Permafrost Region Greenhouse Gas Budgets Suggest a Weak CO<sub>2</sub> Sink and CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O Sources, But Magnitudes Differ Between Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Methods

Abstract Large stocks of soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) in northern permafrost soils are vulnerable to remobilization under climate change. However, there are large uncertainties in present‐day greenhouse gas (GHG) budgets. We compare bottom‐up (data‐driven upscaling and process‐based models) and top‐down (atmospheric inversion models) budgets of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) as well as lateral fluxes of C and N across the region over 2000–2020. Bottom‐up approaches estimate higher land‐to‐atmosphere fluxes for all GHGs. Both bottom‐up and top‐down approaches show a sink of CO 2 in natural ecosystems (bottom‐up: −29 (−709, 455), top‐down: −587 (−862, −312) Tg CO 2 ‐C yr −1 ) and sources of CH 4 (bottom‐up: 38 (22, 53), top‐down: 15 (11, 18) Tg CH 4 ‐C yr −1 ) and N 2 O (bottom‐up: 0.7 (0.1, 1.3), top‐down: 0.09 (−0.19, 0.37) Tg N 2 O‐N yr −1 ). The combined global warming potential of all three gases (GWP‐100) cannot be distinguished from neutral. Over shorter timescales (GWP‐20), the region is a net GHG source because CH 4 dominates the total forcing. The net CO 2 sink in Boreal forests and wetlands is largely offset by fires and inland water CO 2 emissions as well as CH 4 emissions from wetlands and inland waters, with a smaller contribution from N 2 O emissions. Priorities for future research include the representation of inland waters in process‐based models and the compilation of process‐model ensembles for CH 4 and N 2 O. Discrepancies between bottom‐up and top‐down methods call for analyses of how prior flux ensembles impact inversion budgets, more and well‐distributed in situ GHG measurements and improved resolution in upscaling techniques.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023gb007969
Citations
34
Primary Topic
Climate change and permafrost
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
12.42

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Permafrost Region Greenhouse Gas Budgets Suggest a Weak CO2 Sink and CH4 and N2O Sources, But Magnitudes Differ Between Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Methods

Brendan M. Rogers, David Olefeldt, Frédéric Chevallier, Christina Biasi et al.
34 citations
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Climate change and permafrost
12.42
article

Permafrost Region Greenhouse Gas Budgets Suggest a Weak CO2 Sink and CH4 and N2O Sources, But Magnitudes Differ Between Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Methods

Brendan M. Rogers, David Olefeldt, Frédéric Chevallier, Christina Biasi, Jennifer D. Watts, W. J. Riley, Naveen Chandra, Paul I. Palmer, Jinfeng Chang, Carolina Voigt, Marielle Saunois, Tuula Aalto, Stefano Potter, Claire C. Treat, Ana Bastos, Maija E. Marushchak, Josep G. Canadell, Prabir K. Patra, McKenzie A. Kuhn, Thomas Kleinen, Benjamin Poulter, Abhishek Chatterjee, Matthew W. Jones, Justine Ramage, Philippe Ciais, Wouter Peters, Merritt R. Turetsky, Rona L. Thompson, Eleanor Burke, Efrén López–Blanco, Edward A. G. Schuur, Susan M. Natali, Yosuke Niwa, Gustaf Hugelius, Aki Tsuruta, Qing Zhu, T. Luke Smallman, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Ronny Lauerwald, Bo Zheng, Junjie Liu, Liang Feng, Anna- Maria Virkkala
article en
34 citations

Abstract

Abstract Large stocks of soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) in northern permafrost soils are vulnerable to remobilization under climate change. However, there are large uncertainties in present‐day greenhouse gas (GHG) budgets. We compare bottom‐up (data‐driven upscaling and process‐based models) and top‐down (atmospheric inversion models) budgets of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) as well as lateral fluxes of C and N across the region over 2000–2020. Bottom‐up approaches estimate higher land‐to‐atmosphere fluxes for all GHGs. Both bottom‐up and top‐down approaches show a sink of CO 2 in natural ecosystems (bottom‐up: −29 (−709, 455), top‐down: −587 (−862, −312) Tg CO 2 ‐C yr −1 ) and sources of CH 4 (bottom‐up: 38 (22, 53), top‐down: 15 (11, 18) Tg CH 4 ‐C yr −1 ) and N 2 O (bottom‐up: 0.7 (0.1, 1.3), top‐down: 0.09 (−0.19, 0.37) Tg N 2 O‐N yr −1 ). The combined global warming potential of all three gases (GWP‐100) cannot be distinguished from neutral. Over shorter timescales (GWP‐20), the region is a net GHG source because CH 4 dominates the total forcing. The net CO 2 sink in Boreal forests and wetlands is largely offset by fires and inland water CO 2 emissions as well as CH 4 emissions from wetlands and inland waters, with a smaller contribution from N 2 O emissions. Priorities for future research include the representation of inland waters in process‐based models and the compilation of process‐model ensembles for CH 4 and N 2 O. Discrepancies between bottom‐up and top‐down methods call for analyses of how prior flux ensembles impact inversion budgets, more and well‐distributed in situ GHG measurements and improved resolution in upscaling techniques.

Global Biogeochemical CyclesVol. 38(10)
University of East Anglia (GB), Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (DE), Finnish Meteorological Institute (FI), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU), Met Office (GB), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Woodwell Climate Research Center (US), Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JP), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (US), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US), University of Alberta (CA), Universität Hamburg (DE), University of New Hampshire (US), Stockholm University (SE), University of Groningen (NL), University of Eastern Finland (FI), Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (US), University of Colorado Boulder (US), Universität Innsbruck (AT), ParisTech (FR), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR), National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP), Northern Arizona University (US), Aarhus University (DK), AgroParisTech (FR), Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR), Université Paris-Saclay (FR), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Kjeller Innovasjon (Norway) (NO), Tsinghua–Berkeley Shenzhen Institute (CN), Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (FR), National Centre for Earth Observation (GB), CEA Paris-Saclay (FR), Grønlands Naturinstitut (GL), Tyndall Centre (GB), Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (DE), Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (JP), Bolin Centre for Climate Research (SE), Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (DE), Meteorological Research Institute (JP), Deleted Institution, Zhejiang University (CN), Wageningen University & Research (NL), University of Edinburgh (GB), Tsinghua University (CN)
Sight Research UK, Natural Environment Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Climate change and permafrost
12.42
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.