1. 1|09-02-2016 1|09-02-2016
Potential of biomass production of the
species Cattail and Common reed in
rewetted peatlands (paludiculture)
A field study in the “Hunze Valley”, the Netherlands
Training Thesis
Master Programme Energy and Environmental Sciences
Author: Samuel R. Mandiola (Chiloé)
Supervisor 1: A. P. Grotjans (IVEM-RUG)
Supervisor 2: Christian Fritz (RU)

2. 2|09-02-2016
Content
› Introduction
› Aim of the study & research questions
› Biomass ↔ soil
 Methods, results & discussion
› GHG emissions
 Methods, results & discussion
› General conclusions

3. 3|09-02-2016
Why peatlands?
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

4. 4|09-02-2016
Why peatlands?
› 3% total land area of the Earth
 30% terrestrial carbon !!
› 2X carbon in forests !!
› 15% has been degraded (0.5% land area)
 6% Global GHG emissions(2010)!!
Subsidence, loss of water purification and
storage, loss of T regulation, loss of habitat.
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
+
(Joosten,2010; Parish et al.,2008)

5. 5|09-02-2016
Paludiculture
› Biomass from wet peatlands  Biofuel/raw
material
› Even new peat may form  only above-ground
biomass is harvested
› Benefits:
 reduction GHG emissions, water regulation,
biodiversity, no peatland fires, economic
opportunity, bio-products
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
(Wichtmann and Joosten, 2007)

6. 6|09-02-2016
Studied plant species
› Macrophytes:
 Cattail (Typha latifolia)
 Common reed (Phragmites australis)
› High yields, fast growth & widely studied
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
(Brix,1993,1994;Wstlake,1963)

7. 7|09-02-2016
Study area
› NE Drenthe near Zuidlaremeer
› Project Tusschenwater
(WaterBoard Hunze en Aa’s, Drentsche Landscape, WaterCompany & Province of Drenthe)
› Circa 250 ha  to be rewetted
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

8. 8|09-02-2016
Aim
› To understand dependencies of biomass
production and GHG emissions in rewetted
peatlands. Thus, providing/adding scientific
base for paludiculture, helping in acceptance,
promotion and dissemination of it.
› Research question
Which is the relation between soil characteristics
and biomass production of cattail and reed. And how
can GHG emissions be reduced in drained peatlands?
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

9. 9|09-02-2016
Sub-research questions
1. How is the above-ground biomass of Cattail and Common
reed affected by soil composition and water levels?
2. Does biomass nutrient composition at peak biomass (late
summer harvest) reflect soil nutrients?
3. Which are the estimated GHG emissions that could be
prevented by rewetting a selected area in the “Hunze
Valley”, NE Netherlands?
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

10. 10|09-02-2016
Biomass↔soil characteristics
› Soils:
 Water-logged conditions
 Affect nutrient availability: 𝑁𝐻4
+
& 𝑁𝑂3
−
& 𝑃𝑂4
 Affect 𝐶𝑂2 & 𝐶𝐻4 emissions
› Biomass cattail & reed:
 Yields: 5 – 27 tons DM/ha
 Nutrient content in plants  Picture of plants health
 Dependence on nutrients and water levels (*lots of other
environmental factors)
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
(Keddy, 2010;Kadlec and Knight,1996; Parish et al. 2008; Grosshans et al., 2013)

11. 11|09-02-2016
Methods
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
Plant/Soil sample &
lab analyses
Water levels
Weights and volumes
Moisture content
Org. matter content
Nutrient content
Gather data from
other areas
Select area:
• Greifswald, Germany
Filtering data
Normalizing data
Statistics & data
analysis (R)
Filtering data
• C, N, P, K & Fe
Group analysis
• HNL, UNL & HGW
• One-way ANOVA test
• Tukey’s HSD test
Linear regression
analysis (OLS)

12. 12|09-02-2016
Results: Yields / Common Reed
› Positive relation  Nitrogen related variables
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
Healthy
NL
Unhealthy
NL
Healthy
GER
Healthy
NL
Healthy
GER
Unhealthy
NL

13. 13|09-02-2016
Results: Yields / Common Reed
› Positive relation  Nitrogen related variables
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
Healthy
NL
Unhealthy
NL
Healthy
GER
Healthy
NL
Healthy
GER
Unhealthy
NL

14. 14|09-02-2016
Results: Yields / Common Reed
› Positive relation  Nitrogen related variables
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
𝑅2
=0.4
p-value=0.0031

15. 15|09-02-2016
Results: Yields / Cattail
› Positive relation with 𝑁𝐻4  NOT significant
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
Healthy
NL
Unhealthy
NL
Healthy
GER
Healthy
NL
Healthy
GER
Unhealthy
NL

16. 16|09-02-2016
Results: Yields / Cattail
› Positive relation with 𝑁𝐻4  NOT significant
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
Healthy
NL
Unhealthy
NL
Healthy
GER
Healthy
NL
Healthy
GER
Unhealthy
NL

17. 17|09-02-2016
Results: Nutrients in plants
› Reed: Positive relation plant and soil N
› Cattail: No clear differences or relations
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
𝑅2
=0.35
p-value=0.005

18. 18|09-02-2016
Results: Nutrient Uptake
› Trend: Cattail uptake > common reed
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

19. 19|09-02-2016
Results: Nutrient Uptake
› Trend: Cattail uptake > common reed
 Particularly phosphorus (>double)
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

20. 20|09-02-2016
Discussion
› Values within the ranges
› Cattail HIGHER than Reed in:
 Yields - NOT significant
 Plant K - difference in soil
 Plant P - similar soil conditions
 Nutrient Uptake: P & K
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

21. 21|09-02-2016
Discussion
› NO RELATION: biomass↔water level
 Only one measurement
› + RELATION: Biomass & Soil Nitrogen
 mainly Common Reed
› Weak relations:
 Biomass depends on lots of OTHER factors
 Soil nutrients  ONE moment of plant’s
lifecycle
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

22. 22|09-02-2016
GHG emissions
› Drained peatlands  𝐶𝑂2 + 𝑁2 𝑂
› Wetlands  𝐶𝐻4
 The balance must be calculated
› Carbon Credits
 Voluntary Carbon Market
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
(Couwenberg et al.,2011; Joosten et al.,2015)

23. 23|09-02-2016
Methods
› Emissions land use  IN
› Emissions intensive agriculture  OUT
 “Leakage”
› Time horizon: 30 years
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

24. 24|09-02-2016
Methods
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
Determine peat
layer
Area shallow peat
Area peat
GESTs
Greenhouse Gas Emission Site Types
Vegetation type
Soil moisture class
Assigned GHG flux
Scenario analysis
Baseline
•Current drainage
maintained
•Determine GESTs areas
(satellite pictures)
Rewetting project
•Rewetting measures in
Tusschenwater area
•Determine GESTs areas
(predictions of project)

25. 25|09-02-2016
Results
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion
Scenario Area
[ha]
Yearly Emissions
[ 𝒕 𝑪𝑶 𝟐 𝒆𝒒]
30y Emissions
[ 𝒕 𝑪𝑶 𝟐 𝒆𝒒]
Baseline-CarbonCredit 215.5 2.984 89.535
Rewetting Project 215.5 2.168 65.033
Emission Reduction 817 24.502
> 800 new cars  10.000 km /year

26. 26|09-02-2016
Results
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

27. 27|09-02-2016
Discussion
› Conservativeness principle (VCS Standard)
 𝐶𝐻4 from Ditches in Baseline  OUT
 𝑁2 𝑂 in Baseline  OUT
 𝐶𝑂2 𝑒𝑞 from shallow peat in Baseline  OUT
 Carbon uptake by plants in Rewetted  OUT
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

28. 28|09-02-2016
Discussion
› If the carbon credits are sold in voluntary
carbon market a yearly income of:
- 4.000€ (5€ per 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2 𝑒𝑞)
- 28.500€ (35€ per 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2 𝑒𝑞)
› It cannot be assured that this project will not
cause displacement of drainage activities
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

29. 29|09-02-2016
General Conclusions
› Cattail showed better performance than Reed
 Similar soil conditions
› Relations Biomass/Soil were found
 Mainly for Reed
 Weak relations
› GHG emissions are considerably lower in the
rewetted case
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

30. 30|09-02-2016

31. 31|09-02-2016
Possible Incomes
Yearly Carbon
Credits
Price
€
Yearly
Income
30 Years
Income
50 Years
Income
817 5 4.085 122.550 204.250
817 35 28.595 857.850 1.429.750
817 50 40.850 1.225.500 2.042.500
Cost of rewetting project
10.000€ /ha
215  2.000.000€
Direct monitoring GHG emissions:
10.000€  /ha /year

32. 32|09-02-2016
Results – Land Use
Introduction
Aim &
Research
questions
Biomass vs
Soil
GHG
emissions
Conclusion

33. 33|09-02-2016
Zone Area (app.)
[ha]
Current winter
water level [cm]
Future winter
water level [cm]
Current summer
water level [cm]
Future summer
water level [cm]
1 87.65 -60 +53 -45 -10
2 34.24 -60 +53 -25 -10
3 78.02 -50 +53 -35 +53
4 15.53 -40 -10 -25 -45
5 15.63 -40 -10 -25 -45

34. 34|09-02-2016
Peat Area Shallow Peat Area
[%] [ha] [%] [ha]
Zone 1 84 73.4 16 14.2
Zone 2 79 27.2 21 7.1
Zone 3 85 66.2 15 11.8
Zone 5 62 9.7 38 6.0
Total 82 176.5 18 39.1

35. 35|09-02-2016

36. 36|09-02-2016

37. 37|09-02-2016

38. 38|09-02-2016
Soil moisture
class
2+
Moderately
moist
3+
Moist
4+
Very moist
5+
Wet
Median annual
water table
35 to 50 cm
below surface
15 to 45 cm
below surface
5 to 20 cm
below surface
-10 to 10 cm
below surface
GEST Global warming potential in 𝑡 𝐶𝑂2 𝑒𝑞 ℎ𝑎−1
𝑦−1
High intensity
Grassland
24 15 7.5
Reeds 3.5 8.5
Rewetted (short)
grassland
5.5

39. 39|09-02-2016
GEST Soil moist.
class
Area
[𝒉𝒂]
𝑪𝑶 𝟐
[𝒕 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
𝑪𝑯 𝟒
[𝒕 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
GWP
[𝒕 𝑪𝑶 𝟐 𝒆𝒒 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
Moderately
moist grasslands
2+ 35.5(x0.5) 22 0 22
Very moist
grasslands
4+ 3.5(x0.5) 7.5 0 7.5
Shallow peat 39.1
Moderately
moist grasslands
2+ 118.3 22 0 22
Very moist
grasslands
4+ 45.3 7.5 0 7.5
Wet reeds 5+ 3.2 -4.1 0.5 13.17
Trees - 3.4 - - -
Big canals - 6.2 - - -
Peat 176.5
Total area 215.5
Baseline-Scientific Scenario

40. 40|09-02-2016
GEST Soil moist.
class
Area
[𝒉𝒂]
𝑪𝑶 𝟐
[𝒕 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
𝑪𝑯 𝟒
[𝒕 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
GWP
[𝒕 𝑪𝑶 𝟐 𝒆𝒒 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
Moderately
moist grasslands
2+ 35.5(x0.5) 22 0 22
Very moist
grasslands
4+ 3.5(x0.5) 7.5 0 7.5
Shallow peat 39.1
Moderately
moist grasslands
2+ 118.3 22 0 22
Very moist
grasslands
4+ 45.3 7.5 0 7.5
Wet reeds 5+ 3.2 -4.1 0.5 13.17
Trees - 3.4 - - -
Big canals - 6.2 - - -
Peat 176.5
Total area 215.5
Baseline-CarbonCredit Scenario

41. 41|09-02-2016
Project Scenario
GEST Soil moist.
class
Area
[𝒉𝒂]
𝑪𝑶 𝟐
[𝒕 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
𝑪𝑯 𝟒
[𝒕 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
GWP
[𝒕 𝑪𝑶 𝟐 𝒆𝒒 𝒉𝒂−𝟏
𝒚−𝟏
]
Dry grasslands 2-/3- 11.8 0 0 0
Moist grasslands 3+/4+ 13.9 0 0 0
Very moist reeds 3+/5+ 4.2 0 0 0
Wet reeds 5+/6+ 9.2 0 0.45 15.3
Decomposed peat (mineral soil) 39.1
Dry grasslands 2-/3- 9.8 20 0 20
Moist grasslands 3+/4+ 27.7 15.5 0 15.5
Very moist reeds 3+/5+ 41.3 0 0.14 4.76
Wet reeds 5+/6+ 91.5 -4.1 0.5 13.17
Big canals - 6.2 - - -
Peat 176.5
Total area 215.5

42. 42|09-02-2016

43. 43|09-02-2016
Yields both species

44. 44|09-02-2016
Plant nutrients both species

45. 45|09-02-2016
Plant nutrients Reed

46. 46|09-02-2016
Plant nutrients Cattail

47. 47|09-02-2016
Plant Ratio Common Reed Cattail p-value
N:P 12.39(4)a 6.85(0.9)b 0.0000 ***
N:K 2.78(1.3)a 1.44(0.5)b 0.0006 ***
K:P 4.90(1.4) 5.14(1.3) 0.6390
Ratios plant nutrients
HNL UNL HGW p-value
N:P – Cattail 5.97(0.6)b 8.15(2)a 7.37(0.5)ab 0.0105 *
N:P – Common Reed 13.20(5.7) 12.40(3.3) 11.59(0.6) 0.761
N:K – Cattail 1.20(0.5) 1.79(0.7) 1.58(0.5) 0.204
N:K – Common Reed 2.51(1.5) 4.08(1.5) 3.05(1.0) 0.104
K:P – Cattail 5.38(1.4) 4.91(1.5) 5.00(1.3) 0.819
K:P – Common Reed 5.58(0.9) 3.49(1.5) 4.21(1.5) 0.029 *