4.2 Article

Did fires drive Holocene carbon sequestration in boreal ombrotrophic peatlands of eastern Canada?

Journal

QUATERNARY RESEARCH
Volume 78, Issue 1, Pages 50-59

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.yqres.2012.03.009

Keywords

Peat; Quebec; Charcoal analysis; Neoglacial; Bog; Accumulation; CharAnalysis; Threshold

Funding

  1. Hydro-Quebec Production through the EM-1 Project Reservoirs' net greenhouse gas emissions research project
  2. FQRNT research funds (Fonds Forestiers, Yves Bergeron)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Wildfire is an important factor on carbon sequestration in the North American boreal biomes. Being globally important stocks of organic carbon, peatlands may be less sensitive to burning in comparison with upland forests, especially wet unforested ombrotrophic ecosystems as found in northeastern Canada. We aimed to determine if peatland fires have driven carbon accumulation patterns during the Holocene. To cover spatial variability, six cores from three peatlands in the Eastmain region of Quebec were analyzed for stratigraphic charcoal accumulation. Results show that regional Holocene peatland fire frequency was similar to 2.4 fires 1000 yr(-1), showing a gradually declining trend since 4000 cal yr BP, although inter- and intra-peatland variability was very high. Charcoal peak magnitudes, however, were significantly higher between 1400 and 400 cal yr BP, possibly reflecting higher charcoal production driven by differential climatic forcing aspects. Carbon accumulation rates generally declined towards the late-Holocene with minimum values of similar to 10 g m(-2) r(-1) around 1500 cal yr BP. The absence of a clear correlation between peatland fire regimes and carbon accumulation indicates that fire regimes have not been a driving factor on carbon sequestration at the millennial time scale. (C) 2012 University of Washington. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available