Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Warming response of peatland CO2 sink is sensitive to seasonality in warming trends

Nature Climate Change volume 12, pages 743–749 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Peatlands have acted as net CO2 sinks over millennia, exerting a global climate cooling effect. Rapid warming at northern latitudes, where peatlands are abundant, can disturb their CO2 sink function. Here we show that sensitivity of peatland net CO2 exchange to warming changes in sign and magnitude across seasons, resulting in complex net CO2 sink responses. We use multiannual net CO2 exchange observations from 20 northern peatlands to show that warmer early summers are linked to increased net CO2 uptake, while warmer late summers lead to decreased net CO2 uptake. Thus, net CO2 sinks of peatlands in regions experiencing early summer warming, such as central Siberia, are more likely to persist under warmer climate conditions than are those in other regions. Our results will be useful to improve the design of future warming experiments and to better interpret large-scale trends in peatland net CO2 uptake over the coming few decades.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Spatial distribution and climatic conditions of studied peatland sites.
Fig. 2: Relationship between annual air-temperature anomalies and annual peatland net CO2 ecosystem exchange anomalies.
Fig. 3: Sensitivities (regression slopes) between (ΔNEE) and environmental drivers in different seasons.
Fig. 4: Estimated ΔNEE across northern latitudes (>45° N).
Fig. 5: Annual time series of estimated ΔNEE.

Data availability

Monthly data used in this study can be accessed through the corresponding author’s GitHub repository61 (https://github.com/manuelhelbig/PeatlandNEE) and is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Code availability

All MATLAB code used in this study is made available through the corresponding author’s GitHub repository61 (https://github.com/manuelhelbig/PeatlandNEE). The software used to generate all results in this study is MATLAB 2016a.

References

  1. Xia, J. et al. Terrestrial carbon cycle affected by non-uniform climate warming. Nat. Geosci. 7, 173–180 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tang, R. et al. Increasing terrestrial ecosystem carbon release in response to autumn cooling and warming. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 380–385 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hugelius, G. et al. Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20438–20446 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallego-Sala, A. V. et al. Latitudinal limits to the predicted increase of the peatland carbon sink with warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 907–913 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Treat, C. C. et al. Widespread global peatland establishment and persistence over the last 130,000 y. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4822–4827 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Frolking, S., Roulet, N. & Fuglestvedt, J. How northern peatlands influence the Earth’s radiative budget: sustained methane emission versus sustained carbon sequestration. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 111, G01008 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Loisel, J. et al. Expert assessment of future vulnerability of the global peatland carbon sink. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 70–77 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Helbig, M. et al. Direct and indirect climate change effects on carbon dioxide fluxes in a thawing boreal forest–wetland landscape. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3231–3248 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Koebsch, F. et al. Refining the role of phenology in regulating gross ecosystem productivity across European peatlands. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 876–887 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang, Y. et al. Tradeoff of CO2 and CH4 emissions from global peatlands under water-table drawdown. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 618–622 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Evans, C. D. et al. Overriding water table control on managed peatland greenhouse gas emissions. Nature 593, 548–552 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Helfter, C. et al. Drivers of long-term variability in CO2 net ecosystem exchange in a temperate peatland. Biogeosciences 12, 1799–1811 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Järveoja, J., Nilsson, M. B., Gažovič, M., Crill, P. M. & Peichl, M. Partitioning of the net CO2 exchange using an automated chamber system reveals plant phenology as key control of production and respiration fluxes in a boreal peatland. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3436–3451 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mäkiranta, P. et al. Responses of phenology and biomass production of boreal fens to climate warming under different water-table level regimes. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 944–956 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li, Q. et al. Abiotic and biotic drivers of microbial respiration in peat and its sensitivity to temperature change. Soil Biol. Biochem. 153, 108077 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Moore, T. R. et al. Spring photosynthesis in a cool temperate bog. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 2323–2335 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Korrensalo, A. et al. Species-specific temporal variation in photosynthesis as a moderator of peatland carbon sequestration. Biogeosciences 14, 257–269 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Weltzin, J. F. et al. Response of bog and fen plant communities to warming and water-table manipulations. Ecology 81, 3464–3478 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dimitrov, D. D., Grant, R. F., Lafleur, P. M. & Humphreys, E. R. Modeling the effects of hydrology on gross primary productivity and net ecosystem productivity at Mer Bleue bog. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116, G04010 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bubier, J., Crill, P., Mosedale, A., Frolking, S. & Linder, E. Peatland responses to varying interannual moisture conditions as measured by automatic CO2 chambers. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1066 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Moore, T. R. & Knowles, R. The influence of water table levels on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from peatland soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 69, 33–38 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nichols, D. S. Temperature of upland and peatland soils in a north central Minnesota forest. Can. J. Soil Sci. 78, 493–509 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bellisario, L. M., Moore, T. R. & Bubier, J. L. Net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland, northern Manitoba. Écoscience 5, 534–541 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yu, Z. et al. Peatlands and their role in the global carbon cycle. Eos 92, 97–98 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hanson, P. J. et al. Rapid net carbon loss from a whole-ecosystem warmed peatland. AGU Adv. 1, e2020AV000163 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vincent, L. A. et al. Observed trends in Canada’s climate and influence of low-frequency variability modes. J. Clim. 28, 4545–4560 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Templer, P. H. et al. Climate Change Across Seasons Experiment (CCASE): a new method for simulating future climate in seasonally snow-covered ecosystems. PLoS ONE 12, e0171928 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Peichl, M. et al. A 12-year record reveals pre-growing season temperature and water table level threshold effects on the net carbon dioxide exchange in a boreal fen. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 055006 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Helbig, M., Humphreys, E. R. & Todd, A. Contrasting temperature sensitivity of CO2 exchange in peatlands of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124, 2126–2143 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Griffis, T. J., Rouse, W. R. & Waddington, J. M. Interannual variability of net ecosystem CO2 exchange at a subarctic fen. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 1109–1121 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bubier, J. L., Crill, P. M., Moore, T. R., Savage, K. & Varner, R. K. Seasonal patterns and controls on net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland complex. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 12, 703–714 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Park, S.-B. et al. Temperature control of spring CO2 fluxes at a coniferous forest and a peat bog in Central Siberia. Atmosphere 12, 984 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Adkinson, A. C., Syed, K. H. & Flanagan, L. B. Contrasting responses of growing season ecosystem CO2 exchange to variation in temperature and water table depth in two peatlands in northern Alberta, Canada. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116, G01004 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Heiskanen, L. et al. Carbon dioxide and methane exchange of a patterned subarctic fen during two contrasting growing seasons. Biogeosciences 18, 873–896 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lafleur, P. M., Roulet, N. T., Bubier, J. L., Frolking, S. & Moore, T. R. Interannual variability in the peatland-atmosphere carbon dioxide exchange at an ombrotrophic bog. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1036 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Joiner, D. W., Lafleur, P. M., McCaughey, J. H. & Bartlett, P. A. Interannual variability in carbon dioxide exchanges at a boreal wetland in the BOREAS northern study area. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 104, 27663–27672 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. McVeigh, P., Sottocornola, M., Foley, N., Leahy, P. & Kiely, G. Meteorological and functional response partitioning to explain interannual variability of CO2 exchange at an Irish Atlantic blanket bog. Agric. For. Meteorol. 194, 8–19 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Helbig, M. et al. Increasing contribution of peatlands to boreal evapotranspiration in a warming climate. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 555–560 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bourgault, M.-A., Larocque, M. & Garneau, M. How do hydrogeological setting and meteorological conditions influence water table depth and fluctuations in ombrotrophic peatlands? J. Hydrol. X 4, 100032 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yurova, A., Wolf, A., Sagerfors, J. & Nilsson, M. Variations in net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide in a boreal mire: modeling mechanisms linked to water table position. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 112, G02025 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Laine, A. M. et al. Warming impacts on boreal fen CO2 exchange under wet and dry conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1995–2008 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chivers, M. R., Turetsky, M. R., Waddington, J. M., Harden, J. W. & McGuire, A. D. Effects of experimental water table and temperature manipulations on ecosystem CO2 fluxes in an Alaskan rich fen. Ecosystems 12, 1329–1342 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Juszczak, R. et al. Ecosystem respiration in a heterogeneous temperate peatland and its sensitivity to peat temperature and water table depth. Plant Soil 366, 505–520 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hao, D. et al. Estimating hourly land surface downward shortwave and photosynthetically active radiation from DSCOVR/EPIC observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 232, 111320 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. O’Donnell, J. A., Romanovsky, V. E., Harden, J. W. & McGuire, A. D. The effect of moisture content on the thermal conductivity of moss and organic soil horizons from black spruce ecosystems in interior Alaska. Soil Sci. 174, 646–651 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Nijp, J. J. et al. Rain events decrease boreal peatland net CO2 uptake through reduced light availability. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2309–2320 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang, Y., Commane, R., Zhou, S., Williams, A. P. & Gentine, P. Light limitation regulates the response of autumn terrestrial carbon uptake to warming. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 739–743 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Samson, M. et al. The impact of experimental temperature and water level manipulation on carbon dioxide release in a poor fen in northern Poland. Wetlands 38, 551–563 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Drever, C. R. et al. Natural climate solutions for Canada. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd6034 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Hemes, K. S., Runkle, B. R. K., Novick, K. A., Baldocchi, D. D. & Field, C. B. An ecosystem-scale flux measurement strategy to assess natural climate solutions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 3494–3504 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Walker, T. W. N. et al. A systemic overreaction to years versus decades of warming in a subarctic grassland ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 101–108 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Xu, B. et al. Seasonal variability of forest sensitivity to heat and drought stresses: a synthesis based on carbon fluxes from North American forest ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 901–918 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Piao, S. et al. Net carbon dioxide losses of northern ecosystems in response to autumn warming. Nature 451, 49–52 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Joyce, P. et al. How robust Is the apparent break-down of northern high-latitude temperature control on spring carbon uptake? Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL091601 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Grant, R. F. et al. Changes in net ecosystem productivity of boreal black spruce stands in response to changes in temperature at diurnal and seasonal time scales. Tree Physiol. 29, 1–17 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Kwon, M. J. et al. Siberian 2020 heatwave increased spring CO2 uptake but not annual CO2 uptake. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 124030 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Yu, Z., Griffis, T. J. & Baker, J. M. Warming temperatures lead to reduced summer carbon sequestration in the U.S. Corn Belt. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 53 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wang, S. et al. Warmer spring alleviated the impacts of 2018 European summer heatwave and drought on vegetation photosynthesis. Agric. For. Meteorol. 295, 108195 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wang, T. et al. Emerging negative impact of warming on summer carbon uptake in northern ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 9, 5391 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Lin, X. et al. Siberian and temperate ecosystems shape Northern Hemisphere atmospheric CO2 seasonal amplification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 21079–21087 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Helbig, M. et al. Warming response of peatland CO2 sink is sensitive to seasonality in warming trends. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6685222 (2022).

  62. Didan, K. MOD13Q1 MODIS/Terra Vegetation Indices 16-Day L3 Global 250 m SIN Grid V006 [Data set]. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC (2015); https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD13Q1.006

  63. Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lees, K. J. et al. Using spectral indices to estimate water content and GPP in Sphagnum moss and other peatland vegetation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 58, 4547–4557 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Bennett, A. C., McDowell, N. G., Allen, C. D. & Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. Larger trees suffer most during drought in forests worldwide. Nat. Plants 1, 15139 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Page, S. E. & Baird, A. J. Peatlands and global change: response and resilience. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 35–57 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Juottonen, H. et al. Integrating decomposers, methane-cycling microbes and ecosystem carbon fluxes along a peatland successional gradient in a land uplift region. Ecosystems https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-021-00713-w (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.H., L.B.F. and O.S. acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discovery Grants programme. P.J.H.’s contributions were supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. A.P. was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Krasnoyarsk Territory, and Krasnoyarsk Regional Fund of Science, project no. 20-45-242908, and the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 21-17-00163. O.S. acknowledges funding by the Canada Research Chairs and the Canada Foundation for Innovation Leaders Opportunity Fund. M.U. was funded by Arctic Challenge for Sustainability II grant JPMXD1420318865 and KAKENHI (grant no. 19H05668). P.G.L.’s and G.K.’s contributions were supported by the Irish Government’s ERTDI Programme, grant no. 2001‐CC/CD‐(5/7) and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency CELTICFLUX project, grant no. 2001-CC-C2-M1. S.W. and F.J.W.P. were funded by Bioforsk, NILU—Norwegian Institute for Air Research and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, with funding from the Research Council of Norway (project NFR208424, GHG-NOR) and the Stiftelsen Fondet for Jord-og Myrundersøkelser. F.J.W.P. received additional support from the Research Council of Norway (grant no. 274711) and the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2017-05268). P.A. acknowledges the Academy of Finland Flagship Programme for financial support of ‘Forest–Human–Machine Interplay—Building Resilience, Redefining Value Networks and Enabling Meaningful Experiences (UNITE)’ flagship (decision no. 337655) and the funding from the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development FORMAS (grant no. 2018-01820). E.-S.T. acknowledges Academy of Finland funding (grant codes 330840 and 337550). We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Transport and Communication, the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Academy of Finland through ICOS Finland. Funding for E.S.E. was provided by the US Geological Survey, Research Work Order 224 to the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the Bonanza Creek Long-Term Ecological Research Program funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF DEB-1026415, DEB-1636476) and the NSF Long-Term Research in Environmental Biology Program (NSF LTREB 2011276). C.H. acknowledges support from the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-SCAPE programme delivering National Capability. M.B.N., M.P., P.V., P.W. and J.R. acknowledge the support by the Swedish Research Council of the national research infrastructures ICOS Sweden and SITES (Swedish Infrastructure for Ecosystem Service). P.V. received additional support from the Swedish government-funded Strategic Research Area Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in a Changing Climate, BECC. S.Z. and T.S.E.-M. acknowledge support by the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Sciences, e.V., through the long-term project ZOTTO (EBIO 8015). We are grateful to the Liidlii Kue First Nation and Jean-Marie River First Nation for supporting observations at the Scotty Creek Research Station, which were part of the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

    M. Helbig

  2. Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

    T. Živković

  3. Bioeconomy and Environment, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland

    P. Alekseychik

  4. Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland

    M. Aurela, J. Hattakka, T. Laurila & A. Lohila

  5. Department of Biogeochemical Integration, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany

    T. S. El-Madany & S. Zaehle

  6. Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA

    E. S. Euskirchen

  7. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

    L. B. Flanagan

  8. Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, USA

    T. J. Griffis

  9. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA

    P. J. Hanson

  10. UK Center for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, UK

    C. Helfter

  11. Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan

    T. Hirano

  12. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

    E. R. Humphreys

  13. School of Engineering and Architecture and Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    G. Kiely & P. G. Leahy

  14. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Grand Rapids, MN, USA

    R. K. Kolka & D. T. Roman

  15. Institute of Atmospheric and Earth System Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    A. Lohila, I. Mammarella & T. Vesala

  16. Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden

    M. B. Nilsson & M. Peichl

  17. V. N. Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS, KSC SB RAS, Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation

    A. Panov

  18. Centre for Biogeochemistry in the Anthropocene, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    F. J. W. Parmentier

  19. Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    F. J. W. Parmentier, J. Rinne & P. Vestin

  20. Production Systems Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland

    J. Rinne

  21. Département de géographie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada

    O. Sonnentag

  22. School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    E.-S Tuittila

  23. Graduate School of Agriculture, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan

    M. Ueyama

  24. Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ås, Norway

    S. Weldon

  25. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    P. Weslien

Authors
  1. M. Helbig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Živković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Alekseychik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Aurela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. S. El-Madany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. S. Euskirchen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L. B. Flanagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. T. J. Griffis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. P. J. Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. J. Hattakka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. C. Helfter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. T. Hirano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. E. R. Humphreys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. G. Kiely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. R. K. Kolka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. T. Laurila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. P. G. Leahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. A. Lohila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. I. Mammarella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. M. B. Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. A. Panov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. F. J. W. Parmentier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. M. Peichl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. J. Rinne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. D. T. Roman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. O. Sonnentag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. E.-S Tuittila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. M. Ueyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. T. Vesala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. P. Vestin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. S. Weldon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. P. Weslien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. S. Zaehle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.H. designed the study. M.H. and T.Ž. developed the methodology. M.A., P.A., T.S.E.-M., E.S.E., L.B.F., T.J.G., J.H., C.H., T.H., E.R.H., G.K., R.K.K., T.L., P.G.L., A.L., I.M., M.B.N., A.P., F.J.W.P., M.P., J.R., D.T.R., O.S., E.-S.T., M.U., T.V., P.V., S.W., P.W. and S.Z. contributed eddy covariance flux data, and P.J.H. contributed data from the peatland warming experiment. M.H. analysed the data and wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to data interpretation and commented on the manuscript at all stages.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Helbig.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Katharina Jentzsch and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Seasonal air temperature changes across northern latitudes.

Warming rates across northern latitudes between 1951-1970 and 2001-2020 for (a) winter [January to March], (b) spring [April to June], (c) summer [July to September], and (d) fall [October to December] (data: CRU TS v4.061).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Interannual variability of net ecosystem CO2 exchange and air and soil temperature.

Mean interannual variability in (a) net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) and (b) air and soil temperature across 20 peatland sites. Interannual variability is shown as the standard deviation of monthly NEE and air and soil temperature. Shaded areas show the standard error of the interannual variability across all sites.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Seasonal relationships between environmental drivers and air temperature.

Estimated fixed effect (that is, monthly air temperature) slopes in linear mixed-effects regression models of (a) incoming shortwave radiation, (b) enhanced vegetation index [EVI], and (c) water table depth with sites as random effect. Linear mixed effect models are fitted separately to each period. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals of estimated slope parameters and black circles indicate statistical significance at ɑ ≤ 0.05.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Monthly relationships between air temperature and net ecosystem CO2 exchange.

Monthly estimated fixed effect (that is, monthly air temperature [Ta]) slopes in linear mixed-effects regression models of monthly net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) with sites considered as random effect. Asterisks indicate the level of statistical significance (* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001). The error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals of the estimated slope parameters.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Differences between seasonally varying and uniform warming impacts on net ecosystem CO2 exchange.

Differences in estimated change in annual peatland net ecosystem exchange (ΔNEE) between the period 1951 to 1970 and 2001 to 2020 resulting from seasonally varying and seasonally uniform warming for areas with ≥ 5% peatland extent. Green areas indicate larger net CO2 loss for seasonally uniform warming and brown areas indicate smaller net CO2 loss for seasonally uniform warming.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1 and Figs. 1–5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Helbig, M., Živković, T., Alekseychik, P. et al. Warming response of peatland CO2 sink is sensitive to seasonality in warming trends. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 743–749 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01428-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01428-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing