Greenhouse gas emission in West Siberia

Greenhouse Gas Emission in West Siberia

M. V. Glagoleva, E. A. Golovatskaya

b, and N. A. Shnyrev

a

a

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Vorob’evy Gory, Moscow, 119992 Russiab

Institute of Monitoring of Climatic and Ecological Systems (IMCES), Siberian Branch of the RAS,

Akademicheskii prosp. 10/3, Tomsk, 634055 Russia

Abstract—The major gases contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide and methane (60 and

15–18%, respectively). The former Soviet Union area accounts for 11% of the global methane flux on the

average. However, virtually no records of methane flux were kept in Russia in the late 1980s-early 1990s.

Inventories of methane emission in Russia were reported in the middle 1990s, but those data were confined to

measurements performed by the early 1990s. This paper presents generalized data on methane and carbon

dioxide emission from the surfaces of marsh ecosystems in West Siberia in the 1990s, when the majority of

measurements were carried out.

DOI: 10.1134/S1995425508010165

At present, the greenhouse effect is contributed

mainly by methane and carbon dioxide: 60 and

15–18%, respectively [1, 2]. According to the Conven-

tion on Climate Change adopted in 1992, each country

should produce its own balance of greenhouse gases,

first of all, carbon dioxide and methane [3]. The carbon

balance in terrestrial ecosystems is determined primar-

ily by carbon accumulation during photosynthesis and

release of carbon dioxide and methane during organic

matter decay [4].

Many papers [e.g., 5–8] were dedicated to attempts

to summarize all global information on various types of

methane sources. Unfortunately, the data on methane

emission from Russian soils are omitted from these pa-

pers, although the Soviet Union contributed 4 to 17% of

the global methane flux [2]. The mean evaluation re-

ported in [9], 11%, can be tentatively admitted. The

lack of data is largely related to the fact that few mea-

surements of methane flux were done in Russia in the

late 1980s–early 1990s. As far as we know, two at-

tempts of methane flux inventory in Russia were done

in the mid-1990s [10, 11]. These reports comprised in-

formation on measurements done before and during the

early 1990, but the majority of measurements were

done in the next decade; therefore, the inventory should

be updated. Emphasis is placed on methane emission,

because it has been studied much less than carbon

dioxide fluxes.

RECORDS OF METHANE EMISSION

IN WEST SIBERIA

Tomsk Oblast

Early studies of methane emission in West Siberia

date to 1992. They were performed at a station of the

Sukachev Institute of Forest, Siberian Branch of the

Russian Academy of Sciences, near the village of Vo-

sem’desyat Shestoi Kvartal, Tomsk oblast. This station

is located on the southern periphery of the West Sibe-

rian Plain (56°22�N, 84°40�E). The following types of

bogs were studied: ombrotrophic sphagnous peatlands

wooded by low pinery; mesotrophic bogs; exposed

sedge-sphagnous bogs bordered by forest belts;

minerotrophic swamps covered by high-site mixed for-

est dominated by the Siberian pine [12].

Measurements of methane and carbon dioxide

fluxes reported in [13] were performed in July–August

of 1993 and 1994, at three localities of the Tomsk

oblast: (1) the floodplain of the Iksa River (a 2–3 to

50 m wide bog in a narrow band along the main river-

bed); (2) the Bakchar bog between the Bakchar and Iksa

rivers, 20�15 km in size; (3) the Iksa bog: ombrotrophic

and mesotrophic bogs of the total area 15�180 km in the

plain divide between the Iksa and Shegarka rivers.

In these studies, the methane flux and the dark car-

bon dioxide flux were measured using static dark cham-

bers (base area 0.16 m

2

, height 0.3 m, volume 48 l,

exposure time 30 to 45 min). Other parameters mea-

sured: dissolved methane concentration, air and peat

temperatures at depths of 2–5 cm, pH and Eh at the

watertable level (WTL) [12, 13], and rates of methane

production and oxidation [12].

The coefficients of variation in the methane flux

measurements were within 80–240%. Methane emis-

sion rate varied from –20 to 2400 mg CH

4

/(m

2

�day)

depending on ambient conditions. The confidence in-

terval for the Bakchar bog at p = 0.95 was 144–

323 mg CH

4

/(m

2

�day) [13].

Rates of methane and carbon dioxide emission were

determined in the Siberian Terrestrial Ecosystem-At-

mosphere-Cryosphere Experiment (STEACE) in 1994.

The resulting methane emission rate was 5.2 mg

C/(m

2

�h) at std = 4.1 mg C/(m

2

�h); i.e., the coefficient of

variation was 80% [14].

ISSN 1995-4255, Contemporary Problems of Ecology, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 136–146. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2008.

Original Russian Text © M.V. Glagolev, E.A. Golovatskaya, N.A. Shnyrev, 2007, published in Sibirskii Ekologicheskii Zhurnal, 2007, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 197–210.

136

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2607065_Assessment_of_the_Average_Annual_Methane_Flux_from_the_Soils_of_Russia?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-7d04aa2f019f09550822c9da728f3f60-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNjQwNjY4MztBUzo5OTY0Nzg1MDgxMTM5NkAxNDAwNzY5MzA3NTAw

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246812404_Methane_emission_from_forest_and_agricultural_land_in_Russia?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-7d04aa2f019f09550822c9da728f3f60-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNjQwNjY4MztBUzo5OTY0Nzg1MDgxMTM5NkAxNDAwNzY5MzA3NTAw

In addition to the pointwise chamber method, the

distributed inversion trap method (giant chamber

method) was used for measuring emission from bogs

near Plotnikovo Village (57°85�N, 83°08�E) on August

3, 5, and 6, 1994 [15]. Results of airborne measure-

ments during temperature inversion are reported in

Table 1 [16].

The land and airborne measurements carried out in

STEACE allowed calculation of the flux by the gradi-

ent method described in [15, 17]. The data were ar-

ranged as temporal methane and carbon dioxide

concentration series at an elevation 5 m above the

ground and horizontal fields of these concentrations at

elevations from 100 to 2000 m obtained from a flying

laboratory early in the morning [14]. The measure-

ment was carried out southwest of Plotnikovo Village

[13, 14]. The methane flux value was measured to be

0.1 g/(m

2

�day). This value was close to that obtained by

Tohjima et al. [16] by the inversion trap method but

lower than the values obtained by the conventional

chamber method. This difference may be related to the

fact that the concentrations measured from a tower, bal-

loon, or an aircraft are influenced by not only the

nearby bog but also distant areas, which emit no meth-

ane or even absorb it. Circadian emission variations can

be another cause of the difference between the results of

different measurement methods, but the current quan-

titative knowledge of this variation is insufficient [14].

In 1995, regular methane flux studies were com-

menced in the Bakchar bog near the Plotnikovo Station

of the Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry, Si-

berian Branch of the RAS. In addition to methane flux,

soil temperatures and water levels were recorded [19].

Significant (twofold) temporal flux variations were

observed [20]. The mean values of fluxes above various

plant associations are presented in Table 2, column

“1995”.

In 1997, fluxes were measured with an automated

system [21]. Chambers were placed along wooden

gangways in plant associations (chamber numbers in

parentheses): (1) Sphagnum, (2) Carex, (3) Menyan-

thes, (4) Equisetum, (5) Carex, and (6) Eriophorum.

The results are shown in Table 2, column “1997”.

The data on methane flux in the Bakchar bog

(Tomsk oblast, Plotnikovo station) reported in [22]

were obtained by the conventional portable chamber

method in July and August, 1997. The fluxes were vir-

tually identical in these months: (4.1�0.4) mg C/(m

2

�h)

in July and (4.4�0.6) mg C/(m

2

�h) in August. In addi-

tion, data for several past years are shown. In 1997, a

large body of attendant data were obtained for four sites

dominated by (1) Eriophorum vaginatum, (2) Carex,

(3) Menyanthes, and (4) Equisetum: vertical profiles of

soil temperature, pH, redox potential, organic acid con-

centrations, dissolved methane concentrations, and

methane production rates [23].

Since 1998, the observation has been made at two

stations, described in detail in [24] and in brief, in [19].

Test ground O is an oligotrophic hummocky-water

hole-lakelet wetland, whose vegetation is represented

by mosses and, on the hummocks, dwarf pines with

shrubs. Test ground E is an open, heavily moistened

area of a bog with small tussocks and water holes [19],

4 km north of test ground O. Test ground E can be con-

sidered mesotrophic [26]. Equipment for automatic re-

cord of methane emission was installed on each test

ground [19]. Also, an independent weather station

(Unidata Australia, model 6508) with a sensor measur-

ing WTL was installed. Soil temperatures were re-

corded with termistors and LM35 semiconductor-based

temperature sensors (National Semiconductor) accu-

rate to 0.1 °C. In 1998, water levels and soil tempera-

ture profiles were recorded throughout the warm

season, starting from snow melting late in April till the

beginning of November [19].

The rates of methane emission averaged over the

season were 12.7 mg/(m

2

�h) on test ground E and

2.1 mg/(m

2

�h) on test ground O (Table 3). One of the

explanations of this great difference is different soil

temperatures at a depth of 25 cm. In turn, the low sum-

mer soil temperatures on test ground O may be related

to deep freezing in winter.

In addition to these data, a great body of weather

data (with emphasis placed on heat balance measure-

ments) was obtained in the Bakchar bog from April 20

to November 2, 1998. These data were reported in part

in [25, 26].

CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS OF ECOLOGY Vol. 1 No. 1 2008

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN WEST SIBERIA 137

Table 1. Aircraft measurements of methane flux [16, 18]

Date

Methane

accumulation,

mg/m

2

Accumu-

lation

time, h

Methane

flux,

mg/(m

2

�day)

03.08.1994 55 13 (15) 102 (88)

05.08.1994 20 12 (14) 40 (34)

06.08.1994 79 13 (15) 146 (126)

Data from [18] are parenthesized

Table 2. Dependence of methane flux on vegetation type

Plant association

Methane flow,

mg C/(m

2

�h)

1995 1997

Hummock ridge (Pinus

sylvestris)

3.7

not recorded

Shrub-cotton

grass-sphagnum

12.8 7.7

Shrub-sedge-sphagnum 18.1 11.3, 21.4

Sedge-shamrock-sphagnum 15.1 7.7

Sedge-equisetum-sphagnum 6.5 8.7

Sphagnum spp.

not recorded

In the summer of 2000 (June–August), flux mea-

surements were continued in the hummock-water hole

complex on the periphery of the upland Bakchar bog

(test ground E). Round-the-clock measurements were

performed on July 5–6 and August 19–20. Five cham-

bers were placed along the transect across the sedge–

sphagnum association: C1 and C2, tussocks covered by

Sphagnum magellanicum, S. angustifolium, Carex li-

mosa, and dwarf shrubs; C3 and C5 at a lower level

(Sphagnum majus); C4 is a water hole partly covered

with water with partially decayed plant remains and oc-

casional living Sphagnum majus plants. The mean rate

of methane emission from peat was 1.22 mg C/(m

2

�h),

std = 1.43 mg C/(m

2

�h) (Table 4), the emission from

water holes being greater than from positive microrelief

elements. Methane emission constituted 2 to 4% of the

total carbon emission [27].

In September, 2000, measurements were performed

by the chamber method (base area 0.152 m

2

, height

0.43 m, volume 65.4 l) on test ground B in a birch forest

(56°52�N, 83°17�E). The land vegetation included

shrubs (Ledum palustre, Chamedaphne calyculata, and

Rubus chamaemorus) and grasses. Typical soils of the

forest had an approximately 90 cm thick organic hori-

zon, originating from peat overlying a muddy mineral

horizon [28]. Gas concentration variation in the cham-

ber was practically linear, but Nakano et al. [28] calcu-

lated flux from even more complicated models. The

following values � std were obtained: –165�

17.0 �g C/(m

2

�h) for the Nakano et al. exponential

model, –161�16.7 �g C/(m

2

�h) for the Hutchinson–

Mosier nonlinear model, and –136�8.42 �g C/(m

2

�h)

for the linear model.

Khanty-Mansi National District

Methane flux measurements in the Khanty-Mansi

National District were reported in 1993 [29]. Gas con-

centrations and turbulence parameters were measured

from an IL-18 flying laboratory. Measurements were

performed by the gradient method at various times of

day, from 8.00 to 15.00, at heights of 0.1, 0.5, and

1.0 km along horizontal routes 100–120 km in length.

Methane concentrations and turbulent fluctuations of

the vertical wind component were measured with a gas

chromatograph with a flame ionization detector [30]

and an aircraft anemoclinometer [31]. The spatial reso-

lution of methane concentration measurements was

350 m. Horizontal averaging allowed fourfold reduc-

tion of the concentration measurement error in compar-

ison with the error of individual measurements. The

standard error of the calculated turbulent diffusion co-

efficient was 20%. The lowest vertical concentration

gradients and fluxes were observed above unforested

bogs devoid of trees occurring on flat divides. The larg-


138 GLAGOLEV et al.

Table 3. Plant association compositions and methane fluxes, mg/(m

2

�h)

Test ground Chamber Flux Association, bog type: M, mesotrophic; O, oligotrophic

E 1 12.8 Equisetum, Sphagnum fallax (M)

E 2 18.1 Menyanthes, Sphagnum majus (M)

E 3 17.9 Carex, Sphagnum balticum (OM)

E 4* 15.7 Dwarf shrubs, Carex, Sphagnum magellanicum (MO)

E 5** 5.27 Dwarf shrubs, Carex, Sphagnum magellanicum (MO)

E 6 5.9 Pines, dwarf shrubs, Carex, Sphagnum magellanicum (O)

O 1 1.8 Menyanthes, Sphagnum fallax (M)

O 2 4.1 Carex, Sphagnum papillosum (MO)

O 3 2.0 Eriophorum, Carex, Sphagnum angustifolium (MO)



O 6 0.5

Rare pines, dwarf shrubs, S. fuscum, lichen ridges

* Site more humid than under chamber 5.

** Site drier than under chamber 4.

Table 4. Methane emission on test ground E of the Bakchar

bog (cited from [27]) in 2000.

Date

Emission, mg C/(m

2

�h)

mean std

25.06.2000 1.02 0.61

5–6.07.2000 0.85 0.47

13.07.2000 2.23 3.14

20.07.2000 0.94 1.22

19–20.06.2000 1.47 0.63

26.08.2000 0.83 0.77

Mean 1.22 1.43

est methane fluxes were recorded in valleys of large or

medium rivers: Ob’, Irtysh, and Konda. The flux values

above the Irtysh valley exceeded those above forested

or unforested bogs by 30–100% (Table 5). The same ef-

fect, although less pronounced, was observed above

valleys of minor rivers. The mean flux value within the

height range 100–500 m was 2.8 mg/(m

2

�h).

Measurements from the flying laboratory were con-

tinued on July 31, 1994 above bogs near Khanty-Man-

siisk (61°05�N, 69°00�E). Both forested and unforested

bogs were studied. The results calculated on the as-

sumption that the methane accumulation time in the

capping inversion layer was the same as in measure-

ments near Plotnikovo Village [27] are presented in

Table 5.

Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District

Measurements were performed near the town of

Noyabr’sk (northern taiga subzone) in the daytime,

July-September 1999 by the portable chamber method

(base area 0.01 m

2

, height 0.2 m, volume 2 l). Gas sam-

ples were taken three times during the exposure time of

20 to 30 min. The chambers were covered with light-re-

flecting coating. Chamber bases were buried into the

soil to a depth of 10 cm. They remained at the same sites

throughout the field work time. Chromatographic anal-

ysis of gas samples was carried out with a Kristall 5000

chromatograph [27].

The following grounds were tested [27]: P1 is an

upland bog with hummock–water hole–lakelet com-

plexes at the periphery of a dividing bog area, distant

from industrial enterprises and inhabited sites, 62°58�N,

71°11�E; P2 is an upland bog with flat hummock-water

hole complexes over permafrost, located in a local low-

land near an oil recovery area, 63°17�N, 75°29�E; P3 is

an upland bog with flat mound–water hole complexes

over permafrost, distant from industrial enterprises and

inhabited sites, 63°12�N, 75°40�E; and P4 is a meso-

trophic lake, minerotrophic sedge-sphagnous marsh in

the valley of a small river 750 m from an oil recovery

area, 63°16�N, 75°29�E.

The vegetation was the same at P2 and P3. Perma-

frost was absent from P1, and the hummocks were cov-

ered by sparse Pinus sylvestris trees. Test ground P4

was located in a marsh within a river valley, 30–50 m

from the riverbed [27].

The mean rate of methane emission from peat was

0.57 mg C/(m

2

�h) (std = 0.36 mg C/(m

2

�h)). The lowest

emission rates were recorded at P4, where the perma-

frost table occurred at depths of 0.4–0.5 m (Table 6).

Emission from water holes showed no significant dif-

ference from that from hummocks except for P1.

SOME GENERAL RESULTS OF METHANE

EMISSION MEASUREMENTS

Methane Content Within the Peat Deposit

In peat deposits, methane is produced by anaerobic

microorganisms degrading organic matter [32]. As esti-

mated in [33], only 0.5% of the annual overall primary

production of a bog phytocenosis is converted to meth-

ane. Other scientists assume that the carbon released

with methane constitutes 2–7% of the primary bog pro-

duction [6, 34]. Nevertheless, bogs are considered to be

the main methane supplier to the atmosphere [34]. The

contribution of bog ecosystems to the global methane

emission is estimated by some scientists at 16% [35].

Concerning methane emission from bogs, some sci-

entists believe that oligotrophic bogs produce less

methane than eutrophic ones [36, 37]. However, Za-

varzin et al. think that lowland bogs with high mineral-

ization degrees and intense biological turnover make a

minor contribution to the methane balance and, in con-



Table 5. Airborne measurement of methane flux

Ecosystem Accumulated CH

4

, mg/m

2

Accumulation time, h CH

4

flux, mg/(m

2

�h)

Unforested bogs 38 12.5 3.1

Forested bogs 26 11.5 2.3

Table 6. Microrelief dependence of methane emission (mg C/(m

2

· h)) near Noyabr’sk [27]

Month Microrelief

Test grounds

Mean

P1 P2 P3 P4

August Hummock 0.49 0.39 0.20 0.93 0.59

Water hollow 1.01 0.54 0.97 0.87 0.85

September Hummock 0.41 0.02 0.01 0.65 0.27

Water hollow 0.67 0.72 0.17 0.42 0.49

Mean 0.65 0.42 0.34 0.78 0.57

trast, upland bogs with low matter conversion rates are

a more significant methane source [38].

Methane is produced as a result of anaerobic degra-

dation of organic matter. Its content in a peat deposit in-

creases with depth, which is related to living conditions

of methane-producing bacteria. Also, it is known that

30 to 80% of the produced methane is oxidized to car-

bon dioxide on its way to the surface [39]. As bogs are

assigned to major methane sources on the Earth, deter-

mination of the profile of methane content in sections of

peat deposits is of great importance for evaluation of

the carbon balance and prediction of its emission

(Table 7).

We believe that the knowledge of methane content

in a peat deposit and conditions of methane production

would allow prediction of methane emission from bog

surface and understanding of the correlation between

the volumes of carbon dioxide and methane release.

Mechanisms of Methane Emission

Three mechanisms are known to form the total

methane emission: diffusion, plant-mediated transfer,

and bubble-mediated transfer. Data obtained in June-

August, 1995 and 1996 within the above-described test

ground are presented in [40]. This test ground is an

open heavily moistened area of a bog with small tus-

socks and water holes [19]. Later it was designated as

test ground E. It was shown that the diffusion methane

flux from soil did not exceed 1% of the total emission in

all plant associations listed in Table 2 except for “Hum-

mock ridge”. Bubble-mediated flux constituted less

than 30% of the total emission. As shown by the Mos-

cow team headed by M.V. Glagolev, the flux reaches up

to 0.11 mg C/(h�g dry plant weight) depending on plant

species. Plant-mediated flux also varied with season. It

increased from 40 to 60% by the end of summer and

then decreased virtually to zero late in October. Thus,

the value successfully supplements the diffusion and

bubble-mediated flow values determined in 1996–97.

With allowance for measurement error, all these values

add up to 100%. The cited series of papers takes into

account all mechanisms of methane transport from soil

[41, 42].

The distribution of methane production rate with

depth was also studied by Russian scientists. It was

found that the production rate reached its maximum at

depths close to 20 cm [42].

The relationship between methane emission, pro-

duction, and consumption was elucidated in [43]. The

data were obtained in eight chambers installed in a

200 m catena crossing a series of plant associations. It

was found that methane was produced at all sites of the

bog at approximately equal rates: 9 to 13 mg C/(m

2

�h),

whereas methane consumption changed dramatically at

the interface between the anaerobic and aerobic zones.

It increased with plant material density: probably,

owing to better aeration of the root layer.

In 1999, the amount of methane oxidized within the

bog thickness was determined by the stable-isotope

method. Methane oxidation rate was measured at

depths of 0, 20, and 60 cm below sedge or 50 cm below

water shamrock, equisetum, or cotton grass. Depending

of vegetation type, 30 to 80% of the produced methane

was oxidized [41, 42, 44]. By the time considered, few

measurements of this sort had been done by this

method, and none of them in the Bakchar bog [42].

Effect of Environmental Factors on Methane Emission

The multiplicative effect of factors. Basically, the

number of possible environmental factors has no limit.

However, they differ in the degree of action, and some

factors are considered to be more significant in ecosys-

tems of different types [45]. The results cannot be rea-

sonably extended to the key area or the whole region

without clear understanding of the landscape and struc-

ture of peat deposits in the bogs [46]. Multiple measure-

ments are required to obtain reliable information,

overcome fluctuations, and recognize the systematic

correlation between methane flux and environmental

factors [14].

The dependence of methane emission on air and soil

temperature, WTL, pH, Eh, atmospheric pressure, and

plant matter reserves was studied in [13]. For different

ecosystems, 177 flux measurements were done in the

same seasons (second half of July) over three years,

1991–93. It was found that one-parameter dependences

were of low predictive value. To explain this fact, it was

suggested that some factors had similar degrees of ef-

fect on methane production and consumption [12, 13].

Nevertheless, many studies demonstrate clear ef-

fects of some factors on methane emission, including

the cited paper [13] itself, contradicting the mentioned

suggestion. For example, WTL elevation expands the

anaerobic zone in the soil profile and thereby increases

methane production. On the other hand, water elevation

reduces the aerobic zone and thereby reduces the rate of

methane oxidation. Both processes increase methane


140 GLAGOLEV et al.

Table 7. Methane concentrations over the profile of the peat

deposit in the Bakchar bog (West Siberia)

Depth, cm CH

4

concentration, �M Reference

0–10 0.1–100 [23]

10–20 10–450

20–30 10–650

0–100 0–0.4 [40]

100–200 0.4–0.7

0–15 0.3 [20]

20–120 0.3–0.7

120–160

0.3–0.8


emission; therefore, it should strongly correlate with

WTL.

Now consider the data reported in [12, 13]. The au-

thors demonstrate a decrease in the absolute value of

the coefficient of correlation (|R|, 0.607 � 0.288 �

0.229 � 0.157) between methane emission and WTL

with an increase in the number of observations (16 �56

� 79 � 93), covering increasing areas: (Iksa bog � Iksa

and Bakchar bogs � West Siberia � all objects exam-

ined by the authors). Should the factor equally affect

methane production and consumption, the correlation

would be little convincing even within the Iksa bog. In

fact, it is clearly pronounced, but it decreases almost

twofold with invoking the data on the Bakchar bog.

This phenomenon can be explained by taking into

account the fact that environmental factors have multi-

plicative effects on the emission, i.e., the following

equation is true:

emission = f1(factor

1

)�f2(factor

2

) ...

Indeed, within one object where the effect of a cer-

tain factor on emission is studied the values of other

factors may be constant. Let the effect of WTL (denote

it as factor

1

) on methane emission from the Iksa bog be

studied. This bog has a characteristic pH value (let it be

factor

2

), and, while we consider the Iksa bog alone,

f2(factor

2

) � const

2

. Hence, the coefficient of correla-

tion will be high. However, when we introduce data on

the Bakchar bog, having a different pH value, we can-

not assume f2(factor

2

) to be constant. The more objects

are considered in the analysis, the less the dependence

of the emission on factor

1

is pronounced against the

noise background of other factors, assuming different

values for different objects.

Soil humidity and watertable level. Soil humidity af-

fects methane production by methanogenic prokaryotes

in anaerobic bog soils [47]. It also affects methane con-

sumption by methanotrophs (methane-oxidizing bacte-

ria). Methane consumption is reduced in sites with

humid soils. Apparently, humidity is directly related to

WTL; therefore, no wonder that both of them positively

correlate with methane production and emission.

The methane emission rate increases with WTL, but

the corresponding coefficients of correlation are gener-

ally small [13], although large coefficients were ob-

served in some cases. In the five plant associations

studied in [14], the least methane flow (4 mg C/(m

2

�h)

was observed in the association with the lowest WTL

(Pinus sylvestris).

Soil temperature. The crucial effect of temperature

on environmental processes is commonly known [45].

Methane production by methanogens is also influenced

by temperature [47]. The emission rate increases with

soil temperature [13, 14, 20, 24]. In particular, studies

of methane emission from bogs near Plotnikovo Village

showed that soil temperature was the main factor gov-

erning it [14] or, at least, one of two major factors [48].

Here are the linear regression equations for the combi-

nation of soil temperature (Tsoil

, °C) and heat flow (QT)

measured with an ultrasonic anemometer/thermometer

and for soil temperature alone:

ln(F) = 1.03 + 0.067�Tsoil

+ 3.6�QT,

ln(F) = 0.66 + 0.095�Tsoil

,

where F is methane flux (mg C/(m

2

�h)) [14].

A close correlation was also obtained in the same

object between the flux and mean soil surface tempera-

ture (T, °C):

F eT

�0 7436

0 1365

.

.

.

This equation was constructed using 11 points. The

coefficient of determination was 0.845 [42]; therefore,

the coefficient of correlation was 0.919. The existence

of the exponential temperature dependence of methane

flux as a first approximation seems reasonable. The the-

ory of the temperature dependence of methane emission

is developed in detail in [49].

Note that temperature alters not only the absolute

methane flux values but also the mode of their varia-

tion: even emission in cold seasons and broad fluctua-

tions at high temperatures [43]. It was found that this

flux instability was related primarily to a larger contri-

bution of bubble-mediated methane transport in warm

seasons. The intense methane production in anaerobic

peat zones is accompanied by a decrease in its solubility

and formation of chaotically moving bubbles.

Time of day. Studies of methane emission from bogs

near Plotnikovo Village, Bakchar district, Tomsk ob-

last, showed that the emission rate reached its maxi-

mum by noon but not late in the evening [14]. This fact

is somewhat mysterious, because soil temperature at a

depth of 5 cm is the highest in the latter case, and the

cited work established a linear correlation between flux

logarithm and soil temperature.

RECORDS OF CARBON DIOXIDE FLUX

IN WEST SIBERIA

By carbon dioxide emission is meant CO

2

release

from peatland surface to the atmosphere. Carbon diox-

ide emission processes have been most comprehen-

sively studied in mineral soils. In our opinion, the main

regularities recorded for carbon dioxide release by min-

eral soils [39, 50–55] can be applied to peatlands as

well. However, some specific features should be taken

into account: high humidity, thin aerated bed, high heat

capacity and heat conductivity of peat, and specific

redox conditions.

The rate of carbon dioxide release from peatland

surface is a variable depending on many factors. Car-

bon dioxide emission variation follows diurnal and sea-

sonal regularities [39, 51].



The CO

2

emission from peatland surface depends on

hydrothermal parameters: peat deposit temperature, air

temperature, soil humidity, and bog water level (BWL).

It has been shown that the emission correlated posi-

tively and most closely with peat deposit temperature.

Carbon dioxide emission also depends strongly on

BWL, and weaker positive correlations were observed

with air temperature and peat humidity [51]. Kurets et

al. [56] studied open areas of an oligotrophic bog and

found that the main factor defining carbon dioxide

emission was peat temperature, followed by BWL,

moss humidity, and air temperature.

The study performed in the Bakchar bog (Polynya-

nka Village), a native oligotrophic area, showed a gen-

eral decrease in the rate of carbon dioxide release from

high mossland (phytocenosis with pine, shrubs, and

bog moss) to open sedge-sphagnous marsh in the center

of the bog area. The mean rates of carbon dioxide re-

lease over four years (mg/(m

2

�h) were: 133 in the high

mossland, 77 in the low mossland, and 59 in the open

marsh [57–59].

It was of special interest to evaluate the integrated

CO

2

flow over the vegetation season. The greatest flux

(90 g C/(m

2

�yr)) was recorded in the high mossland,

and the least (48 g C/(m

2

�yr)), in the sedge-sphagnous

marsh (Table 8). The integrated carbon dioxide flux av-

eraged over the biogeocenosis of the bog under study

was 62 g C/(m

2

�yr), twofold less than the annual car-

bon supply in the form of phytomass.

It was also found that carbon dioxide emission was

considerably influenced by vegetation type. This factor

significantly affected the carbon dioxide flow in 46% of

the cases. Results of measurement of respiratory gas ex-

change in palustrine plants have been reported in [60].

Grasses and shrubs show virtually no difference in res-

piration intensity, whereas bog mosses have relatively

low carbon dioxide exchange rates: 0.1–0.4 mg

CO

2

/(g�h) at common summer temperatures. The bog

moss species growing in northern bogs have lower res-

piration intensity than southern ones. Bog mosses dif-

ferently react to environmental changes. Peat miner-

alization beneath a bog moss cover proceeds more

slowly than under sedge and lichen beds. The moss

cover accounts for 50% of the integrated carbon diox-

ide flux over the summer [60]. Carbon dioxide release

is virtually independent of the bog type (lowland, up-

land, or transitional) but can depend on the range of

plant species forming the peat [51, 61, 62].

Relatively little field estimates of carbon dioxide re-

lease from bog surface have been made in West Siberia

(Table 9). As reported by Naumov et al. [63] for West

Siberia, CO

2

emission in upland bogs is 58.3–84.4 mg

C/(m

2

�h); in a lowland bog, 127.8; and in a transitional

bog, 22.8–86.7. According to estimates done by Pa-

nikov et al., the rate of CO

2

release from an oligotrophic

bog ranges from 12 to 130 mg C/(m

2

�h) [64]. As re-

ported in the literature, the average rate of carbon diox-

ide emission from bogs of different types (mg C/(m

2

�h))

is 109.8 for oligotrophic bogs and 105.6 for eutrophic

bogs (Table 9). These values are somewhat higher for

West Siberian bogs: 122 and 134 mg C/(m

2

�h), respec-

tively. The amplitude of mean CO

2

emission rates is

268 mg C/(m

2

�h) in oligotrophic bogs and 177 mg

C/(m

2

�h) in eutrophic ones. To sum up, an insignificant

predominance of CO

2

emission in eutrophic bogs is

characteristic for West Siberia; also, CO

2

emission in

these bogs is less variable than in oligotrophic ones.

Panikov and Dedysh [65] determined carbon diox-

ide emission on February 18–20, 1995. During this pe-

riod, air temperature varied from –15 to –28 °C, and

flux values were 0.78�0.6 mg C/(m

2

�h).

It should be also taken into account that CO

2

emis-

sion is measured by different methods; therefore, data

obtained by these methods are often inconsistent. The

main methods of CO

2

concentration measurement are

absorption [55, 69–71], IR spectrometry, and chroma-

tography. These methods are applied to CO

2

emission,

which can be determined by the following approaches

described in [15]: chamber, “giant chamber”, and gradi-

ent methods; condition sampling; eddy correlation; etc.

Comparison of various methods showed that the data

obtained by the absorption method are two to threefold

underestimated in comparison with the data obtained

by other methods, thereby distorting the pattern of the

carbon balance.

Measurements of carbon dioxide emission from

20.04.1998 to 21.07.1998 and from 7.04.1999 to

25.11.1999 in the Bakchar bog were reported in [26].

They were performed by the eddy correlation method

with an E009B gas analyzer (Advanet Inc, Japan) and a

DA600 ultrasonic anemometer (Kaijo, Japan). Numer-

ous flow measurements were done in 1999 by day and

at night. The hours when solar radiation exceeded

10 W/m

2

were considered daytime, otherwise, night

time. It was shown that in the range from –5 to 25 °C the

temperature dependence of the nocturnal flow (R, mg


142 GLAGOLEV et al.

Table 8. Components of the carbon balance in various types of bog biogeocenoses of the catena

Part of the catena Phytomass production, g/(m

2

�yr) (g C/(m

2

�yr)) CO

2

emission, g C/(m

2

�yr)

High mossland (transaccumulative part) 258 (124) 90

Low mossland (transitional part) 284 (136) 51

Sedge–sphagnous marsh (eluvial part) 240 (115) 48

CO

2

/(m

2

�s), summarizing the respiration of plants and

soil, obeyed the following equation:

R T � �0 0202 0 0836. ( . )exp

air

,

where Tair is air temperature, °C. The highest R values

(15 g CO

2

/(m

2

�day) were equal to gross primary produc-

tion (GPP). Seasonal variation of diurnal flows was

clearly pronounced, unlike that of nocturnal ones. Also,

GPP broadly varied from season to season. Seasonal net

ecosystem production (NEP) variation was observed

from the middle of June to the middle of July. The val-

ues of this index were less than –7 g CO

2

/(m

2

�day).

Generally, negative NEP values were observed from

early June to the beginning of September. This indi-

cates that the bog served as a carbon sink in this time in-

terval. In other seasons, NEP values were within

0–5 g CO

2

/(m

2

�day).

A flat-hummocked bog with sphagnous water holes

was studied in the northern taiga of West Siberia (cen-

tral areas of the Sibirskie Uvaly) [72]. The microrelief

of the hummocks included two components: tussocks

and space between them. The values of net primary pro-

duction are shown in Table 10. In [72], the results are

compared with those obtained by N.P. Kosykh in the

same region, where the production on hummocks was

560 g/(m

2

�yr), and in water holes, 354 g/(m

2

�yr). Data on

the same locality are also reported in [73].

Generally, the productivity of swampy forests and,

particularly, more waterlogged unforested bogs in the

humid zone is notably less than in natural drained for-

ests. In the taiga zone, bog productivity varies within

400–1000 g/(m

2

�yr), whereas forests produce approxi-

mately half as much again [34].

It is worth noting that the annual production of

oligotrophic bogs is less than that of mesotrophic and,

especially, eutrophic ones independent of their geo-

graphic location (Table 11).

As reported in the literature, net primary produc-

tion is determined by the geographic zone, climate,

bog type, and vegetation composition. Therefore, it is

broadly variable: from 210 to 3400 g/(m

2

�yr).

Death of plants produces mortmass (dead organic

matter). Part of it is degraded to yield carbon dioxide,

and the remainder produces humus with simultaneous

mineralization.

The bulk of the carbon bound in the organic matter

of plants is released by heterotrophic microorganisms

under anoxic conditions to generate the main CO

2

flow

from bog surface. In eutrophic bogs, leaf fall is mineral-

ized by no more than 60%, and in oligotrophic ones,

only by 20–30%.

Estimates of the contribution of bog ecosystems to

the global carbon circulation made on the base of the

available data on greenhouse gas flows are often insuf-

ficiently reliable. Thus, the carbon balance of bogs

presents a topical problem. In spite of the increasing

number of works dedicated to greenhouse gas emission

from bogs of West Siberia and whole Russia, this prob-

lem is still little understood. This is particularly true for

West Siberia, where bogs occupy about 50% of the

area.

Therefore, we think that stationary studies of green-

house gas flows should be conducted and other carbon

flow components should be evaluated: biologic produc-



Table 9. Release of carbon dioxide from bogs

Bog type

CO

2

emission, mg

C/(m

2

�h)

Reference

Northern taiga

Oligotrophic 66–225 [66]

Mesoligotrophic 44.5–128.5

West Siberia

Oligotrophic 14.4–283.0 [64]

Mesotrophic 30.4–118.1

Eutrophic 47.8–225.1

Southern Vasyugan region


Mesotrophic 86.7

Eutrophic 127.8

West Siberia


West Siberia

Mesotrophic 45.6–66.6 [68]

Table 10. Net primary production, g/(m

2

�yr)

Production

Hummock

Water hole

Tussock

Space between

tussocks

Average over the area

Aerial 102�32 29�21 47 18�2

Moss 308�70 — 77 159�121

Underground 1362�481 218�47 504 489�90

Total 1772 247 628 667

tion, carbon removal with bog waters, carbon content in

the peat deposit, and modern rate of peat accumulation.

Moreover, the effect of external factors on particular

components of the carbon balance and the whole car-

bon balance, as well as the industrial influence on bog

ecosystems should be studied in more detail. The regu-

larities established in these studies would allow predic-

tion of the carbon balance under altered environmental

conditions in particular bogs. Also, the possibility of

extending these regulations to the whole territory of

Russia should be analyzed.

In our opinion, comprehensive analysis of green-

house gas emission demands construction of a general-

ized database that would store all currently available

information on CH

4

and CO

2

flows, including details

concerning measurement methods, sites, conditions,

literature references, etc. As fluxes of greenhouse

gases, particularly, methane, are very heterogeneous,

depending on a large set of ambient conditions, the con-

struction of this database would allow estimation of the

actual contribution of bog ecosystems to the carbon bal-

ance of the biosphere. Moreover, analysis of current

knowledge of methane and carbon dioxide emission

and its dependence on climatic, geographic, biotype,

and other factors would predict the change of the

emission after climatic changes, bog drainage, or

permafrost thawing.

Authors are grateful to T.A. Pankratov, worker of

the Institute of Microbiology, Russian Academy of Sci-

ences, for reading the manuscript and making valuable

remarks.

REFERENCES

1. H. Rodhe, Science 248, 1217 (1990).

2. N. M. Bazhin, Sorosovskii Obrazovatel’nyi Zh. 6 (3), 52

(2000).

3. G. A. Zavarzin, Priroda, No. 6, 3 (1995).

4. L. I. Inisheva and E. A. Golovatskaya, Ekologiya, No. 4,

242 (2002).

5. E. Matthews and I. Fung, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 1,

61 (1987).

6. I. Aselmann and P. J. Crutzen, J. Atmospheric Chemistry

8, 307 (1989).

7. E. Matthews, I. Fung, and J. Lerner, Global Biogeochem.

Cycles 5, 3 (1991).

8. K. B. Bardett and R. C. Harriss, Chemosphere 26, 261

(1993).

9. N. G. Andronova and I. L. Karol, Chemosphere 26

(1–4), 111 (1993).

10. A. B. Rozanov, Methane Emission from Forest and Agri-

cultural Land in Russia, WP-95-31 (Int. Inst. Applied

Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1995).

11. V. V. Zelenev, Assessment of the Average Annual Meth-

ane Flux from the Soils of Russia, WP-96-51 (Int. Inst.

Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1996).

12. N. S. Panikov, in Proceedings of the ISGCAGG (Sendai,

1994), pp. 100–112.

13. G. Inoue, S. Maksyutov, and N. Panikov, in Proceedings

of the Third SJSPSJR, Sapporo, 1994 (iWORD, 1995),

pp. 37–43.

14. S. Maksyutov, A. Dorofeev, G. Makhov, et al., in Pro-

ceedings of the Fourth SJSPSJR, Sapporo, 1995 (Koh-

soku Printing Center, 1999), pp. 125–131.

15. M. V. Glagolev and N. A. Shnyrev, in Proceedings of the

Sixth Siberian Conference on Climate-Environmental

Monitoring, Tomsk, 2005 (Tomsk, 2005), pp. 434–438.

16. Y. Tohjima, S. Maksyutov, T. Machida, and G. Inoue, in

Proceedings of the Third SJSPSJR, Sapporo, 1994

(iWORD, 1995), pp. 50–57.

17. A. V. Smagin and M. V. Glagolev, in Bogs and the Bio-

sphere. Proceedings of the Third Scientific School, Sep-

tember 13–16, 2004, Tomsk (Tomsk. Tsentr Nauch.-

Tekhn. Inf., Tomsk, 2004), pp. 53–63 [in Russian].

18. M. Tamura and Y. Yasuoka, in Proceedings of the Fourth

SJSPSJR, Sapporo, 1995 (Kohsoku Printing Center,

1999), pp. 133–138.

19. M. Sorokin, S. Maksyutov, and G. Inoue, in Proceedings

of the Seventh SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1998 (Isebu, 1999),

pp. 90–98.

20. G. Inoue, Y. Takahashi, S. Maksyutov, et al., in Proceed-

ings of the Fifth SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1996 (Isebu, 1997),

pp. 34–39.

21. M. Sorokin, S. Maksyutov, G. Inoue, and T. Nakano, in

Proceedings of the Sixth SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1997

(Isebu, 1998), pp. 207–210.

22. M. V. Glagolev, in Global Environment Research Fund:

Eco-Frontier Fellowship (EFF), Tokyo, 1997 (Environ-

ment Agency, Global Environment Department Re-

search & Information Office, 1998), pp. 79–111.

23. M. Utsumi, H. Uchiyama, N. S. Panikov, and G. Inoue,

in Proceedings of the Sixth SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1997

(Isebu, 1998), pp. 196–200.

24. S. Maksyutov, G. Inoue, M. Sorokin, et al., in Proceed-

ings of the Seventh SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1998 (Isebu,

1999), pp. 115–124.

25. K. Shimoyama, G. Inoue, and T. Nakano, in Proceedings

of the Seventh SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1998 (Isebu, 1999),

pp. 168–174.

26. K. Shimoyama, G. Inoue, Y. Fukushima, and T. Hiyama,

in Proceedings of the Eighth SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1999

(Isebu, 2000), pp. 171–175.

27. S. V. Vasiliev and A. V. Naumov, in FGUU Scientific Re-

ports 2001-1 “Carbon Storage and Atmospheric Ex-

change by West Siberian Peatlands,” Ed. by W. Bleuten

and E. D. Lapshina (Utrecht University Physical Geog-

raphy, Utrecht, 1955), pp. 79–87.

28. T. Nakano, T. Sawamoto, T. Morishita, et al., Soil Biol.

Biochem. 36, 107 (2004).


144 GLAGOLEV et al.

Table 11. Net primary production of bogs according to

[74–84]

Bog type Net primary production, g/(m

2

�yr)

Oligotrophic 210–600

Mesotrophic 330–1000

Eutrophic 720–3400







29. A. Postnov, E. Stulov, M. Strunin, et al., in Proceedings

of the ISGCAGG (Sendai, 1994), pp. 30–33.

30. Y. Tohjima, H. Wakita, T. Machida, et al., in Proceedings

of the Second ISGCAGG, Tsukuba, 1993 (Isebu, 1994),

pp. 61–76.

31. M. A. Strunin and S. M. Shmeter, in Proceedings of the

ISGCAGG (Sendai, 1994), pp. 26–29.

32. B. Eilrich, Formation and Transport of CH4 and CO2 in

Deep Peatland (Switzerland, 2002).

33. A. Brown, S. P. Mathur, and D. Y. Kushener, Global

Biogeochem. Cycles 3 (3), 205 (1989).

34. S. E. Vomperskii, in Biogenocenotic Features of Bogs

and Their Exploitation (Nauka, Moscow, 1994), pp. 5–37

[in Russian].

35. N. M. Bazhin, Khimiya v Interesakh Ustoichivogo Raz-

vitiya 1, 331 (1993).

36. T. Moore, N. Roulet, and R. Knowles, Global Biochem.

Cycles 4, 29 (1990).

37. B. N. Svensson and T. Rosswall, Oikos 43, 389 (1984).

38. G. A. Zavarzin and L. V. Vasil’ev, in Carbon Cycle in the

Territory of Russia (Moscow, 1999), pp. 202–233 [in

Russian].

39. A. V. Smagin, The Gaseous Phase of Soils (Mosk. Gos.

Univ., Moscow, 1999) [in Russian].

40. M. V. Glagolev, S. E. Belova, A. V. Smagin, et al., in Pro-

ceedings of the Seventh SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1998 (Isebu,

1999), pp. 132–142.

41. M. V. Glagolev, H. Uchiyama, V. Lebedev, et al., in Pro-

ceedings of the Eighth SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1999 (Isebu,

2000), pp. 143–149.

42. M. V. Glagolev and T. D. Egnatashvili, in Combined

“Vacation” Program. Collection of Material on the Ex-

perience of the Moscow Municipal Center for Junior Art,

issue 2, Summer-2001 (Moscow Municipal Center for

Junior Art, Moscow, 2004), p. 88.

43. N. S. Panikov, in Selected Lectures of All-Russia Schools

I–VII (ONTI, Pushchino Research Center, Russian Aca-

demy of Sciences, Pushchino, 1998), Vol. 1, pp. 171–184.

44. M. Glagolev, V. Lebedev, O. Glagoleva, et al., Quebec

2000: Millenium Wetland Event. Program with Abstracts

of VI International Wetland Symposium (Quebec, 2000).

45. V. D. Fedorov and T. G. Gil’manov, Ecology (Mosk.

Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1980) [in Russian].

46. E. D. Lapshina, N. N. Pologova, E. Ya. Mouldyarov,

et al., in Proceedings of the Eighth SJSPSJR, Tsukuba,

1999 (Isebu, 2000), pp. 211–128.

47. T. Nakayama, in Proceedings of the Third SJSPSJR, Sap-

poro, 1994 (iWORD, 1995), pp. 31–36.

48. T. Nakano, G. Inoue, S. Maksyutov, and M. Sorokin, in

Proceedings of the Seventh SJSPSJR, Tsukuba, 1998

(Isebu, 1999), pp. 211–215.

49. M. V. Glagolev, in Bogs and the Biosphere. Proceedings

of the Third Scientific School, September 13–16, 2004,

Tomsk (Tomsk. Tsentr Nauch.-Tekhn. Inf., Tomsk, 2004),

pp. 39–52 [in Russian].

50. K. I. Kobak, Biological Components of the Carbon Cy-

cle (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1988).

51. V. N. Kudeyarov, in Carbon Cycle in the Territory of

Russia (Moscow, 1999), pp. 165–202 [in Russian].

52. L. A. Ivannikova and N. A. Semenova, Pochvovedenie

No. 1, 134 (1988).

53. M. M. Landina, Soil Air (Nauka, Siberian Branch, Novo-

sibirsk, 1992) [in Russian].

54. B. N. Makarov, Agrokhimiya, No. 3, 94 (1993).

55. I. N. Sharkov, Pochvovedenie, No. 7, 136 (1984).

56. V. K. Kurets, E. N. Ikkonen, Yu. Alm, et al., Ekologiya,

No. 1, 14 (1988).

57. E. A. Golovatskaya, T. V. Dement’eva, et al., in Proceed-

ings of the International Field Symposium, 2001,

pp. 82–84.

58. E. A. Golovatskaya and E. V. Belova, in Proceedings of

the Fourth Siberian Conference on Climate–Environ-

mental Monitoring (Tomsk. Tsentr Nauch.-Tekhn. Inf.,

Tomsk, 2001), pp. 60–61.

59. L. I. Inisheva and E. A. Golovatskaya, in Great Vasyugan

Bog. Modern State and Development (Inst. Optiki Atmo-

sfery, Tomsk, 2002), pp. 123–133 [in Russian].

60. A. V. Naumov, Soil Respiration: Components, Environ-

mental Functions, and Geographical Regularities, Doc-

toral Dissertation in Biology (Tomsk, 2004) [in Rus-

sian].

61. T. V. Glukhova, A. G. Kovalev, M. V. Smagina, et al., in

Bogs and Swamped Forests in the Context of Stable Ex-

ploitation (GEOS, Moscow, 1999), pp. 218–219 [in Rus-

sian].

62. L. I. Inisheva and T. V. Dement’eva, Pochvovedenie,

No. 2, 196 (2000).

63. A. V. Naumov, T. T. Efremova, et al., Sibirskii Ekolo-

gicheskii Zh., No. 3, 269 (1994).

64. N. S. Panikov, A. A. Titlyanova, et al., Dokl. Akad. Nauk

330 (3), 388 (1993).

65. N. S. Panikov and S. N. Dedysh, Global Biogeochem.

Cycles 14, 1071 (2000).

66. A. V. Naumov, in West Siberian Peatland and Carbon

Cycle: Past and Present (Novosibirsk, 2001), pp. 110–112

[in Russian].

67. L. I. Inisheva, T. V. Dement’eva, E. V. Belova, and

N. G. Inishev, in Bogs and Swamped Forests in the Con-

text of Stable Exploitation (GEOS, Moscow, 1999),


68. A. V. Naumov, T. T. Efremova, and S. P. Efremov, in

Bogs and Swamped Forests in the Context of Stable Ex-

ploitation (GEOS, Moscow, 1999), pp. 218–219 [in Rus-

sian].

69. V. I. Shtatnov, Dokl. Vseross. Akad. Sel’skokhoz. Nauk,

No. 6, 27 (1952).

70. B. N. Makarov, in Methods of Stationary Soil Study (Na-

uka, Moscow, 1977), pp. 55–87 [in Russian].

71. L. A. Ivannikova, Pochvovedenie, No. 4, 101 (1992).

72. N. G. Koronatova, in Bogs and the Biosphere. Proceed-

ings of the Fourth Scientific School (Tomsk. Tsentr Na-

uch.-Tekhn. Inf., Tomsk, 2005), pp. 225–228 [in Rus-

sian].

73. N. P. Kosykh and N. P. Mironycheva-Tokareva, in Bogs

and the Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fourth Scientific

School (Tomsk. Tsentr Nauch.-Tekhn. Inf., Tomsk, 2005),


74. N. I. Bazilevich, in Biological Productivity of North Eur-

asian Ecosystems (Nauka, Moscow, 1993) [in Russian].



75. N. I. Bazilevich, Rastitel’nye Resursy 3(4), 567 (1967).

76. N. I. P’yavchenko, Lesovedenie 3, 23 (1967).

77. N. I. P’yavchenko, Peatlands: Natural and Industrial

Significance (Nauka, Moscow, 1985) [in Russian].

78. A. A. Khramov and V. I. Valutskii, in Forest and Bog

Phytocenoses of the Eastern Vasyugan Region (Nauka,

Siberian Branch, Novosibirsk, 1977) [in Russian].

79. A. A. Khramov and V. I. Valutskii, in Readings in Memo-

riam Yu. A. L’vov (1995), pp. 59–63 [in Russian].

80. F. Z. Glebov and L. S. Toleiko, Botan. Zh. 60, 1336

(1975).

81. A. A. Titlyanova, Sibirskii Ekologicheskii Zh. 3, 253

(1994).

82. A. A. Titlyanova, N. P. Kosykh, and N. P. Mirony-

cheva-Tokareva, in Readings in Memoriam Yu. A. L’vov

(1995), pp. 59–63 [in Russian].

83. N. P. Mironycheva-Tokareva, in West Siberian Peatlands

and Carbon Cycle: Past and Present (Novosibirsk, 2001),


84. N. P. Kosykh, in West Siberian Peatlands and Carbon

Cycle: Past and Present (Novosibirsk, 2001), pp. 94–96

[in Russian].


146 GLAGOLEV et al.

Greenhouse gas emission in West Siberia

Documents

Transcript of Greenhouse gas emission in West Siberia