, WC Oechel, SJ Hastings, MA Jenkins, A System for Measuring in situ CO2 and CH4 Flux in Unmanaged Ecosystems: An Arctic example. Funct Ecol 7, 369–379 (1993).
13
T Sachs, C Wille, J Boike, L Kutzbach, Environmental controls on ecosystem-scale CH4 emission from polygonal tundra in the Lena River Delta, Siberia. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 113, G00A03 (2008).
14
FJW Parmentier, et al., Spatial and temporal dynamics in eddy covariance observations of methane fluxes at a tundra site in northeastern Siberia. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 116, G03016 (2011).
15
D Zona, et al., Methane fluxes during the initiation of a large-scale water table manipulation experiment in the Alaskan Arctic tundra. Global Biogeochem Cycles 23, GB2013 (2009).
16
RK Monson, et al., Winter forest soil respiration controlled by climate and microbial community composition. Nature 439, 711–714 (2006).
17
ES Euskirchen, MS Bret-Harte, GJ Scott, C Edgar, GR Shaver, Seasonal patterns of carbon dioxide and water fluxes in three representative tundra ecosystems in northern Alaska. Ecosphere 3, art4 (2012).
18
WC Oechel, CA Laskowski, G Burba, B Gioli, AAM Kalhori, Annual patterns and budget of CO2 flux in an Alaskan arctic tussock tundra ecosystem at Atqasuk, Alaska. J Geophys Res 119, 323–339 (2014).
19
KM Hinkel, F Paetzold, FE Nelson, JG Bockheim, Patterns of soil temperature and moisture in the active layer and upper permafrost at Barrow, Alaska: 1993-1999. Global Planet Change 29, 293–309 (2001).
20
SC Whalen, WS Reeburgh, A methane flux time series for tundra environments. Global Biogeochem Cycles 2, 399–409 (1988).
21
NS Panikov, SN Dedysh, Cold season CH4 and CO2 emission from boreal peat bogs (West Siberia): Winter fluxes and thaw activation dynamics. Global Biogeochem Cycles 14, 1071–1080 (2000).
22
VE Ostroumov, C Siegert, Exobiological aspects of mass transfer in microzones of permafrost deposits. Adv Space Res 18, 79–86 (1996).
23
PB Price, T Sowers, Temperature dependence of metabolic rates for microbial growth, maintenance, and survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101, 4631–4636 (2004).
24
E Rivkina, et al., Microbial life in permafrost. Adv Space Res 33, 1215–1221 (2004).
25
VE Romanovsky, TE Osterkamp, Effects of unfrozen water on heat and mass transport processes in the active layer and permafrost. Permafrost Periglac 11, 219–239 (2000).
26
JS Clein, JP Schimel, Microbial activity of tundra and taiga soils at sub-zero temperatures. Soil Biol Biochem 27, 1231–1234 (1995).
27
TJ Bohn, et al., WETCHIMP-WSL: Intercomparison of wetland methane emissions models over West Siberia. Biogeosciences 12, 3321–3349 (2015).
28
J Yu, et al., Enhanced net formations of nitrous oxide and methane underneath the frozen soil in Sanjiang wetland, northeastern China. J Geophys Res 112, D07111 (2007).
29
X Wu, et al., Effects of soil moisture and temperature on CO2 and CH4 soil atmosphere exchange of various land use/cover types in a semi-arid grassland in Inner Mongolia, China. Soil Biol Biochem 42, 773–787 (2010).
30
RY-W Chang, et al., Methane emissions from Alaska in 2012 from CARVE airborne observations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 16694–16699 (2014).
31
C Sweeney, et al., Seasonal climatology of CO2 across North America from aircraft measurements in the NOAA/ESRL Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. J Geophys Res Atmos 120, 5155–5190 (2015).
32
L Bruhwiler, et al., CarbonTracker-CH4: An assimilation system for estimating emissions of atmospheric methane. Atmos Chem Phys 14, 8269–8293 (2014).
33
LE Hay, GJ McCabe, Hydrologic effects of climate change in the Yukon River Basin. Clim Change 100, 509–523 (2010).
34
D Zona, et al., Increased CO2 loss from vegetated drained lake tundra ecosystems due to flooding. Global Biogeochem Cycles 26, GB2004 (2012).
35
SC Wofsy, HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO): Fine grained, global scale measurements for determining rates for transport, surface emissions, and removal of climatically important atmospheric gases and aerosols. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 369, 2073–2086 (2011).
36
EA Kort, et al., Atmospheric observations of Arctic Ocean methane emissions up to 82° north. Nat Geosci 5, 318–321 (2012).
37
D Zona, et al., Delayed responses of an Arctic ecosystem to an extremely dry summer: Impacts on net ecosystem exchange and vegetation functioning. Biogeosciences 11, 5877–5888 (2014).
38
DA Walker, et al., The Circumpolar Arctic vegetation map. J Veg Sci 16, 267–282 (2005).
39
D Vickers, L Mahrt, Quality control and flux sampling problems for tower and aircraft data. J Atmos Ocean Technol 14, 512–526 (1997).
40
JHC Gash, AD Culf, Applying a linear detrend to eddy correlation data in realtime. Boundary Layer Meteorol 79, 301–306 (1996).
41
J Wilczak, S Oncley, S Stage, Sonic anemometer tilt correction algorithms. Boundary Layer Meteorol 99, 127–150 (2001).
42
JB Moncrieff, R Clement, J Finnigan, T Meyers, Averaging, detrending and filtering of eddy covariance time series. Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurements, eds X Lee, WJ Massman, BE Law (Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands), pp. 7–31 (2004).
43
JB Moncrieff, et al., A system to measure surface fluxes of momentum, sensible heat, water vapour and carbon dioxide. J Hydrol (Amst) 188–189, 589–611 (1997).
44
A Ibrom, E Dellwik, SE Larsen, KIM Pilegaard, On the use of the Webb–Pearman–Leuning theory for closed-path eddy correlation measurements. Tellus B Chem Phys Meterol 59, 937–946 (2007).
45
G Burba, et al., Calculating CO2 and H2O eddy covariance fluxes from an enclosed gas analyzer using an instantaneous mixing ratio. Glob Change Biol 18, 385–399 (2012).
46
D McDermitt, et al., A new low-power, open-path instrument for measuring methane flux by eddy covariance. Appl Phys B 102, 391–405 (2011).
47
TW Horst, DH Lenschow, Attenuation of scalar fluxes measured with spatially-displaced sensors. Boundary Layer Meteorol 130, 275–300 (2009).
48
T Foken, et al., Post-field quality control. Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurements (Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands), pp. 81–108 (2004).
49
M Mauder, T Foken, Impact of post-field data processing on eddy covariance flux estimates and energy balance closure. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15, 597–609 (2006).
50
PL Finkelstein, PF Sims, Sampling error in eddy correlation flux measurements. J Geophys Res Atmos 106, 3503–3509 (2001).
51
D Papale, et al., Towards a standardized processing of net ecosystem exchange measured with eddy covariance technique: Algorithms and uncertainty estimation. Biogeosciences 3, 571–583 (2006).
52
DY Hollinger, AD Richardson, Uncertainty in eddy covariance measurements and its application to physiological models. Tree Physiol 25, 873–885 (2005).
53
D Dragoni, HP Schmid, CSB Grimmond, HW Loescher, Uncertainty of annual net ecosystem productivity estimated using eddy covariance flux measurements. J Geophys Res Atmos 112 (2007).
54
D Papale, R Valentini, A new assessment of European forests carbon exchanges by eddy fluxes and artificial neural network spatialization. Glob Change Biol 9, 525–535 (2003).
55
S Dengel, et al., Testing the applicability of neural networks as a gap-filling method using CH4 flux data from high latitude wetlands. Biogeosciences 10, 8185–8200 (2013).
56
SC Whalen, WS Reeburgh, Interannual variations in tundra methane emission: A 4-year time series at fixed sites. Global Biogeochem Cycles 6, 139–159 (1992).
57
B Gioli, et al., Comparison between tower and aircraft-based eddy covariance fluxes in five European regions. Agric For Meteorol 127, 1–16 (2004).
58
A Karion, et al., Long-term greenhouse gas measurements from aircraft. Atmos Meas Tech 6, 511–526 (2013).
59
JM Henderson, et al., Atmospheric transport simulations in support of the Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE). Atmos Chem Phys 15, 4093–4116 (2015).
60
S Nakagawa, H Schielzeth, A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4, 133–142 (2013).
61
PCD Johnson, Extension Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R_GLMM2 to random slopes models. Methods Ecol Evol 5, 944–946 (2014).
62
J Du, et al., Inter-calibration of satellite passive microwave land observations from AMSR-E and AMSR2 using overlapping FY3B-MWRI sensor measurements. Remote Sens 6, 8594–8616 (2014).
63
JD Watts, JS Kimball, A Bartsch, KC McDonald, Surface water inundation in the boreal-Arctic: Potential impacts on regional methane emissions. Environ Res Lett 9, 1–13 (2014).
64
D York, NM Evensen, ML Martínez, J De Basabe Delgado, Unified equations for the slope, intercept, and standard errors of the best straight line. Am J Phys 72, 367–375 (2004).

Information & Authors

Information

Published in

Go to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Go to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 113 | No. 1
January 5, 2016
PubMed: 26699476

Classifications

Data Availability

Data deposition: The data reported in this paper have been deposited in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge data repository (https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1300 and https://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/hippo_010).

Submission history

Published online: December 22, 2015
Published in issue: January 5, 2016

Keywords

  1. permafrost
  2. aircraft
  3. fall
  4. winter
  5. warming

Acknowledgments

We thank the Global Change Research Group at San Diego State University, UMIAQ, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC), CH2M HILL Polar Services for logistical support; Salvatore Losacco, Owen Hayman, and Herbert Njuabe for help with field data collection; David Beerling for comments on the manuscript; Scot Miller for suggestions on the statistical analysis; and George Burba for suggestions on the data quality assessment. The statistical analysis was performed using R, and we thank the R Developing Core Team. This research was conducted on land owned by the UIC. This work was funded by the Division of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Award 1204263); Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE), an Earth Ventures (EV-1) investigation, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and Department of Energy (DOE) Grant DE-SC005160. Logistical support was funded by the NSF Division of Polar Programs.

Notes

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

Authors

Affiliations

Donatella Zona1,2 [email protected]
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182;
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom;
Beniamino Gioli2
Institute of Biometeorology, National Research Council, Firenze, 50145, Italy;
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;
Jakob Lindaas
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;
Steven C. Wofsy
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;
Charles E. Miller
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099;
Steven J. Dinardo
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099;
Sigrid Dengel
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland;
Colm Sweeney
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80304;
Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO 80305;
Anna Karion
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80304;
Rachel Y.-W. Chang
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4R2;
John M. Henderson
Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Lexington, MA 02421;
Patrick C. Murphy
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182;
Jordan P. Goodrich
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182;
Virginie Moreaux
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182;
Anna Liljedahl
Water and Environmental Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340;
International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340;
Jennifer D. Watts
Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, College of Forestry & Conservation, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812;
John S. Kimball
Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, College of Forestry & Conservation, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812;
David A. Lipson
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182;
Walter C. Oechel
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182;
Department of Earth, Environment and Ecosystems, Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

Notes

1
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected].
Author contributions: D.Z., D.A.L., and W.C.O. designed research; D.Z., D.A.L., and W.C.O. performed research; R.C., J.L., S.C.W., C.E.M., S.J.D., C.S., A.K., R.Y.-W.C., and J.M.H. supported the collection and preparation of the Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment data; J.D.W. and J.S.K. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; D.Z., B.G., P.C.M., J.P.G., V.M., A.L., J.D.W., J.S.K., and W.C.O. analyzed data; R.C., J.L, and S.C.W. analyzed the aircraft data; and D.Z., B.G., R.C., S.C.W., C.E.M., S.J.D., S.D., C.S., A.K., R.Y.-W.C., J.M.H., P.C.M., A.L., J.D.W., J.S.K., D.A.L., and W.C.O. wrote the paper.
2
D.Z. and B.G. contributed equally to this work.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note: The article usage is presented with a three- to four-day delay and will update daily once available. Due to ths delay, usage data will not appear immediately following publication. Citation information is sourced from Crossref Cited-by service.


Citation statements

Altmetrics

Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

    Loading...

    View Options

    View options

    PDF format

    Download this article as a PDF file

    DOWNLOAD PDF

    Get Access

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Personal login Institutional Login

    Recommend to a librarian

    Recommend PNAS to a Librarian

    Purchase options

    Purchase this article to get full access to it.

    Single Article Purchase

    Cold season emissions dominate the Arctic tundra methane budget
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
    • Vol. 113
    • No. 1
    • pp. 1-E104

    Media

    Figures

    Tables

    Other

    Share

    Share

    Share article link

    Share on social media