Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Chapter 13: Terrestrial Wetlands
Pages 99-112

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 99...
... Some suggestions on improving/rephrasing the key findings include the following: • Key findings 1-3 only present single values on wetland carbon stocks and CO2 sink and CH4 source, without any indication of uncertainties and range. Uncertainty statements are needed.
From page 100...
... How would this range translate to uncertainties for scaled-up results for North America? • It appears that the raw measurements/data haven't gone through quality control evaluation, and as a result, the robustness of the new data compilation results so heavily relied upon in this chapter should not be assessed in the context of SOCCR2 review.
From page 101...
... The chapter should provide a proper global context to discuss wetland carbon stocks and fluxes in North America. For example, regarding global or northern peatland carbon stocks, some seminal, recent synthesis papers (e.g., Gorham, 1991; Yu et al., 2010)
From page 102...
... Tables 13.1 and 13.2 provide a useful summary of wetland data in each country and territory in North America. However, the values presented here should be consistent with the values discussed elsewhere in report (Chapter 13, other chapters, Executive Summary: see comments above)
From page 103...
... - All figures/values stated here lack uncertainty statements. - There is an uneven and inconsistent treatment of numerical values; for instance, why focus on the global proportion of wetland area in North America, but not global percentage of total wetland carbon stocks in North America?
From page 104...
... Evidence heavily relies on the authors' own new data compilation and analysis, and these new results have not been adequately evaluated in the context of available peer-reviewed literature. The quantitative statements in Key Findings lack uncertainty and range.
From page 105...
... P504, Line 1-6 Quantification is needed: What is the current wetland loss rate? What is the time period for "historical rates"?
From page 106...
... (2018) both summarize net carbon balance data from several sites in Canada/North America.
From page 107...
... The sentence could mean large CO2 flux dynamics, CO2 uptake, or CO2 release. P508, Line 21 Change "from the perspective of " to "considering organic and mineral soils wetlands separately" P508, Line 22 Delete "quite." P508, Line 32 Change "reported literature" to "reported values in the literature." P508, Line 40 The appropriate terms here should be "CO2 uptake" and "CO2 release", not "CO2 sequestration and emissions." P509, Line 4-9 The authors attempt to define the net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB)
From page 108...
... ? P509, Line 41 The term "peat accretion" is not commonly used outside discussion of mineral soil wetlands, such as salt marsh, as in these mineral-rich systems mineral sediment transport and deposition are important part of peat and carbon accumulation process.
From page 109...
... P514, Line 16-18 This is a too simplistic an approach to estimate peatland carbon sequestration. First, the rates of 20-30 gC/m2/yr are likely apparent rates of peat carbon accumulation, rather than actual carbon accumulation rates (see Turunen et al., 2002 and Yu, 2011 for discussion)
From page 110...
... P540-560, Appendix Tables These tables and the appendix text are not necessarily useful or appropriate for this report. Considering all the issues with the approach, data representation, data quality control, and large range of individual measurements , the authors should consider take a different approach to assess the available peerreviewed literature.
From page 111...
... to derive a range for the peat soil carbon annual accretion rate in Tg C, rather than a single value. P517, Line 30-32 Surprisingly this section does not quantitatively assess the historical and future trends of wetland carbon fluxes/stocks.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.