Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands
Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
Peer-Review Report
vvEPA
Jn led States
Environmental Proloclion
Agency
-------
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands
Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
Peer-Review Report
Transportation and Climate Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
RTI International
EPA Contract No. EP-C-11-045
Work Assignment No. 2-13
NOTICE
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to
facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments.
United States
Environm«nl.»l ProlecliQn
Agency
EPA-420-R-14-030
December 2014
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Introduction 1-1
2 Overview 2-1
3 Summary of Peer-Review Responses 3-1
3.1 Overarching Charge Question 3-1
3.2 Potential Adjustment of Emission Factor from Hooijer et al. (2012) 3-3
3.3 Directionality of Estimate 3-5
3.4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report 3-8
3.5 Additional Input 3-11
4 References 4-1
Appendixes
A Recommendation Requests A-l
B Conflict of Interest Analysis and Bias Questionnaire B-l
C Peer Reviewer Resumes C-l
D Materials Provided to the Peer-Review Panel D-l
E Peer-Review Responses E-l
in
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
3-1. Summary of Peer-Review Response to Charge Question #3 3-6
IV
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
C carbon
CO2 carbon dioxide
DIG dissolved inorganic carbon
DOC dissolved organic carbon
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
g cm"3 grams per cubic centimeter
GHG greenhouse gas
ha"1 hectare
ha"1 yr"1 hectare per year
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilogram
Pg petagram
POC paniculate organic carbon
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
Tg teragram
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In January 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an
analysis of the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with palm oil-
based biodiesel and renewable diesel. The results of the analysis indicate that, when
compared with the petroleum diesel baseline, palm oil-based biofuels reduce GHG
emissions by 17% and 11%, respectively, and thus do not meet the statutory 20% GHG
emissions reduction threshold for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program (EPA,
2012).
Based on EPA's analysis, one of the major sources of GHG emissions was
emissions resulting from drained organic peat soils preceding the development of new
palm oil plantations. The EPA used a peat soil emission factor of 95 tonnes of carbon
dioxide (CO2) per hectare of drained peat soil, based on Hooijer et al. (2012), to help
estimate the total GHG emissions from the expansion of peat soil drainage.
To ensure that the EPA has taken into account the best available information on
this important emissions factor for the life-cycle GHG analysis of palm oil-based
biofuels, the Agency asked RTI International to facilitate an independent peer review.
The purpose of this review was to request additional scientific input about the Agency's
assessment of the average annual GHG emissions from tropical peatlands resulting from
the development of the land for production of palm oil for use in EPA's life-cycle GHG
analysis of palm oil-based biofuels. RTI selected five peer reviewers who are experts in
GHG emissions from peat soils to review the EPA's application of the peat soil emissions
factor and to provide feedback on the use of this factor. The following sections of this
report summarize the peer-review process and the peer reviewers' responses to five
questions that seek to address the relevance and appropriateness of the emission factor.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW
In fall 2013, the EPA requested that RTI facilitate a peer review to be conducted
of the peat soil emission factor that the Agency uses for life-cycle GHG assessment of
palm oil biofuels for the RFS program. RTI, an independent contractor, supported the
EPA by facilitating the peer review according to guidelines in the Agency's Peer Review
Handbook (EPA, 2006).
The EPA requested recommendations for peer-review candidates from various
organizations and agencies. Then, the EPA compiled the recommendations and submitted
a list of 21 candidates to RTI. The Agency sought recommendations for qualified
candidates from the following entities:
Office of the Ambassador of National Wildlife Federation
Indonesia
Clean Air Task Force National Resources Defense Council
Embassy of Malaysia Union of Concerned Scientists
International Council on Clean World Wildlife Fund
Transportation
Copies of the recommendation requests are included in Appendix A of this
report.
Qualified candidates were those who have a doctoral degree in soil science or a
related field and have published peer-reviewed journal articles about carbon cycling and
tropical peat soils. Of the 21 recommended candidates, four were excluded from
consideration because they were involved in the development of the Hooijer et al. (2012)
publication on which EPA sought critical input, and there was considered to be an
inherent conflict of interest in asking them to review the relevance and appropriateness of
their own work. RTI also conducted a literature and online resources investigation for
additional candidates and identified 10 more qualified candidates for consideration.
Thus, a total of 27 qualified candidates were identified and contacted to determine
their interest in and availability for the peer review. Of the 27 candidates contacted, 18 of
them said they were available, so they completed a Conflicts of Interest (COI) Disclosure
Form. The COI forms requested information on any and all real or perceived COI or bias,
including funding sources, employment, public statements, and other areas of potential
conflict in accordance with EPA's Peer Review Handbook (EPA, 2006). A template of
the COI form completed by the candidates is included in Appendix B. RTI staff
2-1
-------
supporting the peer review also underwent a COI investigation to corroborate the
independence and a lack of bias across all components of the peer review.
Per the instructions from the EPA, RTI set out to select four or five reviewers
from the candidate pool based on all of the following criteria:
expertise, knowledge, and experience of each individual
adherence to the COI guidance in the EPA Peer Review Handbook
m panel balance with respect to the expertise required to conduct the review and
the diversity of relevant scientific and technical perspectives
Based on the candidates' availability and qualifications, the information provided
in the completed COI Disclosure Forms, and an independent COI investigation conducted
by RTI staff, RTI selected the following five candidates:
Scott Bridgham, Ph.D., Professor, University of Oregon
Kristell Hergoualc'h, Ph.D., Scientist, Center for International Forestry
Research
Monique Leclerc, Ph.D., Regents Professor, University of Georgia
Supiandi Sabiham, Ph.D., Professor, Bogor Agricultural University
Arina Schrier, Ph.D., Owner, Climate and Environmental International
Consultancy
Three of the selected peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Bridgham, Hergoualc'h, and
Leclerc) reported no COI on the disclosure form. Dr. Sabiham stated that although he
does not have any actual or potential COI or bias impeding his ability to independently
evaluate the peat soil emissions factor used by the EPA, he did note that government and
palm oil industry funding has been provided to the university where he is employed to
support ecological and sociological research on land-use changes from peat swamp forest
to agricultural uses, from which Dr. Sabiham and his graduate students receive funding.
Dr. Sabiham also noted his roles as President of the Indonesian Peat Society and as an
independent expert developing scientific reviews for entities such as the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Indonesian Government, and the
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Similarly, Dr. Schrier noted her roles as an
independent expert developing scientific reviews for the IPCC, the International Council
on Clean Transportation, and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.
2-2
-------
It is important to note that these five candidates were specifically selected to
develop a balanced, independent panel with various backgrounds from academia,
nongovernmental organizations, and private consulting. No more than one candidate was
selected from the recommendations provided by a single EPA-contacted entity (one each
from the Ambassador of Indonesia, the Embassy of Malaysia, and International Council
on Clean Transportation, and two independently identified by RTI).
The EPA reviewed and approved the list of candidates selected by RTI as
appropriate choices from the candidate pool to form an independent and balanced panel.
Copies of the selected candidate resumes are included in Appendix C of this report.
RTI staff provided the peer reviewers with the EPA-developed Technical Work
Product and Peer-Review Charge (both in Appendix D of this report), which guided the
evaluations. RTI requested that the reviewers refrain from discussing the subject of the
review with other parties during the review period. Although RTI was available to
address any questions that reviewers had during the review, all peer reviewers were asked
to respond to the charge independently and without consult from the other peer reviewers.
The panel was not asked to reach a consensus.
RTI staff members have summarized the panel's responses below. The peer
reviews from each panel member are included in Appendix E of this report.
Three out of the five reviewers agreed that the emission factor used in EPA's
analysis of palm oil-based biofuels is an appropriate coefficient to use based on current
scientific understanding, but emphasized that the emission factor should be reevaluated as
meta-analyses of existing research are conducted and/or as additional research becomes
available. Two reviewers stated that the EPA has likely overestimated the carbon
emissions. One of those two reviewers recommended using the peat soil emission factors
published by the IPCC (Drosler et al., 2013), while the other reviewer recommended
using the peat soil emission factors published by Melling et al. (2007).
2-3
-------
SECTION 3
SUMMARY OF PEER-REVIEW RESPONSES
All five peer reviewers examined the EPA-developed Technical Work Product
and Peer Review Charge. This section of the report provides the charge questions (in
italics) followed by summaries of the peer reviewers' comments. Appendix E includes
the full responses from each peer reviewer.
3.1 Overarching Charge Question
Given the three criteria outlined in the Technical Work Product and the estimates
available in the literature, did the EPA choose the most appropriate value for the peat
soil emission factor? If not, please provide a recommendation on the most appropriate
peat soil emission factor to use in EPA 's analysis, with a detailed explanation.
Three out of the five peer reviewers (Drs. Bridgham, Schrier, and Leclerc) stated
that the peat soil emissions factor used by the EPA is the most appropriate emission
factor based on current available literature. Both Drs. Schrier and Leclerc emphasized
that the emission factor should be reevaluated as meta-analyses of existing research are
conducted and/or as additional research becomes available. Reevaluating the emission
factor will help reduce the uncertainty associated with any factors that have not been
considered, have not been based on oil palm on peat measurements, or have been based
on a small sample size (spatial, temporal, or numerical). Dr. Schrier discussed the
uncertainties associated with the following:
short-term nature of the available literature
separation between CO2 and methane emissions related to the drainage of peat
assumptions required for the soil subsidence method, including bulk density
and carbon fraction
initial pulse emissions versus base emissions rates
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and ditch fluxes
fire emissions
water-table fluctuations and averages
Dr. Leclerc recommended that the emissions factor be considered temporary and
conditional because it likely underestimates emissions. Dr. Leclerc noted the following
areas for further investigation: the role of root respiration and differences between peat
5-1
-------
swamp forests, oil palm, and acacia; non-CO2 GHG emissions; and acknowledgement
and identification of heterogeneous peat depths through additional sample locations. Dr.
Leclerc also mentioned these additional areas for further investigation: the effect of
management practices, the occurrence of peat fires following the establishment of oil-
palm plantations on peat land, and the duration of carbon monoxide and CO2 emissions
with smoldering fires.
Drs. Hergoualc'h and Sabiham disagreed with EPA's emission factor choice. Dr.
Hergoualc'h stated that EPA's emission factor is not representative of Southeast Asia and
recommended the emission factors published by the IPCC (Drosler et al., 2013):
on-site CC>2 emissions: 40 tonnes of CC>2 per hectare per year (ha"1 yr"1)
off-site CC>2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses: 3 tonnes of CC>2 (ha"1 yr"1)
CC>2 from prescribed fires: 264 tonnes of CC>2 per hectare (ha"1)
CC>2 from wildfires: 601 tonnes CC>2 ha"1
Dr. Hergoualc'h further noted that the initial pulse emissions following drainage
are not directly included in EPA's emissions factor, but rather indirectly added through
the carbon loss estimate.
Dr. Sabiham stated that the emissions factor is not an appropriate choice because
of Hooijer et al.'s (2012) exclusion of root respiration and the assumptions regarding peat
soil bulk density, peat organic carbon content, and groundwater table depth. Dr. Sabiham
noted that these assumptions likely overestimate the emissions and, therefore,
recommended an emissions factor consistent with the Melling et al. (2007) study, which
includes root respiration and a shallower groundwater level.
5-2
-------
3.2 Potential Adjustment of Emission Factor from Hooijer et al. (2012)
Some commenters have raised questions about particular values used in the Hooijer et al.
(2012) study (e.g., organic carbon content, peat bulk density). Would you recommend
that EPA use the overall approach and data published in Hooijer et al. (2012), but use a
different value for the following: (a) organic carbon content, (b) peat bulk density, (c) the
percentage of subsidence due to oxidation, or (d) another parameter (please specify)?
Please explain your recommendation and provide supporting documentation.
In response to the second charge question, the panel was fairly split. Two peer
reviewers (i.e., Drs. Sabiham and Bridgham) agreed with the overall approach used by
the EPA and presented by Hooijer et al. (2012). One peer reviewer (i.e., Dr. Hergoualc'h)
did not agree with the overall approach. One peer reviewer (i.e., Dr. Leclerc) stated that
there was not enough information available on the key components of the approach to
determine its appropriateness. One peer reviewer (i.e., Dr. Schrier) suggested that a meta-
analysis be performed that incorporates both the soil subsidence- and chamber-based
research. Regarding the values used in the approach, two panel members (i.e., Drs.
Schrier and Bridgham) agreed with EPA's decision to use the Hooijer et al. (2012)
values, and one panel member (Dr. Sabiham) disagreed. Two members (Drs. Hergoualc'h
and Leclerc) asserted that not enough information was available to lessen the uncertainty
regarding the values.
Dr. Hergoualc'h recommended that the EPA not use the approach by Hooijer et
al. (2012) because it is too sensitive to parameter values that require long-term
monitoring and baseline information (e.g., organic carbon content, peat bulk density, the
percentage of subsidence because of oxidation). Because no reference site information or
long-term data are available, the approach must, therefore, be based on assumptions,
which introduces high levels of uncertainty.
Dr. Sabiham stated that a subsidence-based technique performs better than a
closed-chamber measurement regarding the long-term effect of drainage on carbon stock
depletion of peat. However, Dr. Sabiham questioned the values used by the EPA for
organic carbon content, peat bulk density, and the percentage of subsidence because of
oxidation. Therefore, Dr. Sabiham made the following recommendations for emission
factor estimates developed for oil palm plantations on peat soil:
The value of organic carbon content should not exceed 45% .
5-3
-------
The value of peat bulk density should range between 0.07 and 0.1 grams per
cubic centimeter (g cm"3) at the start of drainage and between 0.18 and
0.22 g cm"3 once subsidence has begun.
An oxidation/subsidence ratio of 44%, as supported by Couwenberg et al.
(2010), should be used.
Dr. Bridgham agreed with the overall approach and values used by Hooijer et al.
(2012) but noted that the values used by the approach may be limited by the
geographically limited study area. However, Dr. Bridgham stated that it is likely that this
level of uncertainty leads to an underestimation of emissions because of higher bulk
density and soil carbon measurements, which are observed in other literature.
Dr. Schrier recommended that the EPA continue to use the current values
published in Hooijer et al. (2012) because the carbon fraction and bulk density estimates
are representative of the literature and because the study is the most robust investigation
specifically designed to determine soil subsidence due to oxidation. However, Dr. Schrier
recommended that the overall approach be amended to consider other studies through a
meta-analysis of soil subsidence and chamber-based research.
Dr. Leclerc stated that the effects of peat characteristics (including bulk density,
organic carbon content, and depth) and other variables (e.g., management techniques) on
GHG emissions must be assessed before selecting an approach. Therefore, once
additional studies have been conducted and more data are available for analysis, the
approach should be refined. Dr. Leclerc further asserted that the composition of peat
varies regionally; therefore, this will create large variations in the values required for the
subsidence technique. Thus, one emissions factor may not be sufficient.
5-4
-------
3.3 Directionality of Estimate
The EPA recognizes that the Hooijer et al. (2012) study that forms the foundation
of our estimate of peat soil emissions was conducted under specific circumstances. For
example, it was conducted in a limited number of plantations on the island of Sumatra.
For the reasons listed in the Technical Work Product, we believe this is the best available
estimate of peat soil emissions, but we recognize that numerous factors could cause this
estimate to be higher or lower than the average emission factor for peat soils drained for
oil palm across Southeast Asia. Please discuss whether the emission factor value used by
the EPA (95 tCO2e/ha/yr) is likely to overestimate or underestimate (and if so, by how
much) or provide a plausible estimate of average GHG emissions from peat soil drainage
for oil palm across Southeast Asia. In particular, please discuss whether the following
factors are likely to make EPA 's emission factor an overestimate or an underestimate:
a. Variation in the type of peat soil (e.g., mineral content, carbon content, depth,
extent of degradation)
b. Precipitation regime (e.g., annual rainfall, timing of rainfall)
c. Differing water management practices at plantations
d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia)
e. The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the
first 5 years after drainage
f. Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions
g. Omission of emissions due to fire (as discussed in the Technical Work
Product, omission of this factor will cause EPA 's emission factor to
underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments about how large this
underestimation may be.)
h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations.
Overall, two peer reviewers (Drs. Sabiham and Hergoualc'h) responded that the
previously mentioned factors are likely to overestimate the average GHG emissions from
peat soil drainage under oil palm plantations. Two peer reviewers (Drs. Leclerc and
Schrier) stated that the factors are likely to underestimate the average GHG emissions.
One peer reviewer responded that the GHG emissions are likely to be fairly represented.
Table 3-1 summarizes the panel members' responses to each of the individual factors.
5-5
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of Peer-Review Response to Charge Question #3
Topic Areas
Dr. Bridgham
Dr. Hergoualc'h
Dr. Leclerc
Dr. Sabiham
Dr. Schrier
a. Variation in the type
of peat soil
b. Precipitation regime
c. Differing -water
management practices
at plantations
d. Different types of
plantations
This is a representative
estimate.
This is a representative
estimate, as long as
regional water table and
drainage are consistent.
This is a representative
estimate because of the
nitrogen fertilization
effect.
If drainage is similar, then
this is a representative
estimate.
Additional research is
needed. Peat properties and
duration of consolidation
will likely affect the carbon
loss rate after conversion.3
There is no scientific
evidence that rainfall
patterns can influence peat
carbon losses in converted
tropical peatlands.
Differences in laboratory
and field measurements
suggest that additional
research is needed.
This is likely overestimated.
This likely underestimates
the emissions from sapric
peat more than for fibric and
hemic, but more research is
needed.
This is expected to affect the
emissions because it
modifies the water content
in the peat. Its importance
has yet to be examined.
This is underestimated. CO2
emissions rise when
methane emissions fall and
vice versa due to microbial
populations. Thus,
customary water table
management should be
revised to decrease the total
GHGs and not just CO2.
More research is needed on
root respiration, fertilizer
applications, plantation age,
and non-CO2 GHGs to
determine whether there are
underestimates or
overestimates.
Additional information is
needed, but this is likely
overestimated because of
low organic carbon in high
ash-content soils.
This is likely
overestimated because
plantations can manage
groundwater level.
This is likely
overestimated because
optimum groundwater
level is shallower than the
Hooijeretal. (2012)
estimate.
This is likely
overestimated.
This is a representative
estimate or a slight
overestimate because of
spatial and temporal
variability.
This is a representative
estimate or a slight
overestimate because of
variations in climate.
This is a representative
estimate or a slight
overestimate. Maintaining
water tables according to
best management practices
is generally not feasible
with most current drainage
systems. If drainage
systems are optimized,
then lower emissions are
possible.
This is a representative
estimate based on new
research.1"
(continued)
-------
Table 3-2. Summary of Peer-Review Response to Charge Question #3
Topic Areas
Dr. Bridgham
Dr. Hergoualc'h
Dr. Leclerc
Dr. Sabiham
Dr. Schrier
e. The approach during
the first 5 years after
drainage
f. Omission of methane
and nitrous oxide
emissions
g. Omission of emissions
due to fire
h. Omission of
incidentally drained
peat swamps adjoining
the plantations
This is a representative
estimate.
This is a slight
underestimate (relative to
CO2 emissions).
This is an underestimate,
and it should be included.
The literature ranges from
86 to 387 teragrams of
carbon per year.0
This is an underestimate,
and it should be included.
This is likely an
overestimate because of the
assumptions made on
baseline conditions using
acacia plantations with
different locations and
management.
This is an underestimate that
should include IPCC values.
This is an underestimate that
should include IPCC values.
The current scientific
knowledge on tropical
peatlands allows for
integrating this impact in the
emission factor.
Additional research is
needed to accurately
represent emissions.
This is an underestimate,
and it should be included.
This is an underestimate,
and it should be included.
The literature suggests
average CO2 emissions from
fires from 2000-2006 of 6.5
petagrams of carbon per
year.d
This is an underestimate,
and it should be quantified.
This is likely an
overestimate because of
the peat bulk density,
organic carbon, and
subsidence estimates used.
This is a representative
estimate.
This is an underestimate,
but regulations prohibit
burning, so future
estimates should omit fire
emissions.
This is a representative
estimate because
regulations prohibit new
plantations on peat soil and
forests.
The recommendation was
made that an annual
emission factor be used
with a multiplier of 2.6 for
the first 5 years to account
for increased emissions
initially.
This is an underestimate,
and it should include IPCC
values.
This is an underestimate,
and it should include IPCC
values. Fire frequency and
intensity have increased
because of drainage of
peat.
This is an underestimate,
but more research is
needed before these
emissions can be
considered.
aOthmanetal.,2011.
b Husnain et al., 2012.
c Couwenberg et al., 2010; Hooijer et al., 2012; van der Werf et al., 2008.
Murdiyarso et al., 2010.
-------
3.4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report
The IPCC (2014) lists a Tier 1 emission factor of 40 tCO2/ha/yrfor tropical drained oil
palm plantations. This value does not include emissions for the first 6 years after
drainage. However, studies have shown that a pulse of higher emissions occurs right
after drainage. The IPCC report also gives a default DOC emission factor of 3
tCO2/ha/yr. In addition, the IPCC gives guidance on quantifying emissions from fires.
The report gives a default emission factor of 1,701 gCO2/(kilograms [kg] of dry matter
burned) for tropical organic soil and a default dry matter consumption value of 155 t/ha
for prescribed fires in the tropics.
a. Would it be appropriate for the EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission
factor of 40 tCO2/ha/yr, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number
based on more detailed information?
Two peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Hergoualc'h and Sabiham) stated that the IPCC
Tier 1 emission factor is appropriate to use. Dr. Sabiham indicated it would be
appropriate for the Agency to use values as high as 44 tonnes of CO2 ha"1 yr"1, which
accounts for groundwater levels up to 60 centimeters below the soil surface.
Three peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Bridgham, Leclerc, and Schrier) stated that the
Hooijer et al. (2012) estimate is more scientifically justified. Dr. Bridgham further stated
that the Hooijer et al. (2012) estimate is inherently clearer and more scientifically
defensible because of the uncertainties associated with scaling up the chamber-based
method and estimating litter inputs. Additionally, Drs. Leclerc and Schrier noted that the
development of the IPCC emission factor is not based on more recent literature that
indicates that the emission factor is closer to the Hooijer et al. (2012) estimate.
b. Should the emission factor that the EPA uses include the emissions pulse that
occurs in the first several years immediately following drainage?
Two peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Bridgham and Leclerc) agreed that the EPA should
include the emissions pulse. Dr. Bridgham stated that further data, in addition to the
Hooijer et al. (2012) emissions pulse data, would be preferable for comparison.
Dr. Sabiham stated that the EPA should exclude the emissions pulse because the
analysis may have confused oil palm and acacia subsidence results. Similarly, Dr.
Hergoualc'h stated that the pulse demonstrated in Hooijer et al. (2012) was observed in
an acacia plantation and only demonstrates a pulse in subsidence, not emissions;
therefore, the emissions pulse is not scientifically supported. Dr. Hergoualc'h also
proposed that consolidation may be more important than currently estimated.
-------
Dr. Schrier stated that a multiplication factor for the first 5 years of drainage
would increase the certainty and robustness of the emission factor more appropriately
than including an emissions pulse.
c. Should the EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission
factor? If so, are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better
estimates for EPA 's purpose?
Three reviewers (i.e., Drs. Hergoualc'h, Leclerc, and Schrier) agreed that the EPA
should include the IPCC fire emission and DOC factors. Dr. Hergoualc'h stated that the
Agency could eventually merge the IPCC emission factors for DOC, but that the
emission factors for prescribed fires and wildfires should be kept apart to acknowledge
site-specific land-use history. Dr. Schrier also asserted that the EPA should include non-
CO2 emissions. Dr. Leclerc stated that DOCs are a "hot spot" of GHGs and that
advection from neighboring regions caused by land-use conversion should also be taken
into account for robust emission factors to be determined.
Dr. Bridgham stated that a fire emission factor should be included, but this will
require more investigation to suggest an appropriate factor. Dr. Bridgham further stated
that DOC fluxes may or may not need to be included separately, depending on the
method used. If the subsidence method is used, then it is not necessary to include DOC
fluxes because they are already accounted for in the loss of soil carbon and mass. If the
soil respiration method is used, then it is necessary to include DOC fluxes (IPCC, 2006).
Dr. Sabiham recommended that DOC and fire emission factors not be included in
EPA's approach because DOC fluxes are off site and relatively insignificant, and best
management practices of oil palm plantation require zero burning.
d. There are also erosion losses of paniculate organic carbon (POC) and
waterborne transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved C02J
derived from autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil.
The IPCC concluded that, at present, the science and available data are not
sufficient to provide guidance on CO2 emissions or removals associated with
these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you agree that the science on these factors is
not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC and dissolved inorganic carbon
in its peat soil emission factor?
Three peer reviewers (i.e., Drs. Hergoualc'h, Leclerc, and Schrier) agreed that the
science is not sufficient yet and should be omitted from the emission factor until further
information is available.
5-9
-------
Dr. Bridgham stated that it is not necessary to account for POC and dissolved
inorganic carbon losses if a stock-based approach is used such as the subsidence method.
Dr. Bridgham also iterated the reasons why a gain-loss approach of the IPCC is
inappropriate for estimating the peat soil emission factor, such as the uncertainties
associated with scaling up and estimating litter inputs and root respiration.
Dr. Sabiham stated that there is no need to include POC loss in the overall
emission factor for peat soil under oil palm plantation, but for different reasons. Dr.
Sabiham noted that for drained peat soil under oil palm plantations that follow best
management practices (e.g., zero burning method during land preparation, maintaining
groundwater at a certain level to avoid drying of peat materials during dry season), POC
should generally be a negligible component.
In addition, Dr. Sabiham agreed that research on dissolved inorganic carbon is
still not sufficient to warrant inclusion in the peat soil emission factor, although he noted
that several research results (Dariah et al., 2013; Sabiham et al., 2014) indicate that the
contribution of root respiration could be considered as the correction factor for closed-
chamber technique evaluations.
3-10
-------
3.5 Additional Input
Please provide any additional scientific information that you believe the EPA should
consider regarding the Agency's assessment of the average annual GHG emissions from
draining tropical peatlands for palm oil cultivation for use in EPA 's lifecycle GHG
analysis of palm oil-based biofuels.
Two peer reviewers (i.e., Dr. Bridgham and Leclerc) stated that they had no more
information to provide outside of the responses and references previously provided.
Dr. Schrier added that the meta-analysis of Carlson et al. (in preparation) should be
considered as soon as it becomes available.
Dr. Hergoualc'h stated that the literature review carried out by the EPA appeared
to be incomplete. For example, a number of soil respiration studies and the soil carbon
flux approach applied in Hergoualc'h and Verchot (2013) were not included in the
analyses. Furthermore, Dr. Hergoualc'h stated that it was not clear whether the EPA
firmly understands the approach for calculating an emission factor using peat carbon
fluxes.
Dr. Sabiham noted that Indonesian peat soils contain mostly fibric peat, in which
subsidence occurs quickly after drainage, and this is particularly important to know when
calculating carbon emissions for the first 5 years after drainage. Dr. Sabiham also noted
that fibric peat reaches an irreversible drying condition rapidly, at which point carbon
loss because of peat oxidation does not exist but is highly susceptible to fire.
3-11
-------
SECTION 4
REFERENCES
Couwenberg, J. and A. Hoosier. 2013. Towards robust subsidence based and soil carbon
factors for peat soils in South-East Asia, with special reference to oil palm
plantations. Mires and Peat 12:1-13.
Couwenberg, J., R. Dommain, and H. Joosten. 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical
peatlands in Southeast Asia. Global Change Biology 7(5(6): 1715-1732.
Dariah, A., S. Marwanto, and F. Agus. 2013. Root- and peat-based CC>2emission from oil
palm plantations. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
79(6):831-843.
Drosler, M., L.V. Verchot, A. Freibauer, G. Pan, C.D. Evans, R.A. Bourbonniere, J.P.
Aim, S. Page, F. Agus, K. Hergoualc'h, J. Couwenberg, J. Jauhiainen, S.
Sabiham, C. Wang, N. Srivastava, L. Borgeau-Chavez, A. Hooijer, K. Minkkinen,
N. French, T. Strand, A. Sirin, R. Mickler, K. Tansey, and N. Larkin. 2014.
Drained inland organic soils. Chapter 2 in the 2013 Supplement to the 2006
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Edited by T.
Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, B. Jamsranjav, M. Fukuda, and T.
Troxler. IPCC: Switzerland.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. Technical Work Product for Peer
Review: Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Palm Oil Cultivation.
May 15,2014.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Notice of Data Availability
Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the RFS Program.
January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4300.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Peer Review Handbook. Third
Edition. EPA/100/B-06/002. Available at
www.epa.gov/peerrevi ew/pdfs/peer_revi ew_handbook_2012.pdf
Hergoualc'h, K., and L.V. Verchot. 2013. Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use
and land-use change in Southeast Asian peatlands. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 19 (^789-807. doi 10.1007/sl 1027-013-9511-x.
Hooijer, A., S. Page, J. Jauhiainen, W.A. Lee, X.X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2012.
Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053-
1071.
Husnain, H.F. Agus, P. Wigena, A. Maswar, Dariah, and S. Marwanto. 2012. Peat CO2
emissions from several land-use types in Indonesia. To be submitted to Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.
4-1
-------
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. 2006IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Edited by
T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, and
T.G. Troxler. IPCC: Switzerland.
Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S.E. Page. 2012. Carbon dioxide emissions from an acacia
plantation on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9:617-630.
Melling, L., R. Hatano, and K. J. Goh. 2007. Nitrous oxide emissions from three
ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition 53:792-805.
Murdiyarso, D., K. Hergoualc'h, and L.V. Verchot. 2010. Opportunities for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. PNAS 707:19655-19660.
Othman, H., A.T. Mohammed, P.M. Darus, M.H. Harun, and M.P. Zambri. 2011. Best
management practices for oil palm cultivation on peat: Ground water-table
maintenance in relation to peat subsidence and estimation of CO2 emissions at
Sessang, Sarawak. Journal of Oil Palm Research 23:1078-1086.
Page, S.E., R. Morrison, C. Malins, A. Hooijer, J.O. Rieley, and J. Jauhiainen. 2011.
Review of peat surface greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations in
Southeast Asia. International Council on Clean Transportation. White Paper
Number 15, Indirect Effects of Biofuel Production Series.
Sabiham, S., S. Marwanto, T. Watanabe, S. Furukawa, U. Sudadi, and F. Agus. 2014.
Estimating the relative contributions of root respiration and peat decomposition to
the total CC>2 Flux from peat soil at an oil palm plantation in Sumatra, Indonesia.
Journal of Tropical Agriculture and Development. (In press).
van der Werf, G.R., J.T. Randerson, G.J. Collate, L. Giglio, P.S. Kasibhatla, A.F.
Arellano, S.C. Olsen, andE.S. Kasischke. 2004. Continental-scale partitioning of
fire emissions during the 1997 to 2001 El Nino/La Nina period. Science 303:73-
76.
4-2
-------
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDATION REQUESTS
A-l
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
II)
3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-
NOV 1 ? 2013
" i M : E OF
(I 5JAQA1 iN
His Excellency Dino Patti Djalal
Ambassador of Indonesia
2020 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Ambassador:
I wish to extend to you my great appreciation for your visit in September to express your thoughtful
congratulations and wishes for success to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. As you know, the EPA and Indonesia have long shared an interest in advancing environmental-
protection and public-health initiatives that will benefit people in both our countries. We look forward to
continuing our discussions with Indonesia.
I am also writing to provide more information about the peer review that was briefly discussed at the
September meeting. The EPA is supporting a third-party independent peer review to gather additional
input about the science relevant to determining an appropriate peat soil emissions factor for use in
EPA's analysis of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with palm oil-based biofuels., for purposes of
determining qualifying biofuels under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This letter
provides background about EPA's assessment; explains the scope of the peer review; outlines how the
peer review process will work; and provides further details about what type of candidate
recommendations EPA is seeking.
I. Background
In January 2012, the EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Concerning
Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.1 As
part of this NODA, the EPA sought comment on its analysis of lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions analysis from palm oil-based biodiesel and renewable diesel, which estimated that these
biofuels had lifecycle GHG emission reductions of 17% and 11%, respectively versus the petroleum
diesel baseline. Based on the Agency's analysis, these biofuels would not meet the statutory 20%
GHG emissions reduction threshold and thus, with limited exceptions,2 would not qualify as
renewable fuel for the RFS program.3
1 77 FR 4300, http://www,Rpo.ROV/fdsvs/pke/FR-2012-01-27/pdf/2012-1784.pdf
2 Biofuel facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 and completed construction prior to December
19, 2010 (domestic and foreign) are not required to meet the 20% GHG threshold to qualify as renewable fuel- such
facilities are "Grandfathered." See 40 CFR 80.1403 for details.
3 EPA's evaluation will not affect palm oil exports to the United States for food or other purposes. This determination also
will not restrict the ability of palm oil biofuels to be imported to the United States. It will only help to determine whether
such fuels are eligible under United States law to be used to comply with the RFS program.
Page I of4
internet Address (URL) hltp ffwww.epa oov
(ecycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 1Q(H. Postcoiisumer. P'Ocess Chlori
-------
One of the major sources of GHG emissions in EPA's analysis was emissions from
development of palm oil plantations on drained tropical peat soils. For the analysis in the NOD A, the
EPA used a peat soil emissions factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare per year
(tCO2e/ha/yr) over the first thirty years following draining of the land, based primarily on the study
by Hooijer et al. (2012),4'5 The EPA chose this emissions factor after a thorough survey of the
literature. The EPA has received over 70,000 public comments on the January 2012 NODA,
including a number with substantive comments on the peat soil emissions factor used in the
Agency's assessment. The commenters cited various studies and proposed emissions factors ranging
from 26 to 103 tCO2e/ha/yr,
II. Scope of the Peer Review
The EPA is conducting further review of the scientific literature to determine if new
information warrants revisiting our choice of emissions factor, considering the comments received
on the NODA and other information published or provided to the Agency. Because this emissions
factor is an important piece of our lifecycle GHG analysis, we are supporting a peer review process
to gather additional input from the scientific community about whether the emissions factor used by
the EPA in the January 2012 NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment. The scope of
this peer review is limited to the specific technical issue of the peat soil emissions factor used in
EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis for the RFS program. The information gathered as part of this review
will be considered as part of EPA's ongoing review of the lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm
oil biofuels.
III. The Peer Review Process
EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides guidance on conducting peer reviews.6 A third-party
contractor will be tasked with independently selecting the reviewers and managing this technical
review. An important goal of these procedures is to maintain an impartial process.
Once the contractor has selected the qualified reviewers, the peer review will likely take
several months. The reviewers will receive charge questions asking a range of technical questions
about the peat soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil biofuels. The
charge questions will include information provided by the public commenters, including a summary
of comments that were critical of EPA's assumptions, along with references and internet links to the
original comments. Furthermore, the charge will provide a list of studies cited by commenters,
because the EPA would like the reviewers to consider the range of relevant scientific literature as
they formulate their responses.
The reviewers will be instructed to work independently and will not be asked to reach
consensus. They will send their responses to the contractor, who will summarize the results and
compile a peer review record document. The peer review record will include the charge questions,
4 Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W, A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained
tropical peatlands. Biogeosdences, 9, 1053-1071.
5 EPA's emissions factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of CO2, i.e., from
decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Carbon stock changes from clearing of above and below-ground btomass, such
as trees and roots, were considered separately.
* U.S. EPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition, EPA/100/B-06/002,
http://www.e.Da.goy/peerreview/pdfs/pee_r_reyiew handbook 2012.pdf
Page 2 of 4
-------
the contractor's summary of the reviewers' responses as well as unedited copies of the reviewers'
comments. The peer review record will be made public in its entirety and posted on the public
docket with this rulemaking. This is the same type of peer review process that was used to gather
scientific input on EPA's lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of other types of biofuels (e.g., corn
ethanol, soybean oil biodiesel, sugarcane ethanol) for the March 2010 RFS rule (75 FR 14669).7
IV. Peer Review Candidate Recommendations
One way to participate in this process would be to advise the EPA of qualified candidates to
serve as peer reviewers. Each candidate should have recognized expertise that bears on the subject
matter of GHG emissions from drained tropical peat soil. In determining the most qualified
candidates for the review, the contractor will be instructed to consider each candidate's expertise,
knowledge, skills and experience related to the subject matter. For example, qualified candidates will
be expected to have a doctoral degree in soil science or a related field and publication of peer
reviewed journal articles related to carbon cycling in tropical peat soils. All candidate
recommendations will be considered by a third-party contractor who will independently select the
final reviewers based on criteria described in the Peer Review Handbook, such as: (a) qualifications,
(b) independence and appearance of impartiality, and (c) balance with respect to diversity of
scientific and technical perspectives.
Because the reviewers will be selected independently by a third-party contractor, the EPA
cannot make any guarantees about the selection of review candidates that you recommend, but in
general highly qualified candidates who do not have any conflicts of interest8 or appearance of a lack
of impartiality9 related to this subject matter should have a higher probability of selection. As such,
we welcome all candidate recommendations that you may have, but we ask that you limit such
recommendations to candidates who will have a high probability of selection based on the criteria
described above. The EPA will forward all of the candidate recommendations that are received to the
third-party contractor for consideration. In order to initiate the peer review in a timely manner we
request that you submit any candidate recommendations by December 13, 2013.
V. Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in EPA's assessment of palm oil-based biofuels under the RFS
program. The Agency recognizes there are many complex issues involved in this analysis. We seek
to gather relevant scientific information from a range of perspectives, and will consider all input
carefully before making any final determinations. The peer review discussed above is an important
part of this process and we welcome your recommendations regarding qualified peer review
candidates. We also welcome any additional information that you wish to submit in a timely manner
for consideration by the peer reviewers. Such information will be added to the public docket and
7 For more information about the peer review conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule see
http://www.epa.ROV/fedrRstr/EPA-AIR/2009/AuEust/Dav-17/al9466.pdfand
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulatioQsAtfn
8 A conflict of interest is generally concerned with matters of financial interest and/or professional standing and status. For
more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review Handbook.
9 In general, lack of impartiality arises when the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question a candidate's impartiality in the matter. For more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review
Handbook.
Page 3 of4
-------
referenced for the reviewers' consideration. If you have any questions about this process please do
not hesitate to contact Aaron Levy of my staff at levy.aaron@epa^gov.
rundler, Director
ransportation and Air Quality
Page 4 of 4
-------
I7 ym \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C, 20460
W 1 £ 2013
i F
AMP RADIATION
Mr. Jonathan Lewis
Clean Air Task Force
18 Tremont Street, Suite 530
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mr. Lewis:
I am writing inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supporting a third-party
independent peer review to gather additional input about the science relevant to determining an
appropriate peat soil emissions factor for use in EPA's analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with palm oil-based biofuels, for purposes of determining qualifying biofuels under
the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This letter provides background about EPA's
assessment; explains the scope of the peer review; outlines how the peer review process will work; and
provides further details about what type of candidate recommendations the EPA is seeking,
I. Background
In January 2012, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Concerning Renewable
Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.1 As part of this
NODA, the EPA sought comment on its analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions analysis from palm oil-
based biodiesel and renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels had lifecycle GHG emission
reductions of 11% and 1 \%, respectively versus the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the Agency's
analysis, these biofuels would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold and thus,
with limited exceptions,2 would not qualify as renewable fuel for the RFS program.3
One of the major sources of GHG emissions in EPA's analysis was emissions from development of
palm oil plantations on drained tropical peat soils. For the analysis in the NODA, the EPA used a peat
soil emissions factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare per year (tCO2e/ha/yr) over
the first thirty years following draining of the land, based primarily on the study by Hooijer et al.
(2012).4'5 The EPA chose this emissions factor after a thorough survey of the literature. The EPA has
1 77 FR 4300, http://www.epo.gov/fdsvs/pke/FR-2012-01-27/pdF/2Q12-1784.pdf
2 Biofuel facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 and completed construction prior to December
19, 2010 (domestic and foreign) are not required to meet the 20% GHG threshold to qualify as renewable fuel- such
facilities are "Grandfathered." See 40 CFR 80.1403 for details.
3 EPA's evaluation will not affect palm oil exports to the United States for food or other purposes. This determination also
will not restrict the ability of palm oil biofuels to be imported to the United States. It will only help to determine whether
such fuels are eligible under United States law to be used to comply with the RFS program.
* Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Ansharj, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained
tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9, 1053-1071.
Page 1 of 3
inlernei Address (URL) http //www eca.gov
Recycled/Recyclable Printed wilh Vegetable Oil Basecl Inks an 100% Postcansumer Process Cniorme Free Recycled Facer
-------
received over 70,000 public comments on the January 2012 NOD A, including a number with
substantive comments on the peat soil emissions factor used in the Agency's assessment. The
commenters cited various studies and proposed emissions factors ranging from 26 to 103 tCO2e/ha/yr.
II. Scope of the Peer Review
The EPA is conducting further review of the scientific literature to determine if new information
warrants revisiting our choice of emissions factor, considering the comments received on the NOD A and
other information published or provided to the Agency, Because this emissions factor is an important
piece of our lifecycle GHG analysis, we are supporting a peer review process to gather additional input
from the scientific community about whether the emissions factor used by the EPA in the January 2012
NOD A is the most appropriate for our final assessment. The scope of this peer review is limited to the
specific technical issue of the peat soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis for the
RFS program. The information gathered as part of this review will be considered as part of EPA's
ongoing review of the lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels.
III. The Peer Review Process
EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides guidance on conducting peer reviews.6 A third-party
contractor will be tasked with independently selecting the reviewers and managing this technical review.
An important goal of these procedures is to maintain an impartial process.
Once the contractor has selected the qualified reviewers, the peer review will likely take several
months. The reviewers will receive charge questions asking a range of technical questions about the peat
soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil biofuels. The charge questions
will include information provided by the public commenters, including a summary of comments that
were critical of EPA's assumptions, along with references and internet links to the original comments.
Furthermore, the charge will provide a list of studies cited by commenters, because the EPA would like
the reviewers to consider the range of relevant scientific literature as they formulate their responses.
The reviewers will be instructed to work independently and will not be asked to reach consensus.
They will send their responses to the contractor, who will summarize the results and compile a peer
review record document. The peer review record will include the charge questions, the contractor's
summary of the reviewers' responses as well as unedited copies of the reviewers' comments. The peer
review record will be made public in its entirety and posted on the public docket with this rulemaking.
This is the same type of peer review process that was used to gather scientific input on EPA's lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis of other types of biofuels (e.g., corn ethanol, soybean oil biodiesel, sugarcane
ethanol) for the March 2010 RFS rule (75 FR 14669).
5 EPA's emissions factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of CO2, i.e., from
decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Carbon stock changes from clearing of above and below-ground biomass, such
as trees and roots, were considered separately.
6 U.S. EPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition, EPA/100/B-06/002,
http://www.epa.Bov/peerreview/pdfs/peer review handbook 2012.pdf
7 For more information about the peer review conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule see
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/August/Dav-17/a
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htrr!
Page 2 of 3
-------
IV. Peer Review Candidate Recommendations
One way to participate in this process would be to advise the EPA of qualified candidates to
serve as peer reviewers. Each candidate should have recognized expertise that bears on the subject
matter of GHG emissions from drained tropical peat soil. In determining the most qualified candidates
for the review, the contractor will be instructed to consider each candidate's expertise, knowledge, skills
and experience related to the subject matter, For example, qualified candidates will be expected to have
a doctoral degree in soil science or a related field and publication of peer reviewed journal articles
related to carbon cycling in tropical peat soils. All candidate recommendations will be considered by a
third-party contractor who will independently select the final reviewers based on criteria described in the
Peer Review Handbook, such as: (a) qualifications, (b) independence and appearance of impartiality, and
(c) balance with respect to diversity of scientific and technical perspectives.
Because the reviewers will be selected independently by a third-party contractor, the EPA cannot
make any guarantees about the selection of review candidates that you recommend, but in general highly
qualified candidates who do not have any conflicts of interest8 or appearance of a lack of impartiality9
related to this subject matter should have a higher probability of selection. As such, we welcome all
candidate recommendations that you may have, but we ask that you limit such recommendations to
candidates who will have a high probability of selection based on the criteria described above. The EPA
will forward all of the candidate recommendations that are received to the third-party contractor for
consideration. In order to initiate the peer review in a timely manner we request that you submit any
candidate recommendations by December 13, 2013.
V. Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in EPA's assessment of palm oil-based biofuels under the RFS
program. The Agency recognizes there are many complex issues involved in this analysis. We seek to
gather relevant scientific information from a range of perspectives, and will consider all input carefully
before making any final determinations. The peer review discussed above is an important part of this
process and we welcome your recommendations regarding qualified peer review candidates. We also
welcome any additional information that you wish to submit in a timely manner for consideration by the
peer reviewers. Such information will be added to the public docket and referenced for the reviewers'
consideration. If you have any questions about this process please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Levy
of my staff at levy.aaron@epa.gov.
r, Director
Office of (Transportation and Air Quality
8 A conflict of interest is generally concerned with matters of financial interest and/or professional standing and status. For
more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review Handbook.
9 In general, lack of impartiality arises when the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question a candidate's impartiality in the matter. For more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review
Handbook.
Page 3 of 3
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
^
NOV 1 3 20I3
E DF
Mr. Shahril Essendi Ghany
Charge d'Affaires
Embassy of Malaysia
3516 International Court N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Dear Mr. Charge:
I am writing inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supporting a third-party
independent peer review to gather additional input about the science relevant to determining an
appropriate peat soil emissions factor for use in EPA's analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with palm oil-based biofuels, for purposes of determining qualifying biofuels under
the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This letter provides background about EPA's
assessment; explains the scope of the peer review; outlines how the peer review process will work; and
provides further details about what type of candidate recommendations the EPA is seeking.
I. Background
In January 2012, the EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Concerning
Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.1 As part
of this NODA, the EPA sought comment on its analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions analysis from palm
oil-based biodiesel and renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels had lifecycle GHG
emission reductions of 17% and 11%, respectively versus the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the
Agency's analysis, these biofuels would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold
and thus, with limited exceptions,2 would not qualify as renewable fuel for the RFS program.3
One of the major sources of GHG emissions in EPA's analysis was emissions from development
of palm oil plantations on drained tropical peat soils. For the analysis in the NODA, the EPA used a peat
soil emissions factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare per year (tCO2e/ha/yr) over
the first thirty years following draining of the land, based primarily on the study by Hooijer et al.
1 77 FR 4300, http://www.Hpo.ROV/fdsvs/pkR/FR-2Q12-01-27/pdf/2012-1784.pdf
1 Biofuel facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 and completed construction prior to December
19, 2010 (domestic and foreign) are not required to meet the 20% GHG threshold to qualify as renewable fuel- such
facilities are "Grandfathered." See 40 CFR 80.1403 for details.
3 EPA's evaluation will not affect palm oil exports to the United States for food or other purposes. This determination also
will not restrict the ability of palm oil biofueis to be imported to the United States. It will only help to determine whether
such fuels are eligible under United States law to be used to comply with the RFS program.
Page 1 of 3
Internet Addfess (URL) hltp.//www epa gov
Recycled/Recyclable punted wlh Vegetable. Oil Based Inks on 100% Posteonsumer Process Chlorine Fr*e Rsc.yr.lea Paper
-------
(2012).4'5 The EPA chose this emissions factor after a thorough survey of the literature. The EPA has
received over 70,000 public comments on the January 2012 NOD A, including a number with
substantive comments on the peat soil emissions factor used in the Agency's assessment, The
commenters cited various studies and proposed emissions factors ranging from 26 to 103 tCO2e/ha/yr.
II. Scope of the Peer Review
The EPA is conducting further review of the scientific literature to determine if new information
warrants revisiting our choice of emissions factor, considering the comments received on the NODA and
other information published or provided to the Agency. Because this emissions factor is an important
piece of our lifecycle GHG analysis, we are supporting a peer review process to gather additional input
from the scientific community about whether the emissions factor used by the EPA in the January 2012
NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment. The scope of this peer review is limited to the
specific technical issue of the peat soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis for the
RFS program. The information gathered as part of this review will be considered as part of EPA's
ongoing review of the lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels,
III. The Peer Review Process
EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides guidance on conducting peer reviews.6 A third-party
contractor will be tasked with independently selecting the reviewers and managing this technical review.
An important goal of these procedures is to maintain an impartial process.
Once the contractor has selected the qualified reviewers, the peer review will likely take several
months. The reviewers will receive charge questions asking a range of technical questions about the peat
soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil biofuels. The charge questions
will include information provided by the public commenters, including a summary of comments that
were critical of EPA's assumptions, along with references and internet links to the original comments.
Furthermore, the charge will provide a list of studies cited by commenters, because the EPA would like
the reviewers to consider the range of relevant scientific literature as they formulate their responses.
The reviewers will be instructed to work independently and will not be asked to reach consensus.
They will send their responses to the contractor, who will summarize the results and compile a peer
review record document. The peer review record will include the charge questions, the contractor's
summary of the reviewers' responses as well as unedited copies of the reviewers' comments. The peer
review record will be made public in its entirety and posted on the public docket with this rulemaking.
This is the same type of peer review process that was used to gather scientific input on EPA's lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis of other types of biofuels (e.g., corn ethanol, soybean oil biodiesel, sugarcane
ethanol) for the March 2010 RFS rule (75 FR 14669).
4 Hooijer, A,, Page, S. £., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained
tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9,1053-1071.
5 EPA's emissions factor for drained tropical peat soi! only includes heterotrophic respiration of COj, i.e., from
decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Carbon stock changes from clearing of above and below-ground biomass, such
as trees and roots, were considered separately.
6 U.S. EPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition, EPA/100/B-06/002,
http://vyww.epa.gov/peerreview/pdf5/Beer review handbook 2012.pdf
7 For more information about the peer review conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule see
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/Augy st/Dav-17/al9466,pdf and
http://www.ep_a.gQv/ptaci/fuels/renewablefuels//eKuLaJions.htrn
Page 2 of 3
-------
IV. Peer Review Candidate Recommendations
One way to participate in this process would be to advise the EPA of qualified candidates to
serve as peer reviewers. Each candidate should have recognized expertise that bears on the subject
matter of GHG emissions from drained tropical peat soil. In determining the most qualified candidates
for the review, the contractor will be instructed to consider each candidate's expertise, knowledge, skills
and experience related to the subject matter. For example, qualified candidates will be expected to have
a doctoral degree in soil science or a related field and publication of peer reviewed journal articles
related to carbon cycling in tropical peat soils. All candidate recommendations will be considered by a
third-party contractor who will independently select the final reviewers based on criteria described in the
Peer Review Handbook, such as: (a) qualifications, (b) independence and appearance of impartiality, and
(c) balance with respect to diversity of scientific and technical perspectives.
Because the reviewers will be selected independently by a third-party contractor, the EPA cannot
make any guarantees about the selection of review candidates that you recommend, but in general highly
qualified candidates who do not have any conflicts of interest8 or appearance of a lack of impartiality9
related to this subject matter should have a higher probability of selection. As such, we welcome all
candidate recommendations that you may have, but we ask that you limit such recommendations to
candidates who will have a high probability of selection based on the criteria described above. The EPA
will forward all of the candidate recommendations that are received to the third-party contractor for
consideration. In order to initiate the peer review in a timely manner we request that you submit any
candidate recommendations by December 13, 2013.
V. Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in EPA's assessment of palm oil-based biofuels under the RFS
program. The Agency recognizes there are many complex issues involved in this analysis. We seek to
gather relevant scientific information from a range of perspectives, and will consider all input carefully
before making any final determinations. The peer review discussed above is an important part of this
process and we welcome your recommendations regarding qualified peer review candidates. We also
welcome any additional information that you wish to submit in a timely manner for consideration by the
peer reviewers. Such information will be added to the public docket and referenced for the reviewers'
consideration. If you have any questions about this process please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Levy
of my staff at levv.aaron@epa.gov.
"Grundler, Director
Office 4f Transportation and Air Quality
8 A conflict of interest is generally concerned with matters of financial interest and/or professional standing and status. For
more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review Handbook.
9 In general, lack of impartiality arises when the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question a candidate's impartiality in the matter. For more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review
Handbook.
Page 3 of 3
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\2- « WASHINGTON, D.C, 20460
NOV 1 3 20(3
-IP ANDRADiATh i. ,
Dr. Chris Malins
The International Council on Clean Transportation
1225 I Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Dr. Malins:
I am writing inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supporting a third-party
independent peer review to gather additional input about the science relevant to determining an
appropriate peat soil emissions factor for use in EPA's analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with palm oil-based biofuels, for purposes of determining qualifying bioftiels under
the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This letter provides background about EPA's
assessment; explains the scope of the peer review; outlines how the peer review process will work; and
provides further details about what type of candidate recommendations the EPA is seeking.
I. Background
In January 2012, the EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Concerning
Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.1 As part
of this NODA, the EPA sought comment on its analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions analysis from palm
oil-based biodiesel and renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels had lifecycle GHG
emission reductions of 17% and 11%, respectively versus the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the
Agency's analysis, these biofuels would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold
and thus, with limited exceptions,2 would not qualify as renewable fuel for the RFS program.3
One of the major sources of GHG emissions in EPA's analysis was emissions from development
of palm oil plantations on drained tropical peat soils. For the analysis in the NODA, the EPA used a peat
soil emissions factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare per year (tCO2e/ha/yr) over
the first thirty years following draining of the land, based primarily on the study by Hooijer et al.
177 FR 4300, http://www.gpo.Kov/fdsys/pkK/FR-2012-01-27/pdf/2012-1784.pdf
1 Biofuel facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 and completed construction prior to December
19, 2010 (domestic and foreign) are not required to meet the 20% GHG threshold to qualify as renewable fuel- such
facilities are "Grandfathered." See 40 CFR 80.1403 for details.
3 EPA's evaluation will not affect palm oil exports to the United States for food or other purposes. This determination also
will not restrict the ability of palm oil biofuels to be imported to the United States. It will only help to determine whether
such fuels are eligible under United States law to be used to comply with the RFS program.
Page 1 of 3
Internet Address (URL) nttp./'ttvvwepa gov
Recycled/Recyclable Pnnted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% i ,. , .,, , ,-i Pieces; Chlorine Free Recycled F;-i t
-------
(2012),4'5 The EPA chose this emissions factor after a thorough survey of the literature. The EPA has
received over 70,000 public comments on the January 2012 NOD A, including a number with
substantive comments on the peat soil emissions factor used in the Agency's assessment. The
commenters cited various studies and proposed emissions factors ranging from 26 to 103 tCO2e/ha/yr.
II. Scope of the Peer Review
The EPA is conducting further review of the scientific literature to determine if new information
warrants revisiting our choice of emissions factor, considering the comments received on the NODA and
other information published or provided to the Agency. Because this emissions factor is an important
piece of our lifecycle GHG analysis, we are supporting a peer review process to gather additional input
from the scientific community about whether the emissions factor used by EPA in the January 2012
NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment. The scope of this peer review is limited to the
specific technical issue of the peat soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis for the
RFS program. The information gathered as part of this review will be considered as part of EPA's
ongoing review of the lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels.
III. The Peer Review Process
EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides guidance on conducting peer reviews.6 A third-party
contractor will be tasked with independently selecting the reviewers and managing this technical review.
An important goal of these procedures is to maintain an impartial process.
Once the contractor has selected the qualified reviewers, the peer review will likely take several
months. The reviewers will receive charge questions asking a range of technical questions about the peat
soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil biofuels. The charge questions
will include information provided by the public commenters, including a summary of comments that
were critical of EPA's assumptions, along with references and internet links to the original comments.
Furthermore, the charge will provide a list of studies cited by commenters, because the EPA would like
the reviewers to consider the range of relevant scientific literature as they formulate their responses.
The reviewers will be instructed to work independently and will not be asked to reach consensus.
They will send their responses to the contractor, who will summarize the results and compile a peer
review record document. The peer review record will include the charge questions, the contractor's
summary of the reviewers' responses as well as unedited copies of the reviewers' comments. The peer
review record will be made public in its entirety and posted on the public docket with this rulemaking.
This is the same type of peer review process that was used to gather scientific input on EPA's lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis of other types of biofuels (e.g., corn ethanol, soybean oil biodiesel, sugarcane
ethanol) for the March 2010 RFS rale (75 FR 14669)7
4 Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauhiainen, 1, Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained
tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9, 1053-1071.
5 EPA's emissions factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of CO2, i.e., from
decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Carbon stock changes from clearing of above and below-ground biomass, such
as trees and roots, were considered separately.
6 U.S. EPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition, EPA/100/B-06/002,
http://www.epa.HOV/peerrevlgw/pdfs/peer review handbook 2012.pdf
7 For more information about the peer review conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule see
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/Augu$t/Dav-17/al9466.pdfand
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/refiylatiQns.htrn
Page 2 of 3
-------
IV, Peer Review Candidate Recommendations
One way to participate in this process would be to advise the EPA of qualified candidates to
serve as peer reviewers. Each candidate should have recognized expertise that bears on the subject
matter of GHG emissions from drained tropical peat soil. In determining the most qualified candidates
for the review, the contractor will be instructed to consider each candidate's expertise, knowledge, skills
and experience related to the subject matter. For example, qualified candidates will be expected to have
a doctoral degree in soil science or a related field and publication of peer reviewed journal articles
related to carbon cycling in tropical peat soils. All candidate recommendations will be considered by a
third-party contractor who will independently select the final reviewers based on criteria described in the
Peer Review Handbook, such as: (a) qualifications, (b) independence and appearance of impartiality, and
(c) balance with respect to diversity of scientific and technical perspectives.
Because the reviewers will be selected independently by a third-party contractor, the EPA cannot
make any guarantees about the selection of review candidates that you recommend, but in general highly
qualified candidates who do not have any conflicts of interest8 or appearance of a lack of impartiality9
related to this subject matter should have a higher probability of selection. As such, we welcome all
candidate recommendations that you may have, but we ask that you limit such recommendations to
candidates who will have a high probability of selection based on the criteria described above. The EPA
will forward all of the candidate recommendations that are received to the third-party contractor for
consideration. In order to initiate the peer review in a timely manner we request that you submit any
candidate recommendations by December 13,2013.
V.
Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in EPA's assessment of palm oil-based biofuels under the RFS
program. The Agency recognizes there are many complex issues involved in this analysis. We seek to
gather relevant scientific information from a range of perspectives, and will consider all input carefully
before making any final determinations. The peer review discussed above is an important part of this
process and we welcome your recommendations regarding qualified peer review candidates. We also
welcome any additional information that you wish to submit in a timely manner for consideration by the
peer reviewers. Such information will be added to the public docket and referenced for the reviewers*
consideration. If you have any questions about this process please dojiot hesitate to contact Aaron Levy
of my staff at levy, aaron @epa. gov.
er, Director
spoliation and Air Quality
8 A conflict of interest is generally concerned with matters of financial interest and/or professional standing and status. For
more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review Handbook,
9 In general, lack of impartiality arises when the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question a candidate's impartiality in the matter. For more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review
Handbook.
Page 3 of 3
-------
P dk ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'' ^
SI
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
-
NOV 1 3 2013
- i|
Am RNBRAQMftIGN
Mr. Ben Larson
National Wildlife Federation
P.O. Box 1583
Merrifield, Virginia 22116
Dear Mr. Larson:
I am writing inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supporting a third-party
independent peer review to gather additional input about the science relevant to determining an
appropriate peat soil emissions factor for use in EPA's analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with palm oil-based biofuels, for purposes of determining qualifying biofuels under
the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This letter provides background about EPA's
assessment; explains the scope of the peer review; outlines how the peer review process will work; and
provides further details about what type of candidate recommendations the EPA is seeking,
I. Background
In January 2012, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Concerning Renewable
Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.1 As part of this
NODA, the EPA sought comment on its analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions analysis from palm oil-
based biodiesel and renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels had lifecycle GHG emission
reductions of 17% and 11%, respectively versus the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the Agency's
analysis, these biofuels would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold and thus,
with limited exceptions,2 would not qualify as renewable fuel for the RFS program.3
One of the major sources of GHG emissions in EPA's analysis was emissions from development of
palm oil plantations on drained tropical peat soils. For the analysis in the NODA, the EPA used a peat
soil emissions factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare per year (tCOae/ha/yr) over
the first thirty years following draining of the land, based primarily on the study by Hooijer et al.
(2012).4'5 The EPA chose this emissions factor after a thorough survey of the literature. The EPA has
1 77 FR 4300, http_://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-27/pdf/2012-1784.pdf
1 Biofuel facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 and completed construction prior to December
19, 2010 (domestic and foreign) are not required to meet the 20% GHG threshold to qualify as renewable fuel- such
facilities are "Grandfathered." See 40 CFR 80.1403 for details.
3 EPA's evaluation will not affect palm oil exports to the United States for food or other purposes. This determination also
will not restrict the ability of palm oil biofuels to be imported to the United States. It will only help to determine whether
such fuels are eligible under United States law to be used to comply with the RFS program.
4 Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained
tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9, 1053-1071.
Page 1 of 3
internet Address (URL) hltp ,'/w*w epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil tosed inks on 100% Postconsumer Process : rm tea Recycled Paeer
-------
received over 70,000 public comments on the January 2012 NODA, including a number with
substantive comments on the peat soil emissions factor used in the Agency's assessment. The
commenters cited various studies and proposed emissions factors ranging from 26 to 103 tCOze/ha/yr.
n. Scope of the Peer Review
The EPA is conducting further review of the scientific literature to determine if new information
warrants revisiting our choice of emissions factor, considering the comments received on the NODA and
other information published or provided to the Agency. Because this emissions factor is an important
piece of our lifecycle GHG analysis, we are supporting a peer review process to gather additional input
from the scientific community about whether the emissions factor used by the EPA in the January 2012
NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment. The scope of this peer review is limited to the
specific technical issue of the peat soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis for the
RFS program. The information gathered as part of this review will be considered as part of EPA's
ongoing review of the lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels.
HI. The Peer Review Process
EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides guidance on conducting peer reviews,6 A third-party
contractor will be tasked with independently selecting the reviewers and managing this technical review.
An important goal of these procedures is to maintain an impartial process.
Once the contractor has selected the qualified reviewers, the peer review will likely take several
months. The reviewers will receive charge questions asking a range of technical questions about the peat
soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil biofuels. The charge questions
will include information provided by the public commenters, including a summary of comments that
were critical of EPA's assumptions, along with references and internet links to the original comments.
Furthermore, the charge will provide a list of studies cited by commenters, because the EPA would like
the reviewers to consider the range of relevant scientific literature as they formulate their responses.
The reviewers will be instructed to work independently and will not be asked to reach consensus.
They will send their responses to the contractor, who will summarize the results and compile a peer
review record document. The peer review record will include the charge questions, the contractor's
summary of the reviewers' responses as well as unedited copies of the reviewers' comments. The peer
review record will be made public in its entirety and posted on the public docket with this rulemaking.
This is the same type of peer review process that was used to gather scientific input on EPA's lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis of other types of biofuels (e.g., corn ethanol, soybean oil biodiesel, sugarcane
ethanol) for the March 2010 RFS rule (75 FR 14669)/
5 EPA's emissions factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of CO2, i.e., from
decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Carbon stock changes from clearing of above and below-ground biomass, such
as trees and roots, were considered separately.
6 U.S. EPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition, EPA/100/B-06/OQ2,
http]//www^pa.gpv/peerrevjewZpdfs/pee_r review handbook 2D12.pdf
7 For more information about the peer review conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule see
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/Augyst/Dav-17/al9466.pdfand
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuel5/renewabtefuels/regulatiQns.htm
Page 2 of 3
-------
IV. Peer Review Candidate Recommendations
One way to participate in this process would be to advise the EPA of qualified candidates to
serve as peer reviewers. Each candidate should have recognized expertise that bears on the subject
matter of GHG emissions from drained tropical peat soil. In determining the most qualified candidates
for the review, the contractor will be instructed to consider each candidate's expertise, knowledge, skills
and experience related to the subject matter. For example, qualified candidates will be expected to have
a doctoral degree in soil science or a related field and publication of peer reviewed journal articles
related to carbon cycling in tropical peat soils. All candidate recommendations will be considered by a
third-party contractor who will independently select the final reviewers based on criteria described in the
Peer Review Handbook, such as: (a) qualifications, (b) independence and appearance of impartiality, and
(c) balance with respect to diversity of scientific and technical perspectives.
Because the reviewers will be selected independently by a third-party contractor, the EPA cannot
make any guarantees about the selection of review candidates that you recommend, but in general highly
qualified candidates who do not have any conflicts of interest8 or appearance of a lack of impartiality51
related to this subject matter should have a higher probability of selection. As such, we welcome all
candidate recommendations that you may have, but we ask that you limit such recommendations to
candidates who will have a high probability of selection based on the criteria described above. The EPA
will forward all of the candidate recommendations that are received to the third-party contractor for
consideration. In order to initiate the peer review in a timely manner we request that you submit any
candidate recommendations by December 13, 2013.
V. Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in EPA's assessment of palm oil-based biofuels under the RFS
program. The Agency recognizes there are many complex issues involved in this analysis. We seek to
gather relevant scientific information from a range of perspectives, and will consider all input carefully
before making any final determinations. The peer review discussed above is an important part of this
process and we welcome your recommendations regarding qualified peer review candidates. We also
welcome any additional information that you wish to submit in a timely manner for consideration by the
peer reviewers. Such information will be added to the public docket and referenced for the reviewers'
consideration. If you have any questions about this process please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Levy
of my staff at levy.aaron@epa. gov.
:tor
rransportation and Air Quality
8 A conflict of interest is generally concerned with matters of financial interest and/or professional standing and status. For
more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review Handbook,
9 In general, lack of impartiality arises when the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question a candidate's impartiality in the matter. For more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review
Handbook,
Page 3 of 3
-------
£' Jnt % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2!
I
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-
NOV i 5 2013
*IP AI'JC: l-.v-UlATl' /hi
Mr. Brian Siu
Natural Resources Defense Council
1152 15th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Siu:
1 am writing inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supporting a third-party
independent peer review to gather additional input about the science relevant to determining an
appropriate peat soil emissions factor for use in EPA's analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with palm oil-based biofuels, for purposes of determining qualifying biofuels under
the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This letter provides background about EPA's
assessment; explains the scope of the peer review; outlines how the peer review process will work; and
provides further details about what type of candidate recommendations the EPA is seeking.
I. Background
In January 2012, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Concerning Renewable
Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.1 As part of this
NODA, the EPA sought comment on its analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions analysis from palm oil-
based biodiesel and renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels had lifecycle GHG emission
reductions of 17% and 11%, respectively versus the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the Agency's
analysis, these biofuels would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold and thus,
with limited exceptions,2 would not qualify as renewable fuel for the RFS program.3
One of the major sources of GHG emissions in EPA's analysis was emissions from development of
palm oil plantations on drained tropical peat soils. For the analysis in the NODA, the EPA used a peat
soil emissions factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare per year (tCO2e/ha/yr) over
the first thirty years following draining of the land, based primarily on the study by Hooijer et al.
(2012).4'5 The EPA chose this emissions factor after a thorough survey of the literature. The EPA has
1 77 FR 4300, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/Dkg/FR-2012-01-27/pdf/20l2-1784.pdf
2 Biofuel facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 and completed construction prior to December
19, 2010 (domestic and foreign) are not required to meet the 20% GHG threshold to qualify as renewable fuel- such
facilities are "Grandfathered." See 40 CFR 80.1403 for detaifs.
3 EPA's evaluation will not affect palm oil exports to the United States for food or other purposes. This determination also
will not restrict the ability of palm oil biofuels to be imported to the United States. It will only help to determine whether
such fuels are eligible under United States law to be used to comply with the RFS program.
4 Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained
tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9, 1053-1071.
Page 1 of 3
Internal Aadress (URL) ftrtp .'/WAA epa gov
Recycled/Recyclable -Printed with Vegetable Oil Efasec' Inks or 10IJ% '- n ' (-"EWE ? Free Recycled Papei
-------
received over 70,000 public comments on the January 2012 NODA, including a number with
substantive comments on the peat soil emissions factor used in the Agency's assessment. The
commenters cited various studies and proposed emissions factors ranging from 26 to 103 tCOie/ha/yr.
IL Scope of the Peer Review
The EPA is conducting further review of the scientific literature to determine if new information
warrants revisiting our choice of emissions factor, considering the comments received on the NODA and
other information published or provided to the Agency. Because this emissions factor is an important
piece of our lifecycle GHG analysis, we are supporting a peer review process to gather additional input
from the scientific community about whether the emissions factor used by the EPA in the January 2012
NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment. The scope of this peer review is limited to the
specific technical issue of the peat soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis for the
RFS program. The information gathered as part of this review will be considered as part of EPA's
ongoing review of the lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels.
III. The Peer Review Process
EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides guidance on conducting peer reviews.6 A third-party
contractor will be tasked with independently selecting the reviewers and managing this technical review,
An important goal of these procedures is to maintain an impartial process.
Once the contractor has selected the qualified reviewers, the peer review will likely take several
months. The reviewers will receive charge questions asking a range of technical questions about the peat
soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil biofuels. The charge questions
will include information provided by the public commenters, including a summary of comments that
were critical of EPA's assumptions, along with references and internet links to the original comments.
Furthermore, the charge will provide a list of studies cited by commenters, because the EPA would like
the reviewers to consider the range of relevant scientific literature as they formulate their responses.
The reviewers will be instructed to work independently and will not be asked to reach consensus.
They will send their responses to the contractor, who will summarize the results and compile a peer
review record document. The peer review record will include the charge questions, the contractor's
summary of the reviewers' responses as well as unedited copies of the reviewers' comments. The peer
review record will be made public in its entirety and posted on the public docket with this rulemaking.
This is the same type of peer review process that was used to gather scientific input on EPA's lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis of other types of biofuels (e.g., corn ethanol, soybean oil biodiesel, sugarcane
ethanol) for the March 2010 RFS rule (75 FR 14669)/
5 EPA's emissions factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of COj, i.e., from
decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Carbon stock changes from clearing of above and below-ground biomass, such
as trees and roots, were considered separately.
6 U.S. EPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3fd Edition, EPA/1QO/B-06/002,
http://www.epa.Rov/peerreview/pdfs/peer review handbook 2012,pdf
7 For more information about the peer review conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule see
http://wwv^pa.goy/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/AuKust/Pav-17/al9466.pd
http://www.epa.gpy
Page 2 of 3
-------
IV. Peer Review Candidate Recommendations
One way to participate in this process would be to advise the EPA of qualified candidates to
serve as peer reviewers. Each candidate should have recognized expertise that bears on the subject
matter of GHG emissions from drained tropical peat soil. In determining the most qualified candidates
for the review, the contractor will be instructed to consider each candidate's expertise, knowledge, skills
and experience related to the subject matter. For example, qualified candidates will be expected to have
a doctoral degree in soil science or a related field and publication of peer reviewed journal articles
related to carbon cycling in tropical peat soils. All candidate recommendations will be considered by a
third-party contractor who will independently select the final reviewers based on criteria described in the
Peer Review Handbook, such as: (a) qualifications, (b) independence and appearance of impartiality, and
(c) balance with respect to diversity of scientific and technical perspectives.
Because the reviewers will be selected independently by a third-party contractor, the EPA cannot
make any guarantees about the selection of review candidates that you recommend, but in general highly
qualified candidates who do not have any conflicts of interest8 or appearance of a lack of impartiality9
related to this subject matter should have a higher probability of selection. As such, we welcome all
candidate recommendations that you may have, but we ask that you limit such recommendations to
candidates who will have a high probability of selection based on the criteria described above. The EPA
will forward all of the candidate recommendations that are received to the third-party contractor for
consideration. In order to initiate the peer review in a timely manner we request that you submit any
candidate recommendations by December 13, 2013.
V. Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in EPA's assessment of palm oil-based biofuels under the RFS
program. The Agency recognizes there are many complex issues involved in this analysis. We seek to
gather relevant scientific information from a range of perspectives, and will consider all input carefully
before making any final determinations. The peer review discussed above is an important part of this
process and we welcome your recommendations regarding qualified peer review candidates. We also
welcome any additional information that you wish to submit in a timely manner for consideration by the
peer reviewers. Such information will be added to the public docket and referenced for the reviewers'
consideration. If you have any questions about this proces^please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Levy
of my staff at levy.aaron@epa.gov.
Si
tor
sportation and Air Quality
8 A conflict of interest is generally concerned with matters of financial interest and/or professional standing and status. For
more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review Handbook.
9 In general, lack of impartiality arises when the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question a candidate's impartiality in the matter. For more details see Section 3.4,5 in the EPA Peer Review
Handbook.
Page 3 of 3
-------
t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 ^T77 I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
W 1 2 2013
\
%
'. H=l E
.! * AD I APT'N
Dr. Jeremy Martin
Union of Concerned Scientists
1825 K Street N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Dr. Martin:
I am writing inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supporting a third-party
independent peer review to gather additional input about the science relevant to determining an
appropriate peat soil emissions factor for use in EPA's analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with palm oil-based biofuels, for purposes of determining qualifying biofuels under
the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This letter provides background about EPA's
assessment; explains the scope of the peer review; outlines how the peer review process will work; and
provides further details about what type of candidate recommendations the EPA is seeking,
I. Background
In January 2012, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NOD A) Concerning Renewable
Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.1 As part of this
NODA, the EPA sought comment on its analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions analysis from palm oil-
based biodiesel and renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels had lifecycle GHG emission
reductions of 17% and 11%, respectively versus the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the Agency's
analysis, these biofuels would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold and thus,
with limited exceptions,2 would not qualify as renewable fuel for the RFS program.3
One of the major sources of GHG emissions in EPA's analysis was emissions from development of
palm oil plantations on drained tropical peat soils. For the analysis in the NODA, the EPA used a peat
soil emissions factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare per year (tCO2e/ha/yr) over
the first thirty years following draining of the land, based primarily on the study by Hooijer et al.
(2012).4'5 The EPA chose this emissions factor after a thorough survey of the literature. The EPA has
1 77 FR 4300, http://www.Rpo.ROv/fdsys/pkR/FR-2012-01-27/pdf/2Q12-1784.pdf
2 Biofuel facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 and completed construction prior to December
19, 2010 (domestic and foreign) are not required to meet the 20% GHG threshold to qualify as renewable fuel- such
facilities are "Grandfathered." See 40 CFR 80.1403 for details.
3 EPA's evaluation will not affect palm oil exports to the United States for food or other purposes. This determination also
will not restrict the ability of palm oil biofuels to be imported to the United States. It will only help to determine whether
such fuels are eligible under United States law to be used to comply with the RFS program.
4 Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauniainen, J., Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained
tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9,1053-1071.
Page 1 of 3
internet Address (URL) hltp tfwwwepa gov
Recycled/Recyclable Pnolei! *nn Vegetable Oil Based Inks nr, i . , .,,,-. f^j *-- , Monrnel < I I) r'apei
-------
received over 70,000 public comments on the January 2012 NOD A, including a number with
substantive comments on the peat soil emissions factor used in the Agency's assessment. The
commenters cited various studies and proposed emissions factors ranging from 26 to 103 tCCbe/ha/yr.
II. Scope of the Peer Review
The EPA is conducting further review of the scientific literature to determine if new information
warrants revisiting our choice of emissions factor, considering the comments received on the NODA and
other information published or provided to the Agency. Because this emissions factor is an important
piece of our lifecycle GHG analysis, we are supporting a peer review process to gather additional input
from the scientific community about whether the emissions factor used by the EPA in the January 2012
NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment. The scope of this peer review is limited to the
specific technical issue of the peat soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis for the
RFS program. The information gathered as part of this review will be considered as part of EPA's
ongoing review of the lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels.
III. The Peer Review Process
EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides guidance on conducting peer reviews.6 A third-party
contractor will be tasked with independently selecting the reviewers and managing this technical review.
An important goal of these procedures is to maintain an impartial process.
Once the contractor has selected the qualified reviewers, the peer review will likely take several
months. The reviewers will receive charge questions asking a range of technical questions about the peat
soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil biofuels. The charge questions
will include information provided by the public commenters, including a summary of comments that
were critical of EPA's assumptions, along with references and internet links to the original comments,
Furthermore, the charge will provide a list of studies cited by commenters, because the EPA would like
the reviewers to consider the range of relevant scientific literature as they formulate their responses.
The reviewers will be instructed to work independently and will not be asked to reach consensus.
They will send their responses to the contractor, who will summarize the results and compile a peer
review record document. The peer review record will include the charge questions, the contractor's
summary of the reviewers' responses as well as unedited copies of the reviewers' comments. The peer
review record will be made public in its entirety and posted on the public docket with this rulemaking.
This is the same type of peer review process that was used to gather scientific input on EPA's lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis of other types of biofuels (e.g., corn ethanol, soybean oil biodiesel, sugarcane
ethanol) for the March 2010 RFS rule (75 FR 14669)7
s EPA's emissions factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of COz, i.e., from
decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Carbon stock changes from clearing of above and below-ground biomass, such
as trees and roots, were considered separately.
6 U.S. EPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition, EPA/100/B-06/002,
http://www.epa.gov/peerrevjew7p.dfs/Be_er_^reyiew_ handbook 2012.pdf
7 For more information about the peer review conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule see
http://www.eDa.gov/otaa/fuels/renewablefuels/regulatloM.htm
Page 2 of 3
-------
IV. Peer Review Candidate Recommendations
One way to participate in this process would be to advise the EPA of qualified candidates to
serve as peer reviewers. Each candidate should have recognized expertise that bears on the subject
matter of GHG emissions from drained tropical peat soil. In determining the most qualified candidates
for the review, the contractor will be instructed to consider each candidate's expertise, knowledge, skills
and experience related to the subject matter. For example, qualified candidates will be expected to have
a doctoral degree in soil science or a related field and publication of peer reviewed journal articles
related to carbon cycling in tropical peat soils. All candidate recommendations will be considered by a
third-party contractor who will independently select the final reviewers based on criteria described in the
Peer Review Handbook, such as; (a) qualifications, (b) independence and appearance of impartiality, and
(c) balance with respect to diversity of scientific and technical perspectives.
Because the reviewers will be selected independently by a third-party contractor, the EPA cannot
make any guarantees about the selection of review candidates that you recommend, but in general highly
qualified candidates who do not have any conflicts of interest8 or appearance of a lack of impartiality9
related to this subject matter should have a higher probability of selection. As such, we welcome all
candidate recommendations that you may have, but we ask that you limit such recommendations to
candidates who will have a high probability of selection based on the criteria described above. The EPA
will forward all of the candidate recommendations that are received to the third-party contractor for
consideration. In order to initiate the peer review in a timely manner we request that you submit any
candidate recommendations by December 13,2013.
V. Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in EPA's assessment of palm oil-based biofuels under the RFS
program. The Agency recognizes there are many complex issues involved in this analysis. We seek to
gather relevant scientific information from a range of perspectives, and will consider all input carefully
before making any final determinations. The peer review discussed above is an important part of this
process and we welcome your recommendations regarding qualified peer review candidates. We also
welcome any additional information that you wish to submit in a timely manner for consideration by the
peer reviewers. Such information will be added to the public docket and referenced for the reviewers'
consideration. If you have any questions about this process please dojiot hesitate to contact Aaron Levy
of my staff at levy, aaron@epa.gov.
rundler, Director
spoliation and Air Quality
8 A conflict of interest is generally concerned with matters of financial interest and/or professional standing and status. For
more details see Section 3.4.S in the EPA Peer Review Handbook.
9 In general, lack of impartiality arises when the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question a candidate's impartiality in the matter. For more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review
Handbook,
Page 3 of 3
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
% ttfff^
1 I 2013
I- OF
ANf RA :!/,- : .'i
Dr. Craig Kirkpatrick
World Wildlife Fund
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Dr, Kirkpatrick:
I am writing inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supporting a third-party
independent peer review to gather additional input about the science relevant to determining an
appropriate peat soil emissions factor for use in EPA's analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with palm oil-based biofuels, for purposes of determining qualifying biofuels under
the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This letter provides background about EPA's
assessment; explains the scope of the peer review; outlines how the peer review process will work; and
provides further details about what type of candidate recommendations the EPA is seeking.
I. Background
In January 2012, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) Concerning Renewable
Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program.1 As part of this
NODA, the EPA sought comment on its analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions analysis from palm oil-
based biodiesel and renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels had lifecycle GHG emission
reductions of 17% and 11%, respectively versus the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the Agency's
analysis, these biofuels would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold and thus,
with limited exceptions,2 would not qualify as renewable fuel for the RFS program.3
One of the major sources of GHG emissions in EPA's analysis was emissions from development of
palm oil plantations on drained tropical peat soils. For the analysis in the NODA, the EPA used a peat
soil emissions factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare per year (tCO2e/ha/yr) over
the first thirty years following draining of the land, based primarily on the study by Hooijer et al.
(2012).4'5 The EPA chose this emissions factor after a thorough survey of the literature. The EPA has
1 77 FR 4300, http://www.epo.eov/fdsys/pke/FR-2012-01-27/pdf/ZQ12-1784.pdf
1 Biofuel facilities that commenced construction prior to December 19, 2007 and completed construction prior to December
19, 2010 (domestic and foreign) are not required to meet the 20% GHG threshold to qualify as renewable fuel- such
facilities are "Grandfathered." See 40 CFR 80.1403 for details.
3 EPA's evaluation will not affect palm oil exports to the United States for food or other purposes. This determination also
will not restrict the ability of palm oil biofuels to be imported to the United States. It will only help to determine whether
such fuels are eligible under United States law to be used to comply with the RFS program.
4 Hooijer, A., Page, S. £., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in drained
tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9, 1053-1071.
Page 1 of3
Interne! Addre&s (URL! http '<''AWwepa gov
Recycled'Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on IOCS- Poslrpnsumer Process Chlonne Ftc-r - -
-------
received over 70,000 public comments on the January 2012 NODA, including a number with
substantive comments on the peat soil emissions factor used in the Agency's assessment. The
commenters cited various studies and proposed emissions factors ranging from 26 to 103 tCC^e/ha/yr.
II. Scope of the Peer Review
The EPA is conducting further review of the scientific literature to determine if new information
warrants revisiting our choice of emissions factor, considering the comments received on the NODA and
other information published or provided to the Agency. Because this emissions factor is an important
piece of our lifecycle GHG analysis, we are supporting a peer review process to gather additional input
from the scientific community about whether the emissions factor used by the EPA in the January 2012
NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment. The scope of this peer review is limited to the
specific technical issue of the peat soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis for the
RFS program. The information gathered as part of this review will be considered as part of EPA's
ongoing review of the lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels,
III. The Peer Review Process
EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides guidance on conducting peer reviews.6 A third-party
contractor will be tasked with independently selecting the reviewers and managing this technical review.
An important goal of these procedures is to maintain an impartial process.
Once the contractor has selected the qualified reviewers, the peer review will likely take several
months. The reviewers will receive charge questions asking a range of technical questions about the peat
soil emissions factor used in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil biofuels. The charge questions
will include information provided by the public commenters, including a summary of comments that
were critical of EPA's assumptions, along with references and internet links to the original comments.
Furthermore, the charge will provide a list of studies cited by commenters, because the EPA would like
the reviewers to consider the range of relevant scientific literature as they formulate their responses.
The reviewers will be instructed to work independently and will not be asked to reach consensus.
They will send their responses to the contractor, who will summarize the results and compile a peer
review record document. The peer review record will include the charge questions, the contractor's
summary of the reviewers' responses as well as unedited copies of the reviewers' comments. The peer
review record will be made public in its entirety and posted on the public docket with this rulemaking.
This is the same type of peer review process that was used to gather scientific input on EPA's lifecycle
GHG emissions analysis of other types of biofuels (e.g., corn ethanol, soybean oil biodiesel, sugarcane
ethanol) for the March 2010 RFS rule (75 FR 14669)7
5 EPA's emissions factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of CO2, i.e., from
decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Carbon stock changes from clearing of above and below-ground biomass, such
as trees and roots, were considered separately.
6 U.S. EPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition, EPA/100/B-G6/002,
http://www.epa,JLoy/peerr_eyiew/pdfs/Beer review handbook 2012.pdf
7 For more information about the peer review conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule see
http://www.epa.eov/fedrestr/EPA-AIR/M
http://www.epa.gov/otaa/fuels/renewablefyels/reeulatioris.htrn
Page 2 of 3
-------
IV. Peer Review Candidate Recommendations
One way to participate in this process would be to advise the EPA of qualified candidates to
serve as peer reviewers. Each candidate should have recognized expertise that bears on the subject
matter of GHG emissions from drained tropical peat soil. In determining the most qualified candidates
for the review, the contractor will be instructed to consider each candidate's expertise, knowledge, skills
and experience related to the subject matter. For example, qualified candidates will be expected to have
a doctoral degree in soil science or a related field and publication of peer reviewed journal articles
related to carbon cycling in tropical peat soils. All candidate recommendations will be considered by a
third-party contractor who will independently select the final reviewers based on criteria described in the
Peer Review Handbook, such as: (a) qualifications, (b) independence and appearance of impartiality, and
(c) balance with respect to diversity of scientific and technical perspectives.
Because the reviewers will be selected independently by a third-party contractor, the EPA cannot
make any guarantees about the selection of review candidates that you recommend, but in general highly
qualified candidates who do not have any conflicts of interest8 or appearance of a lack of impartiality9
related to this subject matter should have a higher probability of selection. As such, we welcome all
candidate recommendations that you may have, but we ask that you limit such recommendations to
candidates who will have a high probability of selection based on the criteria described above. The EPA
will forward all of the candidate recommendations that are received to the third-party contractor for
consideration. In order to initiate the peer review in a timely manner we request that you submit any
candidate recommendations by December 13, 2013.
V. Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in EPA's assessment of palm oil-based biofuels under the RFS
program. The Agency recognizes there are many complex issues involved in this analysis. We seek to
gather relevant scientific information from a range of perspectives, and will consider all input carefully
before making any final determinations. The peer review discussed above is an important part of this
process and we welcome your recommendations regarding qualified peer review candidates. We also
welcome any additional information that you wish to submit in a timely manner for consideration by the
peer reviewers. Such information will be added to the public docket and referenced for the reviewers'
consideration. If you have any questions about this process please do not hesitate to contact Aaron Levy
of my staff at levy.aaron@epa.gov.
Christo] ne£Grundler, Director
Office jc f Transportation and Air Quality
8 A conflict of interest is generally concerned with matters of financial interest and/or professional standing and status. For
more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review Handbook.
9 In general, lack of impartiality arises when the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the
relevant facts to question a candidate's impartiality in the matter. For more details see Section 3.4.5 in the EPA Peer Review
Handbook,
Page 3 of B
-------
APPENDIX B
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ANALYSIS AND BIAS QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions
The following questions have been developed to help identify any conflicts of
interest and other concerns regarding each candidate reviewer's ability to independently
evaluate the peat soil emissions factor used by EPA for lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
assessment of palm oil biofuels for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program (hence
referred to as the peat soil emissions factor). Please answer Yes, No or Unsure in
response to each question to the best of your knowledge and belief. If you answer Yes or
Unsure to any of the questions, please provide a detailed explanation on a separate sheet
of paper.
Answering Yes or Unsure to any of the questions will not result in
disqualification. The responses to the questionnaire will only be used to help RTI
International select a balanced, unbiased group of peer reviewers. Responses will not be
publicly released without consent of the candidate and all information will be kept
anonymous to EPA during the selection process.
It is expected that the candidate make a reasonable effort to obtain the answers to
each question. For example, if you are unsure whether you or a relevant associated party
(e.g., spouse, dependent, significant other) has a relevant connection to the peer review
subject, a reasonable effort such as calling or emailing to obtain the necessary
information should be made.
1. Have you had previous involvement with the development of the peat soil
emissions factor under review? Yes/No/Unsure
2. Is there any connection between the palm oil industry and any of your and/or your
spouse's (or other relevant associated party's):
a. Compensated or non-compensated employment, including government
service, during the past 24 months? Yes/No/Unsure
b. Sources of research support and project funding, including from any
government, during the past 24 months? Yes/No/Unsure
c. Consulting activities during the past 24 months? Yes/No/Unsure
d. Expert witness activity during the past 24 months? Yes/No/Unsure
e. Financial holdings (excluding well-diversified mutual funds and holdings,
with a value less than $15,000) Yes/No/Unsure
B-l
-------
3. To the best of your knowledge and belief, is there any direct or significant
financial benefit that might be gained by you or your spouse (or other relevant
associated party) as a result of the outcome of EPA's decision on the eligibility of
biofuel made from palm oil feedstock under the RFS? Yes/No/Unsure
4. Have you made any public statements (written or oral) or taken positions that
would indicate to an observer that you have taken a position on the peat soil
emissions factor or a closely related topic under review? Yes/No/Unsure
5. Have you served on previous advisory panels, committees or subcommittees that
have addressed the peat soil emissions factor under review or addressed a closely
related topic? Yes/No/Unsure
6. Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice
on the matter under review or any reason that your impartiality in the matter
might be questioned? Yes/No/Unsure
7. To the best of your knowledge and belief, is there any other information that
might reasonably raise a question about whether you have an actual or potential
personal conflict of interest or bias regarding the matter under review?
Yes/No/Unsure
Please sign below to certify that:
1. You have fully and to the best of your ability completed this disclosure form,
2. You will update your disclosure form promptly by contacting the RTI
International peer review facilitator if relevant circumstances change,
3. You are not currently arranging new professional relationships with, or obtaining
new financial holdings in, an entity (related to the peer review subject) which is
not yet reported, and
4. The certification below, based on information you have provided, and your CV
may be made public for review and comment.
Signature
Date
(Print name)
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
PEER REVIEWER RESUMES
C-l
-------
updated as of 7/10/2014
Curriculum VitaeSCOTT D. BRIDGHAM
ADDRESS
Department of Biology
1210 University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403-1210
(541) 346-1466; Fax: (541) 346-2364
E-mail: bridgham@uoregon.edu
Web pages: http://ie2.uoregon.edu/faculty_pages/Bridgham.php and
http s: //sites. googl e. com/site/bri dghaml ab/
EDUCATION
Ph.D. 1991, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies (now Nicholas School of the
Environment), Duke University, Durham, NC
Dissertation: Mechanisms Controlling Soil Carbon Cycling in North Carolina Peatlands
Advisor: Curtis Richardson
M.S. 1986, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN.
Thesis: Effects of Low Levels of 2,2'-Dichlorobiphenyl on Daphniapulicaria
Advisor: Donald McNaught
B.A. 1982, Zoology, University of Maine, Orono, with Highest Honors
B.A. 1980, English with emphasis in creative writing, University of Maine, Orono, with Highest
Honors
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Ecosystem ecology and biogeochemistry, climate change impacts on ecosystems, carbon and
nutrient cycling, wetland ecology, trace gas production, plant community ecology,
microbial and plant community structure/ecosystem function interactions, restoration
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Director, Environmental Science Institute, University of Oregon, 2012 - present.
Acting Director, Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Oregon, summer
2006.
Professor, Department of Biology and Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon,
2008 - present.
Associate Professor, Department of Biology and Environmental Studies Program, University of
Oregon, 2003-2008.
Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, 2001 -
2002.
Assistant Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, 1994 -
2001.
Research Associate, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota, Duluth,
1992-1994.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 2 of 21
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of
Minnesota, Duluth, 1991 - 1992. Advisors: Carol Johnston and John Pastor.
Research Assistant, School of the Environment, Duke University, 1986 - 1991.
Research and Teaching Assistant, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavioral Biology,
University of Minnesota, 1983 - 1986.
Field Research Technician, USDA Forest Service, Orono, ME, 1978 - 1979.
HONORS AND AWARDS
Milton Ellis Award for Academic Distinction in English - 1980, University of Maine
Eugene A. Jordan Memorial Scholarship for Outstanding Academic Achievement in Zoology -
1982, University of Maine
National Science Foundation Grant for Improving Doctoral Dissertation Research, 1988 - 1991
Department of Energy Global Change Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1991 - 1993
National Science Foundation CAREER Award, 1996 - 2001
Editorial Board of Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1994 - 1997
Editorial Board of Wetlands, 1997 - 2000.
Chair of the Division S-10, Wetland Soils, Soil Science Society of America, 2001 - 2002
Editorial Board of Biogeochemistry, 2004 - 2008
West Eugene Wetlands Appreciation Award, 2006
Chair, Global Change Section of the Society of Wetland Scientists, 2012
Fellow of the Society of Wetland Scientists, 2012
Two papers chosen for 30-year Commemorative Issue of journal Wetlands
(http://www.springer.co m/life+sciences/ecologv/jourtial/13157?detailsPage=press')
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Ecological Society of America
Soil Science Society of America
Society of Wetland Scientists
GRANTS
Controls over methane cycling in tropical wetlands. Research, Innovation, and Graduate
Education Office, University of Oregon, $5,000 (matched by $2,000 from Gabon-Oregon
Transnational Research Center), 5/2014-4/2015. (Principal Investigator)
How do Temperature and Soil Organic Matter Inputs Mediate the Organic Molecular
Composition of Soils? Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Department of Energy, 2013. EMSL to provide instrumentation and
technical expertise. (Principal Investigator, with PhD student Lorien Reynolds)
Understanding the Mechanisms Underlying Heterotrophic CO2 andCH4 Fluxes inaPeatland
with Deep Soil Warming and Atmospheric CO 2 Enrichment, Department of Energy,
$1,047,425, 8/2012 - 7/2015. (Principal Investigator, subcontracts to Chapman Univ. and
Purdue Univ.)
Dissertation Research: Microbial Community Structure and Ecosystem Function: Linking
Methanogen Community Composition to Methane Production Rates in Wetland Soils,
National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant to Steven A.
McAllister and co-advisors. $14,967, 6/2012 - 5/2014.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 3 of 21
University of Oregon College of Arts and Sciences Program Grant to assist in the establishment
of an Environmental Sciences Institute. $5,000,2011. (Principal Investigator)
Climate Effects on Plant Range Distributions and Community Structure of Pacific Northwest
Prairies, Department of Energy, $1,835,510, 1/2009 - 12/2013. (Principal Investigator)
Collaborative Research: Why Does Methane Production Vary Dramatically Among Wetlands?,
National Science Foundation, $890,000, 8/2008 - 10/2012. (Principal Investigator) 3
Research for Experience for Undergraduates Supplements, $22,000.
Collaborative Research: The Interactions of Climate Change, Land Management Policies and
Forest Succession on Fire Hazard and Ecosystem Trajectories in the Wildland-Urban
Interface, National Science Foundation, $1,133,152, 8/2008- 1/2013. (Co-Principal
Investigator). 1 Research for Experience for Undergraduates Supplement, $15,850.
Linking the FlamMap and Envision Simulation Models, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S.
Forest Service, $45,000, 5/2009 - 4/2011. (Co-Principal Investigator).
Beyond the MonodEquation: Developing a New Theory of Geomicrobial Kinetics, National
Science Foundation, $300,000, 9/2008 - 8/2012. (Co-Principal Investigator)
A Landscape-Level Approach to Fuels Management Through Ecological Restoration:
Developing a Knowledge Base for Application to Historic Oak-Pine Savanna, Joint Fire
Science Program, $393,110, 5/2004 - 7/2008. (Co-Principal Investigator)
The Role of Salmon-Derived Nutrients in Managed U.S. Forests. USDA National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program, $497,041, 1/2006 - 12/2008. (Collaborator, no
money comes directly to Univ. of Oregon)
The Effects of the Invasive Grasses Phalaris arundinacea and Zoster a japonica on Ecosystem
Processes in the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, Oregon, USA,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $60,000, 6/2004 - 5/2008. (Fellowship
for graduate student, Lisa Turnbull)
Plant and Soil Responses to Experimental Restoration Techniques in the West Eugene Wetlands,
Environmental Protection Agency (through Lane Community Council of Governments),
$78,762, 1/2004 - 9/2007. (Principal Investigator)
Interactive Effects of Climate Change, Wetlands, and Dissolved Organic Matter on UV Damage
to Aquatic Foodwebs, Environmental Protection Agency, $937,009, 7/2002 - 6/2006.
(Principal Investigator, subcontracts to Univ. of Notre Dame and South Dakota State Univ.)
Collaborative Research: Interactions Among Global Change Stressors In Northern Fens:
Atmospheric CO 2, Temperature, And Hydrology, National Science Foundation, $20,454,
6/2003 - 6/2004. (Co-Principal Investigator)
Hydro-Bio-Geochemical Controls on the Dissolved Organic Matter Content in UNDERC
Wetlands, University of Notre Dame, $11,900, 4/2001 - 3/2002. (Co-Principal
Investigator)
BiocomplexityIncubation Activity on Biocomplexity in Peatlands, National Science
Foundation, $99,540, 9/2000 - 8/2004. (Principal Investigator)
Retention of Soluble Organic Nutrients in Ecosystems During Primary Succession and Soil
Development, National Science Foundation, $224,628, 10/1999 - 9/2003. (Co-Principal
Investigator, subcontract from Univ. of Nevada-Reno)
Effects of Climate Change and Plant Community Composition on Methane Cycling in Peatlands,
National Science Foundation, $11,026, 7/1998 - 6/2002. (Co-Principal Investigator,
subcontract from Univ. of Indiana)
-------
Bridgham, CV, 4 of 21
Carbon and Energy Flow and Plant Community Response to Climate Change in Peatlands,
National Science Foundation, $1,200,000, 8/1997 - 7/2003. Five Research for Experience
for Undergraduates Supplements, $40,500. (Principal Investigator, subcontracts to Univ. of
Minnesota and Univ. of Toledo)
Multiple Environmental Gradients Structuring Peatland Communities, National Science
Foundation CAREER award, $420,000, 9/1996 - 8/2003. 1 Research for Experience for
Undergraduates Supplement, $6,000. (Principal Investigator)
Environmental Stress in Ecosystems: Linking Ecology and Engineering, Graduate Research
Training Program In Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation, $537,500,
8/1995 - 7/2000. (Co-Principal Investigator with 11 others)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Boreal Peatlands: A Mesocosm Approach,
National Science Foundation, $800,000, 7/1993 - 12/1997. 4 Research for Experience for
Undergraduates Supplements, $28,650. (Principal Investigator, subcontracts to Univ. of
Minnesota and Michigan Technological Univ.)
Constructed Wetlands for Treating Aquaculture Wastes, Minnesota Technology Inc./Iron Range
Resources and Rehabilitation Board, $257,852, 9/1993 - 8/1995. (Co-Principal
Investigator)
Spatial Dynamics of Nutrient and Sediment Removal by Riverine Wetlands, USD A National
Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, $200,000, 10/1992 - 9/1994. (Co-
Principal Investigator)
U.S. Department of Energy Global Change Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship, $77,000,
9/1991-9/1993.
Mechanisms Controlling Decomposition Dynamics along a Phosphorus Availability Gradient in
Freshwater Wetlands, National Science Foundation Grant for Improving Doctoral
Dissertation Research, $10,000, 1988- 1991.
REVIEWER FOR JOURNALS
Agricultural Systems; American Midland Naturalist; American Naturalist; Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Biogeochemistry; Canadian Journal of Botany;
Climate Change; Earth-Science Reviews; Ecology; Ecological Applications; Ecological
Engineering; Ecoscience; Ecosystems; Environmental Pollution; Functional Ecology; Global
Biogeochemical Cycles; Global Change Biology; Journal of Environmental Quality; Journal of
Geophysical Research; Journal of Great Lakes Research; Landscape Ecology; Landscape
Ecology; Nature; New Phytologist; Plant and Soil; Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, U.S.A.; Restoration Ecology; Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research; Soil Biology
and Biochemistry; Soil Science; Soil Science Society of America Journal; Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution; Wetlands; Wetlands Ecology and Management
ASSOCIATE EDITOR FOR JOURNALS
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1994 - 1997.
Wetlands, 1997-2000.
Biogeochemistry, 2004 - 2008.
AD HOC REVIEWER FOR GRANTING AGENCIES
Cottrell College Science Awards, Research Corporation for Science Advancement
-------
Bridgham, CV, 5 of 21
Department of Agriculture, National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program:
Ecosystems, Soils and Soil Biology, Watershed Processes and Water Resources Programs
Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
Department of Energy - Terrestrial Carbon Processes Program, National Institute for Climatic
Change Research Program
Environmental Protection Agency - Wetland's Program
Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom
Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station
Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Ecosystem Dynamics and Biogeochemical
Processes Program
National Environment Research Council, United Kingdom
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada
National Science Foundation - Atmospheric Chemistry, Ecosystems, Ecological Studies,
Hydrologic Sciences, Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry, Office of Polar
Programs, Arctic Natural Sciences and Visiting Professorship for Women Programs,
Biocomplexity Program, International Program, Integrated Research Challenges in
Environmental Biology, Frontiers in Integrative Biological Research, Marine Geology and
Geophysics, Microbial Observatories, Geobiology and Low Temperature Geochemistry
Netherlands Geosciences Foundation
NSF/DOE/NASA/USDA Joint Program on Terrestrial Ecology and Global Change
NSF/EPA Partnership for Environmental Research, Water and Watersheds
USDA Forest Service - Southern Forest Experimental Station
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AND ACTIVITIES
Wetlands Ecologist Search Committee member, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.
National Science Foundation Workshop on Soil-Warming Experiments in Global Change
Research, Woods Hole, MA, Sept. 27-28, 1991, participant.
National Institute of Health Summer Minority High School Student Research Apprentice
Program, sponsored students in 1992 - 1993.
Chairperson for session, Dynamics of Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems, 1993 Annual Meeting
of Ecological Society of America, Madison, WI.
Judge for Buell Award for best student oral presentation, 1993, 1995, 1999 Annual Meeting of
Ecological Society of America.
Judge for best student oral presentation, 1994 - 1995, 1998, 2000 Annual Meetings of the
Society of Wetland Scientists.
Review of aquatics program for Ottawa, Nicolet, and Chequamegon National Forests, Sept. 19,
1994.
Panel member for NSF/DOE/NASA/USDA Joint Program on Terrestrial Ecology and Global
Change, June 1995.
Panel member for NSF/EPA Partnership for Environmental Research, Water and Watersheds,
July 1996.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 6 of 21
Invited participant for the Upper Great Lakes Regional Climate Change Impacts Workshop, US
Global Change Research Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, May 4-7,
1998.
Steering Committee of the Indiana Grand Kankakee Marsh Restoration Project, 1998 - 2002.
Invited participant at the National Science Foundation CAREER Program Principal Investigator
Meeting, Washington, DC, Jan. 10-12, 1999.
Invited participant at workshop titled A Cross Biome Synthesis of Ecosystem Response to Global
Warming held at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara,
CA, Feb. 1-5, 1999.
Leader of Minnesota peatlands site in the initiative Terrestrial Ecosystem Response to
Atmospheric and Climate Change (TERACC), under the auspices of the International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP).
Invited participant at workshop titled Synchotron Environmental Science held at Advance Photon
Source of the Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, IL, April 19-21, 1999.
Hosted sabbatical of Dr. Danilo Lopez-Hernandez from the Universidad Central de Venezuela
from 1/99 through 5/99.
Chair of the Division S-10, Wetland Soils, of the Soil Science Society of America, 2001 - 2002.
Chairperson for session, Wetland Greenhouse Gases, in INTECOL International Wetland
Conference VI and the annual meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Quebec,
Canada, Aug. 6-12, 2000.
Chairperson and organizer for session, Carbon Cycling and Sequestration in Wetlands, Seventh
International Symposium on the Biogeochemistry of Wetlands, Duke University, Durham,
NC, June 17-20,2001.
Invited participant at workshop titled Regulation of Organic Matter in Soils and Sediments,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, July 27-28, 2001.
Panel member for Soils and Soil Biology Program, National Research Initiative Competitive
Grants Program (NRICGP), USD A, 4/2002.
Interviewed on local news, WSBT, on Jan. 14, 2002 on climate change impacts on US. Other
occasional interviews with radio and newspaper media.
Tenure reviews for Cornell University (2001), Indiana University (2002), University of
Tennessee (2002).
Reviewer for Confronting Climate Change In The Great Lakes Region: Impacts on Our
Communities and Ecosystems, report by the Ecological Society of America and Union of
Concerned Scientists, 10/02.
Invited participant at a scientific roundtable to discuss carbon sequestration as a mechanism of
wetland restoration in Eastern North Carolina peatlands, US Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Conservation Fund, Raleigh, NC, Nov. 18, 2002.
Attended workshop on "Interactions between increasing CO2 and temperature in terrestrial
ecosystems," Terrestrial Ecosystem Response to Atmospheric & Climate Change
(TERACC), International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, Lake Tahoe, April 27-30, 2003.
Assessment team for research program of Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Reserve in Homer,
AK, June 23-26, 2003.
Chairperson for session "Wetland Microbial Processes," annual meeting of the Soil Science
Society of America, Nov. 2-6, 2003 Denver, CO.
External examiner for Ph.D. thesis at the University Waikato, New Zealand, 2005.
Requested letter in support of chaired position for faculty member at the University of Wales,
-------
Bridgham, CV, 7 of 21
Bangor, 2005.
Lead author on wetlands chapter in The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): North
American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. Synthesis and
Assessment Report 2.2 (SAR 2.2) by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 2005-2007.
Participated in panel discussion for "Advocates for the Land: Photography in the American
West" at the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, University of Oregon, Sept. 7, 2005.
Evaluator for faculty member for promotion to full professor, University of Nevada at Reno,
Sept. 2006.
Panel member for EPA STAR graduate fellowship program (microbiology panel), March 2007.
Reviewed 41 pre-proposals for DOE National Institute for Climatic Research (NICCR), Midwest
region, 2007.
Panel member of EPA STAR solicitation on Ecological Impacts from the Interaction of Climate
Change, Land Use Change, and Invasive Species: Aquatic Ecosystems, Oct. 1-3, 2007.
Panel member for U.S. DOE National Institute for Climate Change Research, Midwest region,
2007, 2008.
On Oregon University System screening committee for the Director of the Oregon Climate
Change Research Institute, 2008.
Invited participant to PEATNET workshop on "Why Is There Peat?", Villanova University,
March 27-28, 2008.
Invited participant for U.S. DOE sponsored workshop on "Exploring Science Needs for the Next
Generation of Climate Change and Elevated CO2 Experiments in Terrestrial Ecosystems,"
Crystal City, VA, April 14-18, 2008.
Invited participant in Upper Willamette Watershed Climate Futures Workshop, Eugene, OR,
Sept. 23, 2008.
Evaluator for faculty promotion to full professor, York University, Canada, 2009.
Chairperson for session "Wetland Vegetation Dynamics" in annual meeting of the Society of
Wetland Scientists, Madison, WI, June 22-26, 2009.
Invited participant in Expert Workshop: Achieving Carbon Offsets through Mangroves and other
Wetlands, lUCN/Ramsar/Danone, Gland, Switzerland, Nov. 9-11, 2009.
Board of Advisors for SPRUCE experiment (large manipulative climate change treatment in a
Minnesota peatland) of the U.S. DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental
Sciences Division, 2009 - 2012.
Member of Integrated Network for Terrestrial Ecosystem Research on Feedbacks to the
Atmosphere and Climate (INTERFACE): Linking experimentalists, ecosystem modelers,
and Earth system modelers. 2011- present.
Invited participant in workshop on How Do We Improve Earth System Models: Integrating Earth
System Models, Ecosystem Models, Experiments and Long-Term Data, organized by
Integrated Network for Terrestrial Ecosystem Research on Feedbacks to the Atmosphere
and Climate (INTERFACE), Captiva Island, FL, Feb. 28-March 3, 2011.
Invited speaker on Challenges and Opportunity for Carbon Sequestration in the Restoration of
Wetlands, Department of Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration
Program Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, March 24, 2011.
Hosted high school student for summer research internship for Saturday Academy
Apprenticeships in Science & Engineering Program, 2011, 2012.
Interviewed by NPR reporter for Oregon and Washington concerning DOE-funded manipulative
-------
Bridgham, CV, 8 of 21
climate change experiment, June 10, 2011.
Chair, Global Change Section of the Society of Wetland Scientists, 2012.
Evaluator for faculty promotion to associate professor and tenure, Michigan Technological
University, 2012.
Co-authored an invited resolution concerning wetlands and climate change at INTECOL
International Wetlands Conference, Orlando, FL June 3-8, 2012.
Co-Moderator and organizer of session "Methane Dynamics in Peatland Ecosystems" at
INTECOL International Wetlands Conference, Orlando, FL June 3-8, 2012.
Member of site visit committee for Industrial Research Chair and Collaborative Research and
Development Grant at Universite Laval, Quebec City for Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council, Canada, Nov. 12, 2012.
Technical team for freshwater indicators of climate change as part of the U.S. National Climate
Assessment, 2013 - current.
Invited panel member of workshop "Belowground Carbon Cycling Processes at the Molecular
Scale," Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, Dept. of Energy, Feb. 19-21, 2013.
Invited participant in Dept. of Energy Terrestrial Ecosystem/Subsurface Biogeochemical
Research Joint Investigators Meeting, Potomac, MD, May 13-15, 2013.
Co-Moderator and organizer of session "Peatlands and Global Change" at Society of Wetland
Scientists meeting, Duluth, MN, June 3-7, 2013.
Evaluator for faculty member for promotion to full professor, Louisiana State University, 2013.
Co-Moderator and organizer of session, "Trace Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration in
Wetlands and Lakes" at Joint Aquatic Sciences meeting, Portland, OR, May 18-23, 2014.
Quoted in news article in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment concerning the launching the
Global Freshwater Biodiversity Atlas, Feb. 2014.
PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS
(* = undergraduate student, # = graduate student, A = postdoctoral associate, f = technician)
1) Bridgham, S. D. 1988. Chronic effects of 2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl on reproduction, mortality,
growth, and respiration ofDaphniapulicaria. Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology 17: 731-740.
2) Bridgham, S. D., S. P. Faulkner#, and C. J. Richardson. 1991. Steel rod oxidation as a
hydrologic indicator in wetland soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 55:856-862.
3) Bridgham, S. D., C. J. Richardson, E. Maltby, and S. P. Faulkner#. 1991. Cellulose decay in
natural and disturbed peatlands in North Carolina, U.S.A. Journal of Environmental Quality
20:695-701.
4) Bridgham, S. D. and C. J. Richardson. 1992. Mechanisms controlling soil respiration (CO2
and CH/j) in southern peatlands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 24:1089-1099.
5) Bridgham, S.D. and C. J. Richardson. 1993. Hydrology and nutrient gradients in North
Carolina peatlands. Wetlands 13:207-218.
6) Bridgham, S. D., J. Pastor, C. A. McClaugherty, and C. J. Richardson. 1995. Nutrient-use
efficiency: a litterfall index, a model, and a test along a nutrient availability gradient in North
Carolina peatlands. American Naturalist 145:1-21.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 9 of 21
7) Updegraff, K.f, J. Pastor, S. D. Bridgham, and C. A. Johnston. 1995. Environmental and
substrate controls over carbon and nitrogen mineralization in northern wetlands. Ecological
Applications 5:151-163.
8) Bridgham, S. D., C. A. Johnston, J. Pastor, and K. Updegrafff. 1995. Potential feedbacks of
northern wetlands on climate change. BioScience 45:262-274.
9) Bridgham, S. D., J. Pastor, J. A. Janssens, C. Chapin#, and T. J. Malterer. 1996. Multiple
limiting gradients in peatlands: A call for a new paradigm. Wetlands 16:45-65. (One of 30
papers chosen for 30-yr commemorative issue of journal:
http://www.springer.co m/life+sciences/ecologv/iournal/13157?detailsPage=press)
10) Bridgham, S. D., K. Updegrafff, and J. Pastor. 1998. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus
mineralization in northern wetlands. Ecology 79:1545-1561.
11)Updegraff, K.f, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, and P. Weishampelf. 1998. Hysteresis in the
temperature response of carbon dioxide and methane production in peat soils.
Biogeochemistry 43:253-272.
12) Pastor, J., and S. D. Bridgham. 1999. Nutrient efficiency along nutrient availability
gradients. Oecologia 118:50-58.
13) Bridgham, S. D., J. Pastor, K. Updegrafff, T. J. Malterer, K. Johnsonj, C. Harthf, and J.
Chen. 1999. Ecosystem control over temperature and energy flux in northern peatlands.
Ecological Applications 9: 1345-1358.
14)Weltzin, J. F.A, J. Pastor, C. Harthf, S. D. Bridgham, K. Updegrafff, and C. T. Chapin#.
2000. Response of bog and fen plant communities to warming and water-table
manipulations. Ecology 81: 3464-3478.
15)Updegraff, K.f, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, P. Weishampelj, and C. Harthf. 2001. Response
of CO2 and CH4 emissions in peatlands to warming and water-table manipulation.
Ecological Applications 11: 311-326.
16)Bridgham, S. D., K. Updegrafff, and J. Pastor. 2001. A comparison of nutrient availability
indices along an ombrotrophicminerotrophic gradient in Minnesota wetlands. Soil Science
Society of America 65:259-269.
17) Johnston, C. A., S. D. Bridgham, and J. P. Schubauer-Berigan. 2001. Nutrient dynamics in
relation to geomorphology of riverine wetlands. Soil Science Society of America Journal
65:557-577.
18)Bridgham, S. D., C. A. Johnston, J. P. Schubauer-Berigan, and P. Weishampelt- 2001.
Phosphorus sorption dynamics in soils and coupling with surface and pore water in riverine
wetlands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65: 577-588.
19) Weltzin, J. F.A, C. Harthf, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, and M. Vonderharr#. 2001.
Production and microtopography of bog bryophytes: response to warming and water-table
manipulations. Oecologia 128: 557-565.
20)Rustad, L. E., J. L. Campbell, G. M. Marion, R. J. Norby, M. J.Mitchell, A. E. Hartley, J. H.
C. Cornelissen, J. Gurevitch and GCTE-NEWS. 2001. Meta-analysis of the response of soil
respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental
ecosystem warming. Oecologia 126:243-262 (I was part of the workshop, 'GCTE-NEWS',
-------
Bridgham, CV, 10 of 21
that formulated this paper, and am acknowledged as such on the paper.
21)Kellogg, C. H.#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2002. Colonization during early succession of
restored freshwater marshes. Canadian Journal of Botany 80: 176-185.
22) Pastor, I, B. Peckham, S. Bridgham, J. WeltzinA, and J. Chen. 2002. Plant dynamics,
nutrient cycling, and multiple stable equilibria in peatlands. American Naturalist 160:553-
568.
23) Bridgham, S. D. 2002. Commentary: nitrogen, translocation, and Sphagnum mosses. New
Phytologist 156:140-141.
24)Weltzin, J. F.A, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, J. Chen, and C. Harthf. 2003. Potential effects of
warming and drying on peatland plant community composition. Global Change Biology 9:1-
11.
25) Pastor, J., J. Solin#, S. D. Bridgham, K. Updegrafff, C. Harthf, P. Weishampelj, and B.
Dewey|. 2003. Global warming and the export of dissolved organic carbon from boreal
peatlands. Oikos 100: 380-386.
26) Kellogg, L. E.# and S. D. Bridgham. 2003. Phosphorous retention and movement compared
across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic gradient in Michigan. Biogeochemistry 63:299-315.
27) Kellogg, C. H.#, S. D. Bridgham, and S. A. Leicht*. 2003. Effects of water level, shade and
time on germination and growth of freshwater marsh plants along a simulated successional
gradient. Journal of Ecology 91:274-282.
28) Vile, M. A.#, S. D. Bridgham, R. K. Wieder, and M. Novak. 2003. Atmospheric sulfur
deposition alters pathways of gaseous carbon production in peatlands. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 17:1058-1064.
29) Vile, M. A.#, S. D. Bridgham, and R. K. Wieder. 2003. Response of anaerobic carbon
mineralization rates to sulfate amendments in a boreal peatland. Ecological Applications
13:720-734.
30) Bridgham, S. D., and C. J. Richardson. 2003. Endogenous versus exogenous nutrient
control over decomposition in North Carolina peatlands. Biogeochemistry 65:151-178.
31)Xenopoulos, M. A.A, D. M. Lodge, J. Frentress#, T. A. Kreps#,S. D. Bridgham, E.
Grossman*, and C. J. Jackson*. 2003. Regional comparisons of watershed determinants of
dissolved organic carbon in temperate lakes from the Upper Great Lakes region and selected
regions globally. Limnology and Oceanography 48:2321-2334.
32)Chapin, C. T.#, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, and K. Updegrafff. 2003. Nitrogen, phosphorus,
and carbon mineralization in response to nutrient and lime additions in peatlands. Soil
Science 168:409-420.
33)Bauer, C. R.#, C. H. Kellogg#, S. D. Bridgham, and G. A. Lamberti. 2003. Mycorrhizal
colonization across hydrologic gradients in restored and reference freshwater wetlands.
Wetlands 23:961-968.
34)Lilienfein, J.A, R. G. Quails, S. M. Uselman#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2003. Soil formation
and organic matter accretion in a young andesitic chronosequence at Mt Shasta, California.
Geoderma 116:249-264.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 11 of 21
35)Keller, J. K.#, J. R. White, S. D. Bridgham, and J. Pastor. 2004. Climate change effects on
carbon and nitrogen mineralization in peatlands through changes in soil quality. Global
Change Biology 10:1053-1064.
36)Lilienfein, J.A, R. G. Quails, S. M. Uselman#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Adsorption of
dissolved organic and inorganic phosphorus in soils of a weathering chronosequence. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 68:620-628.
37)Lilienfein, J.A, R. G. Quails, S. M. Uselman#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Adsorption of
dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen in soils of a weathering chronosequence. Soil Science
Society of America Journal 68:292-305.
38) Chapin, C. T.#, S. D. Bridgham, and J. Pastor. 2004. pH and nutrient effects on above-
ground net primary production in a Minnesota, US A bog and fen. Wetlands 24:186-201.
39) Kellogg, C. H.#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Effects of disturbance, seed bank, and
herbivory on dominance of an invasive grass. Biological Invasions 6(3):319-329.
40)Noormets, A.A, J. Chen, S. D. Bridgham, J. F. WeltzinA, J. Pastor, B. Deweyt, and J.
LeMoine#. 2004. The effects of infrared loading and water table on soil energy fluxes in
northern peatlands. Ecosystems 7:573-582.
41)Pendall, E., S. Bridgham, P. J. Hanson, B. Hungate, D. W. Kicklighter, D. W. Johnson, B. E.
Law, Y. Luo, J. P. Megonigal, M. Olsrud, M. G. Ryan, and S. Wan. 2004. Below-ground
process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature: a discussion of observations,
measurement methods, and models. New Phytologist 162:311-322.
42) Young, K. C.#, P. A. Maurice, K. M. Docherty#, and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Bacterial
degradation of dissolved organic matter from two northern Michigan streams.
Geomicrobiology Journal 21:521-528.
43)Keller, J. K.#, S. D. Bridgham, C. T. Chapin#, and C. M. Iversen#. 2005. Limited effects of
six years of fertilization on carbon mineralization dynamics in a Minnesota fen. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry 37(6): 1197-1204.
44)Frost, P. C.A, J. H. Larson#, L. E. Kinsman*, G. A. Lamberti, and S. D. Bridgham. 2005.
Attenuation of ultraviolet radiation in streams of northern Michigan. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 24(2):246-255.
45) Weltzin, J. F.A, J. K. Keller#, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, P. B. Allen#, and J. Chen. 2005.
Litter controls plant community composition in a northern fen. Oikos 110:537-546.
46) Young, K. C.# , K. M. Docherty#, P. A. Maurice, and S. D. Bridgham. 2005. Degradation
of surface-water dissolved organic matter: influences of DOM chemical composition and
microbial populations. Hydrobiologia 539:1-11.
47) Quails, R. G. and S. D. Bridgham. 2005. Mineralization rate of 14C labeled dissolved
organic matter from leaf litter in soils from a weathering chronosequence. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 37:905-916.
48) Frost, P. C.A, J. H. Larson#, C. A. Johnston, K. C. Young#, P. A. Maurice, G. A. Lamberti,
and S. D. Bridgham. 2006. Landscape predictors of stream dissolved organic matter
concentration and physicochemistry in a Lake Superior river watershed. Aquatic Sciences
68:40-51.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 12 of 21
49) Kellogg, L. E.#, S. D. Bridgham, and D. Lopez-Hernandez. 2006. A comparison of four
methods of measuring gross phosphorus mineralization. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 70:1349-1358.
50)Keller, J. K.#, A. K. Bauers#, S. D. Bridgham, L. E. Kellogg#, and C. M. Iversen#. 2006.
Nutrient control of microbial carbon cycling along an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic peatland
gradient. Journal of Geophysical ResearchBiogeosciences 111, G03006,
doi: 10.1029/2005 JGOOO152.
51)Frost, P. C.A, A. Mack*, J. H. Larson#, S. D. Bridgham, and G. A. Lamberti. 2006.
Environmental controls of UV radiation in forested streams of northern Michigan.
Photochemistry and Photobiology 82:781-786.
52)Bridgham, S. D., J. P. Megonigal, J. K. KellerA, N. B. Bliss, and C. Trettin. 2006. The
carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands 26:889-916. (selected for Faculty
of 1000 Biology and one of 30 papers chosen for 30-yr commemorative issue of the
journal: http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ecologv/iournal/13157?detailsPage=press)
53)Docherty, K. M.#, K. C. Young#, P. A. Maurice, and S. D. Bridgham. 2006. Dissolved
organic matter concentration and quality influences upon structure and function of freshwater
microbial communities. Microbial Ecology 52:378-388.
54)Frost, P. C.A, C. T. Cherriert, J. H. Larson, S. Bridgham, and G. A. Lamberti. 2007 Effects
of dissolved organic matter and ultraviolet radiation on the accrual, stoichiometry, and algal
taxonomy of stream periphyton. Freshwater Biology 52:319-330.
55) Keller, J. K.# and S. D. Bridgham. 2007. Pathways of anaerobic carbon cycling across an
ombrotrophic-minerotrophic peatland gradient. Limnology and Oceanography 52:96-107.
56)Larson, J. H.#, P. C. FrostA, Z. Zheng, C. A. Johnston, S. D. Bridgham, D. M. Lodge, and G.
A. Lamberti. 2007. Effects of upstream lakes on dissolved organic matter in streams.
Limnology and Oceanography 52:60-69.
57)Pfeifer-Meister#, L. and S. D. Bridgham. 2007. Seasonal and spatial controls over nutrient
cycling in a Pacific Northwest prairie. Ecosystems 10:1250-1260.
58)Pfeifer-Meister, L.#, E. Cole*, B. A. Roy, and S. D. Bridgham. 2008. Abiotic constraints on
the competitive ability of exotic and native grasses in a Pacific Northwest prairie. Oecologia
155:357-366.
59) White, J. R., R. D. Shannon, J. F. WeltzinA, J. Pastor, and S. D. Bridgham. 2008. Effects of
soil warming and drying on methane cycling in a northern peatland mesocosm study. Journal
of Geophysical ResearchBiogeosciences, 113, GOOA06, doi:10.1029/2007JG000609.
60) Chen, J., S. Bridgham, J. Kellerj, J. Pastor, A. NoormetsA, and J. F. WeltzinA. 2008.
Temperature responses to infrared-loading and water table manipulations in peatland
mesocosms. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 50:1484-1496.
61) Johnston, C. A., B. A. Shmagin, P. C. FrostA, C. Cherriert, J. H. Larson#, G. A. Lamberti,
and S. D. Bridgham. 2008. Wetland types and wetland maps differ in ability to predict
dissolved organic carbon in streams. Science of the Total Environment 404:326-334.
62) Bridgham, S. D., J. Pastor, B. Deweyt, J. F. WeltzinA, and K. Updegrafff. 2008. Rapid
carbon response of peatlands to climate change. Ecology 89:3041-3048.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 13 of 21
63)Iversen#, C. M., S. D. Bridgham, and L. E. Kellogg#. 2010. Scaling nitrogen use and uptake
efficiencies in response to nutrient additions in peatlands. Ecology 91:693-707.
64) D'Amore, D. V., N. Bonzeyt, J. Berkowitz|, J. Riiegg#, and S. Bridgham. 2010. Holocene
soil-geomorphic surfaces influence the role of salmon-derived nutrients in the coastal
temperate rainforest of southeast Alaska. Geomorphology
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.04.014.
65)Bachelet, D., B. R. Johnson, S. D. Bridgham, P. V. Dunn, H. E. Anderson, and B. M. Rogers.
2011. Climate change impacts on Western Pacific Northwest prairies and savannas.
Northwest Science 85:411-429. (http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3955/046.085.0224)
66) Yospin#, G. I, S. D. Bridgham, J. Kertis, and B. R. Johnson. 2012. Ecological correlates of
fuel dynamics and potential fire behavior in former upland prairie and oak savanna. Forest
Ecology and Management 266:54-65.
67) Ye, R.A, Q. Jin, B. Bohannan, J. K. Keller, S. A. McAllister*, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012.
pH controls over anaerobic carbon mineralization, the efficiency of methane production, and
methanogenic pathways in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic gradient. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry 54:36-47.
68)Pfeifer-MeisterA, L., B. R. Johnson, B. A. Roy, S. Carrefio#, J. L. Stuart#, and S. D.
Bridgham. 2012. Restoring wetland prairies: tradeoffs among native plant cover,
community composition, and ecosystem functioning. Ecosphere 3(12): art 121
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00261.n.
69)Pfeifer-MeisterA, L., B. A. Roy, B. R. Johnson, J. Kruger, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012.
Dominance of native grasses leads to community convergence in wetland restoration. Plant
Ecology 213:637-647.
70)Bridgham, S. D., H. Cadillo-Quiroz, J. K. Keller, and Q. Zhuang. 2013. Methane emissions
from wetlands: biogeochemical, microbial, and modeling perspectives from local to global
scales. Global Change Biology 19:1325-1346. (one of 20 most downloaded papers in Wiley
Online Library in 2013)
71)Pfeifer-MeisterA, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. TomaszewskiA, C. J. Litflef, L. L. Reynolds#, M. E.
Goklany#, and B. R. Johnson. 2013. Pushing the limit: Experiment evidence of climate
effects on plant range distributions. Ecology 94 (10):2131-2137.
72) YeA, R., Q. Jin, B. Bohannan, J. K. Keller, and S. D. Bridgham. 2014. Homoacetogenesis: A
potentially underappreciated carbon pathway in peatlands. Soil Biology and Biochemistry
68:385-391.
73) YeA, R. J. K. Keller, Q. Jin, B. J. M. Bohannan, and S. D. Bridgham. Submitted. Mechanisms
for the suppression of methane production in peatland soils by a humic substance analog.
Biogeosciences Discuss 11:1739-1771 (http://www.biogeosciences-
discuss.net/11/1739/2014/).
74) Yospin#, G. I, S. D. Bridgham, R. P. Neilson, J. P. Bolte, D. M. Bachelet, P. J. Gould, C. A.
Harrington, J. K. Kertis, C. Evers|, and B. R. Johnson. In revision. A new model to simulate
climate change impacts on forest succession for local land management. Ecological
Applications.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 14 of 21
PEER-REVIEWED BOOK CHAPTERS/PROCEEDINGS
(* = undergraduate student, # = graduate student, A = postdoctoral associate, f = technician)
1) Bridgham, S. D., D. C. McNaught, C. Meadowst- 1988. Effects of complex effluents on
photosynthesis in Lake Erie and Lake Huron. Pages 74-84 in Functional Testing of Aquatic
Biota for Estimating Hazards of Chemicals, J. Cairns, Jr. and J. R. Pratt, eds. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
2) McNaught, D. C., S. D. Bridgham, and C. Meadowsj. 1988. Effects of complex effluents
from the River Raisin on zooplankton grazing in Lake Erie. Pages 128-137 in Functional
Testing of Aquatic Biota for Estimating Hazards of Chemicals, J. Cairns, Jr. and J. R. Pratt,
eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
3) Johnston, C.A., K. Updegrafff, S. Bridgham, and J. Pastor. 1992. Influence of beaver and
bogs on greenhouse gases at Voyageurs National Park. Pages 471-479 in Managing Water
Resources During Global Change, American Water Resources Association Conference &
Symposia, November 1-5, 1992, Reno, NV, R. Herman, ed.
4) Updegraff, K.|, S. D. Bridgham, J. Pastor, and C. A. Johnston. 1994. A method to
determine long-term anaerobic carbon and nutrient mineralization in soils. Pages 209-219 in
Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment, J. Doran, D. Bezdicek, and D.
Coleman, eds., Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.
5) Johnston, C. A., J. P. Schubauer-Berigan and S. D. Bridgham. 1997. The potential role of
riverine wetlands as buffer zones. Pages 155-170 in Buffer Zones: Their Processes and
Potential in Water Protection, N. E. Haycock, T.P. Burt, K.W.T. Goulding, and G. Pinay,
eds. Quest Environmental, Harpenden, UK.
6) Bridgham, S. D., C.-L. Ping , J. L. Richardson, and K. Updegrafff. 2001. Soils of Northern
Peatlands: Histosols and Gelisols. Pages 343-370 in Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology,
Landscapes, and Classification, J. L. Richardson and M. J. Vepraskas, eds., Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL.
7) Wu,KA, C.Johnston, C.Cherriert, S. Bridgham, and B. Shmagin. 2006. Hydrologic
calibration of the SWAT model in a Great Lakes coastal watershed. Pages 15-28 in Coastal
Hydrology and Processes, V.P. Singh and Y. Jun Xu, eds., Proceedings of the American
Institute of Hydrology 25th Anniversary Meeting & International Conference, "Challenges in
Coastal Hydrology and Water Management." Water Resources Publications, Highlands
Ranch, CO.
8) Ogram, A., S. Bridgham, R. Corstanje, H. Drake, K. Kiisel, A. Mills, S. Newman, K. Portier,
and R. Wetzel. 2006. Linkages between microbial community composition and
biogeochemical processes across scales. Pages 239-270 in Wetlands and Natural Resource
Management, J. T. A. Verhoeven, B. Beltman, R. Bobbink, and D. F. Whigham, eds.,
Springer, New York.
9) Bridgham, S. D., J. P. Megonigal, J. K. KellerA, C. Trettin, andN. B. Bliss. 2007. Wetlands.
The North America carbon budget past and present. Pages 139 - 148 in The First State of
the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the
-------
Bridgham, CV, 15 of 21
Global Carbon Cycle. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research, A. W. King, L. Billing. G. P. Zimmerman, D. M.
Fairman, R. A. Houghton, G. H. Marland, A. Z. Rose, and T. J. Wilbanks, eds., National
Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, 242 pp.
10)Pacala, S., R. Birdsey, S. Bridgham, R. T. Conant, K. Davis, B. Hales, R. Houghton, J. C.
Jenkins, M. Johnston, G. Marland, K. Paustian, and S. C. Wofsy. 2007. The North America
carbon budget past and present. Pages 29 - 36 in The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report
(SOCCR): North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A
report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research, A. W. King, L. Dilling. G. P. Zimmerman, D. M. Fairman, R. A.
Houghton, G. H. Marland, A. Z. Rose, and T. J. Wilbanks, eds., National Climatic Data
Center, Asheville, NC, 242 pp.
11) Bridgham, S. D. and G. A. Lamberti. 2009. Decomposition in wetlands. Pages 326 345
in The Wetlands Handbook, E. Maltby and T. Barker, eds., Wiley-Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford, United Kingdom.
12)Dise, N., N. J. Shurpali, P. Weishampel, S. Verma, S. Verry, E. Gorham, P. Grill, R. Harriss,
C. Kelly, J. Yavitt, K. Smemo, R. Kolka, K. Smith, J. Kim, R. Clement, T. Arkebauer, K.
Bartlett, D. Billesbach, S. Bridgham, A. Elling, P. Flebbe, J. King, C. Martens, D. Sebacher,
C. Williams, K. Wieder. 2011. Carbon emissions in peatlands. In Peatland
Biogeochemistry and Watershed Hydrology at the Marcel Experimental Forest, eds. R.
Kolka, S. Sebestyen, S. Verry, and K. Brooks. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, Oxford,
United Kingdom.
13)Kerns, B. K., M. A. Hemstrom, D. Conklin, G. I. Yospin#, B. Johnson,, D. Bachelet, and S.
Bridgham. 2012. Approaches to incorporating climate change effects in state and transition
models of vegetation. Pages 161-172 in Proceedings of the First Landscape State-and-
Transition Simulation Modeling Conference, eds. B. K. Kerns, A. J. Shlisky, and C. J.
Daniels, June 14-16, 2011, Portland, OR, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-869, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
14)Bridgham, S. D. and R. YeA. 2013. Organic matter mineralization and decomposition.
Pages 253-274 in Methods in Biogeochemistry of Wetlands, eds. R. D. DeLaune, K. R.
Reddy, C. J. Richardson, and J. P. Megonigal. Soil Science Society of America, Madison,
WI.
15) Bridgham, S. D. 2014. Carbon dynamics and ecosystem processes. In Ecology of
Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands (edited texbook), eds. D. P. Batzer and R. R. Sharitz,
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
16) Kolka, R., S. D. Bridgham, and C.-L. Ping. In press. Soils peatlands: Histosols and Gelisols.
In Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification, 2nd Edition, M. J.
Vepraskas and C. Craft, eds., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
-------
Bridgham, CV, 16 of 21
1) Bridgham, S. D. 1986. The Effects ofPCBs on the Physiology o/Daphnia pulicaria. M.S.
thesis, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul,
MN.
2) Bridgham, S. D. 1991. Mechanisms Controlling Soil Carbon Cycling in North Carolina
Peatlands. Ph.D. dissertation, Nicholas School of the Environment & Earth Sciences, Duke
University, Durham, NC.
3) Bridgham, S. D. and C. J. Richardson. 1991. Freshwater peatlands on the southeastern
Coastal Plain of the USA: Community description, nutrient dynamics, and disturbance.
Pages 1-15 in Proceedings of the International Peat Symposium, August 19-23, Duluth,
MN, D.N. Grubich and T.J. Malterer, eds.
4) Bridgham, S. D. 1994. Review of Wetlands: Guide to Science, Law, and Technology, M.
S. Dennison and J. F. Berry, eds., Noyes Publications. Journal of Environmental Quality
23:1119-1120.
5) Axler, R. P., J. Henneckj, S. Bridgham, C. Tikkanenj, D. Nordmant, A. Bamfordt, and M.
McDonald. 1996. Constructed wetlands in northern Minnesota for treatment of aquacultural
wastes. In Proceedings from the Constructed Wetlands in Cold Climates, June 4-5, 1996,
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada.
6) Bridgham, S. D. 1998. The role of agriculture in phosphorus eutrophication of surface water.
Review of Phosphorus Loss from Soil to Water, H. Tunney, O. T. Carton, P. C. Brookes,
and A. E. Johnston, eds., CAB International. Ecology 79:2215-2216.
7) Bridgham, S. D. 1999. Meeting review of "How nutrient cycles constrain carbon balances
in boreal forests and arctic tundra." A conference organized on behalf of the GCTE (Global
Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems) core project of the IGBP (International Geosphere
Biosphere Programme) in Abisko, Sweden on June 15-19, 1999. Bulletin of the Ecological
Society of America 80:244-245.
8) Bridgham, S. D. 1999. How nutrient cycles constrain carbon balances in boreal forests and
arctic tundra. GCTE (Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems) Newsletter.
9) Pfeifer-Meister, L. S. Bridgham, B. Roy, and B. Johnson. 2007. Testing the effectiveness of
site preparation techniques for wetland prairie restoration. Final report to West Eugene
Wetland Partnership (http://www.lcog.org/Site%20Prep%20Presentation_May%202007.pdf).
INVITED SEMINARS (last 4 years)
1) Climate change effects on plant range distribution in (and the restoration of) prairies. Web
seminar to The Nature Conservancy personnel in Washington and Oregon. March 12, 2010.
2) Experimental determination of climate change effects on native prairies in the Pacific
Northwest. Public talk at Deer Creek Center, Selma, OR, April 8, 2010.
3) Climate change effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Public talk at Eugene Natural History
Society, March 18,2011.
4) Challenges and opportunity for carbon sequestration in the restoration of wetlands.
Department of Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program
-------
Bridgham, CV, 17 of 21
Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, March 24, 2011.
5) Climate effects on plant Range distributions and ecosystem function in Mediterranean
grasslands: A manipulative experiment embedded in a natural climate gradient in the Pacific
Northwest. Center on Global Change, Duke University, Oct. 25, 2012.
INVITED SYMPOSIA (last 4 years)
1) Bridgham, S., J. Keller, J. White, and M. Vile. 2010. Biogeochemical controls over methane
production and emissions from peatlands. Society of Wetland Scientists, Salt Lake City,
June 27 - July 2.
2) Megonigal, P., S. Bridgham, V. Gauci, M. Finlayson, C. Lloyd, S. Luchessa, M. McCartney,
N. Pettorelli, S. Page. 2010. Misconceptions about wetland management for carbon
sequestration. Society of Wetland Scientists, Salt Lake City, June 27 - July 2.
3) Bridgham, S. D., R. Ye, J. K. Keller, S. McAllister, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2012.
Controls over Anaerobic carbon cycling and methane production in peatlands. INTECOL
Wetlands, Orlando, FL, June 3-8.
4) McAllister, S. A., S. D. Bridgham, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2012. Linking methane
production rate to methanogen community structure in peatland soils. INTECOL Wetlands,
Orlando, FL, June 3-8.
5) Bridgham, S. D. 2013. Rhizosphere processes and the role of humic substances in driving
peatland carbon dynamics. Workshop on Belowground Carbon Cycling Processes at the
Molecular Scale, Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, WA, Feb. 19-21.
6) Pfeifer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, L. Reynolds, M. E. Goklany, C. J.
Little, H. E. Wilson. 2013. Climate change impacts on biodiversity in Pacific Northwest
prairies: Shifts in plant range distributions and functional group composition. Cascadia
Prairie-Oak Partnership and Northwest Scientific Association, Portland, OR, Mar. 20-23.
OTHER PRESENTATIONS AND POSTERS (last 4 years)
1) White, J. R., R. D. Shannon, J. F. Weltzin, J. Pastor, and S. D. Bridgham. 2010. Stable
isotopic evidence of climate-driven changes in methane cycling in northern peatlands.
Goldschmidt Conference on Earth, Energy and the Environment, Knoxville, TN, June.
2) Bridgham S., B. Johnson., L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, L. Reynolds, and M.
Goklany. 2010. How will climate change affect the range distributions of native prairie
plants and the viability of restored prairies in the Pacific Northwest? Pacific NW Climate
Science Conference, June 15-16, Portland, OR.
3) Johnson, B. R., R. G. Ribe, D. W. Hulse, J. P. Bolte, S. D. Bridgham, T. Sheehan, M.
Nielson-Pincus, G. I. Yospin1, A. A. Ager, J. A. Kertis, D. Bachelet, R. P. Neilson, D.
Conklin, C. A. Harrington, and P. J. Gould. 2010. Modeling the potential for surprise in
coupled human and natural systems under future climate change, population growth and
-------
Bridgham, CV, 18 of 21
wildfire hazard in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion. Pacific NW Climate Science
Conference, June 15-16, Portland, OR.
4) McAllister, S., B. Bohannan, S. Bridgham, and Q. Jin. 2010. Microbial community
structure and ecosystem function: linking methane production rate to methanogen
community structure in wetland soils. International Symposium on Microbial Ecology,
Aug. 23-27, Seattle, WA.
5) Bridgham, S. D., B. Johnson, T. Tomaszewski, L. Pfeifer-Meister, M. Goklany, L.
Reynolds, and H. Wilson. 2011. Poster: Temperature and Precipitation Effects on Plant
Range Distributions, Community Structure, and Ecosystem Function across a Natural
Climate Gradient in Prairie Ecosystems. Invited participant in workshop on How Do We
Improve Earth System Models: Integrating Earth System Models, Ecosystem Models,
Experiments and Long-Term Data, organized by Integrated Network for Terrestrial
Ecosystem Research on Feedbacks to the Atmosphere and Climate (INTERFACE), Feb.
28-Mar. 3, Captiva Island, FL.
6) Eisenhut, N., R. Ye, B. Bohannan, Q. Jin, and S. Bridgham. 2011. pH effects on carbon
mineralization to CC>2 and CH4 in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic
gradient. Annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Aug. 7-12, Austin, TX.
7) Goklanay, M., B. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Mesiter, T. Tomaszewski, and S. Bridgham. 2011.
How climate change affect the physiology and productivity of perennial grasses in Pacific
Northwest prairies? Annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Aug. 7-12,
Austin, TX.
8) McAllister, S. A., S. D. Bridgham, Q. Jin, and B. J. M. Bohannon. 2011. Linking methane
production rate to methanogen community structure in wetland soils. Annual meeting of
the Ecological Society of America, Aug. 7-12, Austin, TX.
9) Bridgham, S. D., L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, L. Reynolds, M. Goklany, H.
Wilson, and B. R. Johnson. 2011. Climate impacts on terrestrial ecosystems and managed
resources. Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference, Sept. 13-14, Seattle, WA.
10) Pfeifer-Meister, L., B. R. Johnson, T. Tomaszewski, M. Goklany, L. Reynolds, H. Wilson,
and S. D. Bridgham. 2011. Natural and experimental climatic effects on native plant range
distributions in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference,
Sept. 13-14, Seattle, WA.
11) Wilson, H., B. Johnson, and S. Bridgham. 2011. Increased experimental heating decreases
arbuscular mycorrhizal abundance across a latitudinal gradient in annual prairie forbs.
Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference, Sept. 13-14, Seattle, WA.
12) Reynolds, L., B. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, and S. Bridgham. 2011.
The response of soil respiration to simulated climate change along a latitudinal climate
gradient in Pacific Northwest prairies. Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference,
Sept. 13-14, Seattle, WA.
13) Ye, R., S.D. Bridgham, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2011. pH controls over anaerobic carbon
mineralization to CC>2 and CH4 in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic
gradient. Annual meeting of the Soil Science Society of America, Oct. 16-19, San
Antonio, TX.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 19 of 21
14) Ye, R., Q. Jin, B. Bohannan, J. Keller, and S.D. Bridgham. 2011. pH controls over carbon
mineralization to CC>2 and CH4 in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic
gradient. Annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Dec. 5-9, San Francisco,
CA.
15) Cadillo-Quiroz, H., S. Maguffin, S. Bridgham, B. Bohannan, and Q. Jin. 2012.
Methanogenic community and kinetics of methane production from acetate in contrasting
ecosystems. Annual meeting of the American Society of Microbiology, June 16-19, San
Francisco, CA.
16) Bridgham, S. D., L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, M. E. Goklany, L. L. Reynolds, C. J.
Little, and Bart R. Johnson. 2012. Pushing limits: Altered temperature and precipitation
differentially affect plant species inside and beyond their current ranges. Poster presented at
the U.S. DOE Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Principal Investigators Meeting, Washington,
DC, Apr. 23-24.
17) Reynolds, L. L., B. R. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, and S. D. Bridgham.
2012. Response of soil respiration to experimental warming and increased precipitation
intensity depends upon a latitudinal climate gradient in Pacific Northwest grasslands.
Poster presented at the U.S. DOE Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Principal Investigators
Meeting, Washington, DC, Apr. 23-24.
18) Bridgham, S. D., R. Ye, J. K. Keller, S. McAllister, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2012.
Controls over anaerobic carbon cycling and methane production in peatlands. Biogeomon
International Symposium on Ecosystem Behavior, Northport, ME, July 15-20.
19) Vandegrift, A. W. B. A. Roy, L. E. Pfeifer-Meister, T. E. Tomaszewski, B. R. Johnson, and
S. D. Bridgham. 2012. Climate change and Epichloe endophyte infection influences
arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization rates in grasses. Annual Meeting of the Ecological
Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10.
20) Bridgham, S. D., R. Ye, J. K. Keller, S. McAllister, Q. Jin, and B. Bohannan. 2012. Why
does the efficiency of methane production vary so much among peatlands? Annual
Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10.
21) Wilson, H. E. B. R. Johnson, R. C. Mueller, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, B. J. M.
Bohannan, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012. Experimental warming across a natural climate
gradient reverses soil nutrient effects on arbuscular mycorrhizal abundance in prairie
plants. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10.
22) Yospin, G. L, S. D. Bridgham, R. P. Neilson, J. P. Bolte, D. M. Bachelet, P. J. Gould, C. A.
Harrington, J. A. Kertis, J. Merzenich, C. Evers, and B. R. Johnson. 2012. Projections of
climate change impacts on forest succession for local land management using a new
vegetation model, CV-STM. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America,
Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10.
23) Johnson. B. R., J. P. Bolte, S. D. Bridgham, D. W. Hulse, R. P. Neilson, R. G. Ribe,, A. A.
Ager, M. Nielsen-Pincus, T. Sheehan, G. I. Yospin, J. A. Kertis, C. A. Harrington, and P. J.
Gould. 2012. Addressing uncertainties in climate change adaptation planning by using an
integrated suite of mechanistic simulation models within an alternative futures planning
framework. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-
10.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 20 of 21
24) McAllister, S. A., S. D. Bridgham, Q. Jin, and B. J. M. Bohannan. 2012. Microbial
community structure and ecosystem function: Linking methane production rate to
methanogen community structure in peatland soils. Annual Meeting of the Ecological
Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10.
25) Pfiefer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, M. E. Goklany, L. L. Reynolds, C. J.
Little, and B. R. Johnson. Pushing Limits: Altered temperature and precipitation
differentially affect plant species inside and outside their current ranges.. Annual Meeting
of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10.
26) Reynolds, L. L., B. R. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. E. Tomaszewski, and S. D.
Bridgham. 2012. Response of soil efflux to experimental warming and increased
precipitation intensity depends upon latitudinal climate gradient in Pacific Northwest
grasslands. Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-
10.
27) Tomaszewski, T., B. R. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, M. E. Goklany, L. L. Reynolds, H. E.
Wilson, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012. Site-dependent versus regionally consistent effects of
increased temperature and precipitation on plant community composition, productivity, and
soil nutrient availability in restored Pacific Northwest prairies. Annual Meeting of the
Ecological Society of America, Portland, OR, Aug. 5-10.
28) Reynolds, L. L., K. Lajtha, R. D. Bowden, B. Johson, and S. Bridgham. 2012. The DIRT
on QIQ: Differential temperature response of soils depleted of labile inputs. Poster at Long-
Term Ecological Research (LTER) All Scientists Meeting, Estes Park, CO, Sept. 10-13.
29) Pfeifer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, L. Reynolds, M. E. Goklany, C. J.
Little, H. E. Wilson. 2013. Climate change impacts on biodiversity in Pacific Northwest
prairies: Shifts in plant range distributions and functional group composition. Annual
meeting of the Northwest Science Association and Cascadia Prairie-Oak Partnership,
Portland, OR, March 20-23.
30) Bridgham, S. 2013. Rhizospheric processes and the role of humic substances in driving
peatland carbon dynamics. Workshop on "Belowground Carbon Cycling Processes at the
Molecular Scale," Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, Dept. of Energy, Feb. 19-
21,2013.
31) Pfeifer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, M. E. Goklany, L L. Reynolds, C. J.
Little, and B. R. Johnson. 2013. Pushing the limit: Experimental evidence of climate
effects on plant range distributions. Dept. of Energy Terrestrial Ecosystem/Subsurface
Biogeochemical Research Joint Investigators Meeting, Potomac, MD, May 13-15, 2013.
32) Pfeifer-Meister, L., S. D. Bridgham, T. Tomaszewski, L L. Reynolds, M. E. Goklany, C. J.
Little, H. E. Wilson, and B. R. Johnson. 2013. Consistent shifts in the community
composition and diversity in response to experimental climate manipulations across a
latitudinal gradient in Pacific Northwest prairies. Dept. of Energy Terrestrial
Ecosystem/Subsurface Biogeochemical Research Joint Investigators Meeting, Potomac,
MD, May 13-15,2013.
33) Reynolds, L. L., B. R. Johnson, L. Pfeifer-Meister, T. Tomaszewski, and S.D. Bridgham.
2013. Response of soil respiration to experimental warming and increased precipitation
intensity depends upon a latitudinal climate gradient in Pacific Northwest grasslands.
-------
Bridgham, CV, 21 of 21
Dept. of Energy Terrestrial Ecosystem/Subsurface Biogeochemical Research Joint
Investigators Meeting, Potomac, MD, May 13-15, 2013.
34) Bridgham, S.D., J. Pastor, J. Keller, J. White, and R. D. Shannon. 2013. A retrospective
analysis of a Minnesota peatland manipulative climate change study. Annual Meeting of
the Society of Wetland Scientists, Duluth, MN, June 2-6.
35) Keller, S. D. and S. D. Bridgham. 2013. Rethinking the role of soil organic matter in
peatland decomposition. Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Duluth,
MN, June 2-6.
36) Pfeifer-Meister, L., L. G. Gayton, S. D. Bridgham. 2013. Controls of trace gas emissions
in natural, restored, and agricultural seasonal wetlands. Annual Meeting of the Society of
Wetland Scientists, Duluth, MN, June 2-6.
37) Reynolds, L. L., K. Lajtha, R. D. Bowden, B. Johnson, and S. Bridgham. 2013. Depletion
of labile-inputs does not increase temperature sensitivity in a laboratory incubation but
does this imply no change in the molecular nature of the decomposed organic carbon?
Users Meeting for Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Department of Energy, Richland, WA, July 30-31.
38) Reynolds, L. L., K. Lajtha, R. D. Bowden, B. Johnson, and S. Bridgham. 2013. The DIRT
on QIQ: Depletion of labile-inputs does not increase temperature sensitivity in a laboratory
incubation. Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA, Dec.
9-13.
39) Kostka, J. E., X. Lin, M. M. Tfaily, J. P. Chanton, W. Cooper, S. Bridgham, and J. Keller.
2014. The abundance and expression of genes for methanogenesis and methanotrophy in
northern peatlands. Annual Meeting of American Society of Microbiology, Boston, MA,
May 17-20.
-------
Biographical sketch: MONIQUE Y. LECLERC
Regents Professor and D. W. Brooks Distinguished Research Professor
Atmospheric BioGeosciences Group (www.biogeosciences.uga.edu). The
University of Georgia
Education
1980 B.Sc. Sciences McGill University, Canada
1982 M.Sc. Land Resource Science University of Guelph, Canada
1987 Ph.D. Land Resource Science University of Guelph, Canada
Professional Experience
2009-Present Regents' Professor, University of Georgia
2000-Present Professor, Lab for Environmental Physics, Univ. of Georgia
2007-Present Honorary Professor, Peking Univ., State Key Laboratory,
Beijing, China
2003-Present Honorary Professor, Chiang Mai Univ., Chiang Mai, Thailand
1995-2000 Associate Professor, Laboratory for Environ. Physics, Univ.
Georgia
1990-1995 Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Univ.Quebec at Montreal
1991- Adjunct Professor, Dept. Atmos. and Ocean. Sci., McGill Univ.
1991-1995 Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Environ. Sci., Univ. Quebec at Montreal
1987-1990 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Soils and Biometeorology, Utah State
University
1987-1991 Associate Faculty, Center for Theoretical Hydrology, Utah State
University
1987-1992 Associate Faculty, Ecology Center, Utah State University
Recent Selected Recognitions
Distinguished Professor. King Mongkut University. Bangkok.
Thailand 2013
Scientific Advisory Committee. Oil Palm Board. Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysia 2014-
D. W. Brooks Award of Excellence in Global Programs. 2012;
Advisory Board.Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS)
Sweden 2012-2015
The American Meteorological Society 'The Award for Outstanding
Achievement in Biometeorology' for 'Pioneering Research that has advanced
our understanding of temporal and spatial patterns of local and regional
-------
carbon exchanges, and for global leadership in advancement of
biometeorology.' 2008. Nota Bene: THIS AWARD WAS GIVEN TO THE
YOUNGEST SCIENTIST AND THE FIRST FEMALE;
National Advisory Board. CAST, Wash. DC 2007-2010;
Advisory Board to the President of the University of Georgia 2014-
Member of evaluation panels at USDA, DOE, NSF, NSERC, Italian
Research Council, etc.
D. W. Brooks Distinguished Professor Award for Excellence in
Research 2009;
Advisor to the Government of Bhutan on Climate Change. Thimphu,
Bhutan. 2009;
Guest Professor. State Key Laboratory. Dept. of Atmospheric
Sciences. Peking University. 2008-
University of Oxford, 20th Anniv., Oxford Annual Round Table. St-
Anne's College. England. 2008;
Marquis Who's Who in America. Global Marquis Who's Who. 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011. 2012; 2013; 2014
Advisory Board and Full Member of the Centre for Climate and
Global Change Research, McGill University 1990 - 1995;
Visiting Fellow, National Center of Atmospheric Research, Boulder,
CO 1988 1988;
Examples of Synergistic Activities
Advisory Panel. Malaysian Oil Palm Board. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia. 2014-
2017.
Advisory Panel. Peat Panel Review. Malaysian Oil Palm Board. Kuala
Lumpur. Malaysia. 2014.
Malaysian Palm Oil Board International Palm Oil Congress (PIPOC). October 2013.
Keynote Speaker 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Peat Lands'.
International Society of Oil Palm Congress. ISOP). Keynote Speaker.
November 2013. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia.
Journal of Oil Palm Research (JOPR) Editorial Board 2014-
Associate Editor. Journal of Ag. and Forest. Meteorology, Elsevier Publ.,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands. (No. 1 in Forestry and no. 3 in Agr. In terms of
impact factor) 2005-Present.
Editorial Board. Advances in Meteorology, Hindawi Publ. Mumbai. 2010-
Present
-------
Associate Editor. American J. Climate Change. 2011- present.
Editor. Earth Perspectives 2012- (new)
International Scientific Committee. Atmospheric Chemistry in Vegetation
Canopies. EGER. Castle Thurnau, Germany. 2009-2010.
Advisor to the Ministry of Energy, Bangkok, Thailand on Impact
Assessment of Climate Change.2009.
Advisor to the Government of Bhutan, Prime Minister's Office. On Rapid
Climate Change Adaptation and Preparedness. 2009.
Guest Lecturer. Oxford Annual Round Table on Climate Change. 20th
Anniversary. Univ. of Oxford, England-2008.
Past President. International Society of Biometeorology. 2002-2005.
International Scientific Committee. International Association for the
promotion of c-operation with scientists from the New Independent States of
the Soviet Union (INTAS). Member International Symposium on Footprints.
. Bruxels, Belgium. 2001-20027 2002-2003.
Visiting Fellow. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). 1988.
Selected Publications
Zhang G., M.Y. Leclerc, A. Karipot, H. Duarte, E. Mursch-Radlgruber, H.L.
Gholz. 2011. The impact of logging on the surrounding flow in a managed
plantation. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Vol. 106, No. 3 pp. 511-
521.
Pingintha N., M. Y. Leclerc, J. P. Beasley Jr., G. Zhang, C. Senthong. 2010.
Hysteresis Response of Daytime Net Ecosystem CO 2 Exchange during a
Drought. Biogeosciences. Vol. 7, No.3 pp. 1159-1170.
van Gorsel E., N. Delpierre, R. Leuning, J. M. Munger, S. Wofsy, M. Aubinet, C.
Heigenwinter, J. Beringer, D. Bonal, B. Chen, J. Chen, R. Clement, K. J.
Davis, A. Desai, D. Dragoni, S. Etzold, T. Grunwald, L. Gu, B. Heinesch, L.
R. Hutyra, W. W. P. Jans, W. Kutsch, B. E. Law, M. Y. Leclerc, I.
Mammarrella, L. Montagnani, A. Noormets, C. Rebmann, S. Wharton. 2009.
Estimating nocturnal ecosystem respiration from the vertical turbulent flux
and change in storage ofCO2. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol.
149, No. 11. pp. 1919-1930.
Pingintha N., M.Y. Leclerc, J.P. Beasley Jr., G. Zhang, and C. Senthong. 2009.
Assessment of the soil CO2 gradient method for soil CO2 efflux
measurements: comparison of six models in the calculation of the relative
gas diffusion coefficient. Tellus B, Vol. 62B, pp. 47-58.
Sogachev, A., M. Y. Leclerc, G. Zhang, U. Rannik, and T. Vesala. 2008. CO2 fluxes
near a forest edge: a numerical study. Ecological Applications, 18(6), 1454-
-------
1469.
Kim, J., Q. Guo, D.D. Baldocchi, M.Y. Leclerc, L. Xu and H.P. Schmid. 2006.
Upscaling Fluxes from
Tower to Landscape: Overlaying Flux Footprints on High Resolution
(IKONOS) Images of
Vegetation Cover., Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 136 (3-4): 132-146.
Baldocchi, D., T. Krebs and M.Y. Leclerc. 2005. 'Wet/Dry Daisyworld': A
Conceptual Tool for Quantifying the Spatial Scaling of Heterogeneous
Landscapes and its Impact on the Subgrid Variability of Energy Fluxes.
Tellus, 57B: 1-14.
Hollinger, D.Y., J. Aber, B. Dail, E. A. Davidson, S. M. Goltz, H. Hughes, M.Y.
Leclerc, J. T. Lee, A. D. Richardson, C. Rodrigues, N.A. Scott, D. Varier,
and J. Walsh. 2004. Spatial and Temporal Variability in Forest-Atmosphere
CO2 Exchange. Global Change Biology, 10: 1-18.
EXPERTISE RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT:
Monique Y. Leclerc: Regents Professor, D.W. Brooks Distinguished
Research Professor, and Head of the Laboratory for Environmental Physics
at the University of Georgia. Dr. Leclerc has over 20 years of experience in
field campaigns throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia focusing on
surface-atmosphere interactions. She has led field campaigns using a
combination of eddy-covariance to measure greenhouse gas emissions.
-------
Kristell HERGOUALC'H
Researcher in Ecosystem Functioning
Nationality
Date of birth
Contact
French
30th of March,
Address:
Voice:
Electronic:
1974
CIFOR
c/o Centre Internacional de la Papa (CIP)
Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina
Apartado postal 1558
Lima 12, Peru
+51 (1) 349 6017 ext 1015
k.hergoualch@cgiar.org
Current position Scientist in climate change mitigation
With CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research), Forests and Environment.
Research topics Forestry, agroforestry, agriculture, land-use change, climate change,
environmental services, peatlands, REDD+
Soil fluxes of greenhouse gases (N2O, CFU, and CCk). Microbial processes and
biophysical modeling of soil fluxes of N2O (NGAS, NOE, DNDC) and C
sequestration (CO2Fix). N and C cycles. Carbon dynamics in soil and biomass.
Education 2008: Ph D in Ecosystem Functioning (SIBAGHE, SupAgro, Montpellier, France). Area:
Soil sciences
2004: MSc. in Agronomy (Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, ENSAIA, Nancy,
France)
1997: Engineer in Energy and Environment (Ecole Polytechnique Feminine, Paris,
France). Areas: Renewable energies and environmental pollution (air, water, soil)
Employment
history
Since November 2008: CIFOR. Bogor, Indonesia until July 2013; currently in Lima,
Peru. Researcher in Ecosystem Functioning
Carbon stocks, stock changes and greenhouse gas fluxes (N2O, CFLi, CC>2) associated with
land-use change in the tropics, with a special focus on peatlands. Implications for
climate change.
September 2004-January 2008: CIRAD (French center of cooperation specialized in
development-oriented agricultural research for the tropics and subtropics)-CATIE (Latin
American center of research and education in tropical agronomy)-CEH (English center of
research in ecology and hydrology). Costa Rica, France & UK. Collaboration with INRA
(French national institute of research in agronomy) and IRD-SeqBio (French institute of
research for Development-Carbon Sequestration unity). Ph. D student in Ecosystems
Functioning.
Soil greenhouse gases (NaO, CH4 and COa) emissions and carbon storage in a coffee
monoculture and a coffee plantation shaded by the N2 fixing legume species Inga densijlora
on Andosols in Costa Rica. Characterization of the nitrification-denitrification processes
and modeling of soil N2O fluxes with the process-oriented models NOE and NGAS.
April 2007: Rainforest Alliance (NGO working on biodiversity conservation and
sustainable livelihoods). Costa Rica. Freelance consultant on climate change mitigation.
Revision of a method for estimating carbon sequestration in coffee agroforestry systems.
September 2003-August 2004: CIRAD-CATIE-CEH. Costa Rica, France & UK.
MSc. student in Agronomy
Nitrous oxide production by nitrification and denitrification in a volcanic soil under
different coffee systems in Costa Rica.
Dr. Kristell Hergoualc'h
-------
Students
advisory
committee
Geographical
experience
Languages
Computer
January 2002-August 2003: CIRAD-CATIE. Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala.
Carbon sequestration database and modeling (CO2Fix) in coffee plantations.
Delegate of CATIE in the Costarican agroforestry national committee (CNAF).
Design of the CNAF website. Contribution to the writing of the proposal of payment
for environmental services to lands dedicated to agroforestry. Proposal approved by
the Environment and Energy Ministry, come into effect in 2003.
June 1998-December 2001: SupAgro (International center of education in advanced
agronomic sciences). France. Engineer.
Organization of computing software trainings applied to agronomy.
March-October 1997: Lyonnaise des Eaux (private French company specialized in
energy and environment). Argentina. Engineer.
Environmental study on cyanide and chrome contamination in rivers, water network
(water supply, sewage and wastewater treatment plant) and soils (sewage sludge
application).
Ami F, Carbon stocks and soil greenhouse flux changes in a forest transition into oil palm and
rubber plantations of Indonesia. Ph D, University of Aberdeen, UK.
Comeau L-P, Soil organic carbon dynamics after land-use change in tropical peatlands, Jambi,
Indonesia. Ph D, University of Aberdeen, UK.
Farmer J (2014) Measuring and modeling soil carbon and carbon dioxide emissions from
Indonesian peatlands under land-use change. Ph D, University of Aberdeen, UK.
Hartill J, Changes in soil nitrous oxide and methane fluxes following the conversion of
tropical peat swamps in Jambi, Indonesia. Ph D, University of Aberdeen, UK
Hendry Dede, Partitioning of soil respiration into auto- and heterotrophic components as
affected by peat swamp forest conversion to oil palm plantation. MSc., IPB, Indonesia.
Novita N, Changes in greenhouse gases (CC>2, CFU and N2O) fluxes and carbon stocks from
tropical peat swamp forest conversion to oil palm plantation. Ph D, Oregon state
university, US.
Oktarita S (2014) The effect of nitrogen fertilization on soil CO2, CH4, N2O and NO
emissions in an oil palm plantation cultivated on peat in Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia.
MSc, IPB, Indonesia.
Persch S, Fine root dynamics in different land-uses on tropical peat in Jambi, Sumatra. Ph D,
University of Gottingen, Germany.
Persch S (2011) Carbon stock in aboveground and coarse root biomass in different land use
treatments on tropical peat. MSc, University of Gottingen, Germany.
Swails E, Linking GRACE with optical satellite data and field measures to determine the effect
of climate variability on greenhouse gas emissions from tropical peatlands. Ph D,
University of Virginia, US.
Van Lent, The effect of peat forest degradation in the Peruvian Amazon basin on soil fluxes
of greenhouse gases. Ph D, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Countries worked in: Argentina, Costa Rica, France, Guatemala, Indonesia,
Nicaragua, Peru, UK.
Other visited countries: almost all countries of America, Africa (Morocco, Tunisia,
Madagascar, Kenya), Middle East (Turkey) and Asia (the Philippines, India, Korea, Vietnam).
Mother tongue: French
Working languages: English, Spanish
Medium knowledge: Bahasa Indonesia, Italian
Languages: Programming in C, Pascal, Fortran.
Software: Modeling with CO2Fix, DNDC. Database development with Access.
Dr. Kristell Hergoualc'h
2/7
-------
Articles Implementing REDD+: Case study evidence on governance, evaluation and impacts
Matthews R, van Noordwijk M, Lambin E, Meyfroidt P, Gupta J, Veldkamp E, Verchot L,
Hergoualc'h K (2014) Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Submitted.
Mud, muddle and models in the knowledge value chain to action on tropical peatland
issues
van Noordwijk M, Matthews R, Agus F, Farmer J, Verchot L, Hergoualc'h K. Persch S,
Tata HL, Khasanah N, Widayati A, Dewi S (2014) Mitigation and adaptation strategies for
global change. Submitted.
Soil NaO and NO emissions from land use and land-use change in the tropics and
subtropics: A meta-analysis
Van Lent J, Hergoualc'h K. Verchot LV (2014) Global change biology. Submitted.
Comparison of methods for quantifying soil carbon in tropical peats.
Farmer J, Matthews R, Hergoualc'h K. Verchot L, Langan C, Smith P, Smith JU (2014)
Geoderma 214-215: 177-183
Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use and land-use change in Southeast Asian
peatlands.
Hergoualc'h K. Verchot LV (2013) Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change.
DOI 10.1007/sll027-013-9511-x.
Generic allometric models including height best estimate forest biomass and carbon
stocks in Indonesia.
Rutishauser E, Noor'an F, Laumonier Y, Halperin J, Rufi'ie, Hergoualc'h K. Verchot L
(2013) Forest Ecology and Management 307: 219-225
Conversion of intact peat swamp forest to oil palm plantation: Effects on soil COa
fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra.
Comeau L-P, Hergoualc'h K. Smith JU, Verchot L (2013) Working paper 110. CIFOR,
Bogor, Indonesia.
A cost-efficient method to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil.
Warren MW, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Anshari G, Hergoualc'h K. Kurnianto S,
Purbopuspito J, Gusmayanti E, Afifudin M, Rahajoe J, Alhamd L, Limin S, Iswandi
A (2012) Biogeosciences 9:7049-7071.
Changes in soil CH4 fluxes from the conversion of tropical peat swamp forests: a meta-
analysis.
Hergoualc'h K. Verchot LV (2012) Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9:93-101
Changes in carbon stocks and greenhouse gas balance in a coffee (Cof&a arabica)
monoculture versus an agroforestry system with Inga densiBora in Costa Rica.
Hergoualc'h K. Harmand J-M, Blanchard E, Skiba U, Renault C (2012) Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 148:102-110
Stocks and fluxes of carbon associated with land-use change in Southeast Asian
tropical peatlands: a review
Hergoualc'h K. Verchot LV (2011) Global Biochemical Cycles, 25
doi: 10.1029/2009GB003718
Opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions tropical peatlands.
Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc'h K. Verchot LV (2010) PNAS 107:19655-19660
The utility of process-based model for simulating of NaO emissions from soils: a case
study based on Costa Rican coffee plantations.
Hergoualc'h K. Harmand J-M, Cannavo P, Skiba U, Renault C (2009) Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 41:2343-2355
Fluxes of greenhouse gases from Andosols under coffee in monoculture or shaded by
Inga densitiora in Costa Rica.
Hergoualc'h K. Skiba U, Harmand J-M, Renault C (2008) Biogeochemistry 89:329-345
Dr. Kristell Hergoualc'h 3/7
-------
Processes responsible for the nitrous oxide emission from a Costa Rican Andosol
under a coffee agroforestry plantation.
Hergoualc'h K. Skiba U, Harmand J-M, Oliver R (2007) Biology and Fertility of Soils
43:787-795
Cuantificacion del carbono almacenado en la biomasa aerea y el mantillo en sistemas
agroforestales de cafe en el Sur Oeste de Costa Rica.
De Miguel S, Harmand J-M, Hergoualc'h K (2004) Agrofbresteria en las Americas 41-
42:98-104
Book chapters Chapter 2: Drained inland organic soils.
Drosler M, Verchot LV, Freibauer A, Pan G, Evans CD, Bourbonniere RA, Aim JP, Page S,
Agus F, Hergoualc'h K. CouwenbergJ, Jauhiainen J, Sabiham S, Wang C, Srivastava N,
Borgeau-Chavez L, Hooijer A, Minkkinen K, French N, Strand T, Sirin A, Mickler R, Tansey
K, Larkin N (2014) In: Hiraishi T, KrugT, Tanabe K, Srivastava N, Baasansuren J, Fukuda
M, Troxler TG (eds) 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. IPCC, Switzerland
Emissions factors, converting land use change to COa estimates.
Verchot LV, Kamalakumari A, Romijn E, Herold M, Hergoualc'h K (2012) In: Angelsen A,
Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (eds) Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices.
CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 261-278
Ecosystem modeling of tropical wetlands.
Hergoualc'h K, Frolking S, Canadell P, Crooks S, Harrison M, Joosten H, Kurnianto S,
Yeager C (2012) In: Murdiyarso D, Kauffman B, Warren M, Pramova E, Hergoualc'h K (eds)
Tropical wetlands for climate change adaptation and mitigation: Science and policy
imperatives with a special reference to Indonesia. CIFOR working paper 91, Bogor,
Indonesia, pp. 15-17.
Principles and methods for assessing climate change mitigation as an ecosystem service
in agroecosystems.
Hergoualc'h K (2011) In: Rapidel B, DeClerck F, Le Coq J-F, Beer J (eds) Ecosystem services
from agriculture and agroforestry. Measurement and payment. Earthscan, London, UK, pp.
19-36
Books
Tropical wetlands for climate change adaptation and mitigation: Science and policy
imperatives with a special reference to Indonesia.
Murdiyarso D, Kauffman B, Warren M, Pramova E, Hergoualc'h K (2012) CIFOR working
paper 91, Bogor, Indonesia, 54 pp.
Communications
Dr. Kristell H
ergoua
lc'h
Soil GHG emissions from forest conversion and oil palm cultivation: An update on
emission factors.
Hergoualc'h K, Ami F, Comeau L-P, Hartill J, Hendry D, Oktarita S, Novita N, Kauffman
B, Verchot L (2014) 4th International Conference on Oil Palm and Environment
(ICOPE), Bali, Indonesia, 12 - 14 February 2014
IPCC emission factors for greenhouse gas inventories in tropical peatlands.
Verchot LV, Hergoualc'h K (2014) International Indonesia Peatland Conversation,
Jakarta, 11-12 February 2014
Tropical peat swamp forests: Current knowledge, gaps and science needs.
Murdiyarso D, Kauffman B, Verchot LV, Purbopuspito J, Warren M, Hergoualc'h K
(2013) UNFCCC Workshop on technical and scientific aspects of ecosystems with high-
carbon reservoirs not covered by other agenda items under the Convention, Bonn,
Germany, 24-25 October 2013
Carbon dioxide fluxes and soil organic matter characteristics associated with land-use
change in tropical peatlands of Jambi, Indonesia.
Comeau L-P, Hergoualc'h K, Smith J, Verchot LV, Hartill J (2013) 11th meeting of
Southeast Asia soil science, Bogor, Indonesia, 24 September 2013
The effect of nitrogen fertilization on soil N2O emissions from oil palm cultivation on
deep peat.
4/7
-------
Oktarita S, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2013) 11th meeting of Southeast Asia soil science,
Bogor, Indonesia, 24 September 2013
The effect of nitrogen fertilization on soil N2O emissions from oil palm cultivation on
deep peat.
Oktarita S, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2013) Tropical Peat 2013 workshop, Sarawak,
Malaysia, 7 September 2013
Modeling carbon accumulation dynamics in tropical peat swamp forests.
Kurnianto S, Frolking S, Warren M, Hergoualc'h K, Talbot J, Kauffman JB, Varner R,
Murdiyarso D (2013) ATBC 2013 conference, San Jose, Costa Rica, 23-27 June 2013
Flux Associated with Land Use Change in Tanjung Puling National Park,
Central Borneo.
Novita N, Hergoualc'h K, Kauffman B (2013) IUSS Global Soil Carbon Conference,
Madison WI, USA, 3-6, June 2013
Methane emissions following land-use change on tropical peat in Jambi, Sumatra.
Hartill J, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV, Smith J (2013) IUSS Global Soil Carbon
Conference, Madison WI, USA, 3-6, June 2013
Soil COa emission and soil organic matter characteristics associated with land-use
change in tropical peatlands of Sumatra, Indonesia.
Comeau L-P, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV, Smith J, Hartffl JA (2013) IUSS Global Soil
Carbon Conference, Madison WI, USA, 3-6 June 2013
SEA tropical peatlands: GHG emissions in the LULUCF sector.
Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2013) FAO workshop Towards sustainable land
management practices for peatlands, Rome, Italy, 7-9 May 2013
Modeling long term carbon accumulation in tropical peat swamp forests: preliminary
results.
Kurnianto S, Frolking S, Warren M, Hergoualc'h K, Talbot J, Kauffman JB, Varner R,
Murdiyarso D (2013) Mer Bleue carbon meeting 2013, McGill university, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada, 4-5 March 2013
CIFOR biophysical research on tropical peatlands.
Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV, Warren M (2013) International Indonesia peatland
conversations, Bandung, Indonesia, 25-27 February 2013
Carbon loss associated with land-use change and wildfires in tropical peat swamp
forests.
Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2012) 14th International Peat Congress, Stockholm, Sweden,
3-8 June 2012
Land-use change effects on soil emissions of NaO in the tropics: a 3-continent
comparative analysis.
Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV, Aini FK, Brienza Junior S, Cattanio JH, Costa de Oliveira V,
Davidson E, Hairiah K, Neufeldt H, Thiongo M, van Noordwijk M (2012) Planet Under
Pressure conference, London, UK, 25- 29 March 2012
Land-use change effects on soil respiration in the tropics: a 3-continent comparative
analysis.
Verchot LV, Hergoualc'h K, Aini FK, Brienza Junior S, Cattanio JH, Costa de Oliveira V,
Davidson E, Hairiah K, Neufeldt H, Thiongo M, van Noordwijk M (2012) Planet Under
Pressure conference, London, UK, 25- 29 March 2012
The forgotten D: challenges of addressing forest degradation in REDD+.
Rutishauser E, Bech Bruun T, de Neergaard A, Berry N, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV,
Mertz O (2012) ATBC - Asia Pacific Chapter Annual Meeting, Xishuangbanna, China, 24-
27 March 2012
Phytomass carbon stock changes following peat swamp forest conversion to oil palm
plantation in Jambi, Sumatra.
Dr. Kristell Hergoualc'h 5/7
-------
Persch S, Hergpualc'h K, Verchot LV (2012) ATBC - Asia Pacific Chapter Annual
Meeting, Xishuangbanna, China, 24-27 March 2012
Carbon stock in coarse root biomass in a primary forest, secondary logged forest and
an oil palm plantation on tropical peat in Jambi, Sumatra.
Persch S, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2012) 3rd International Conference on Oil Palm and
Environment (ICOPE), Bali, Indonesia, 22-24 February 2012
Soil COa, CH4 and NaO emissions from an oil palm plantation on deep peat as
affected by nitrogen fertilization.
Hergoualc'h K, ,Handayani EP, Indrasuara K, van Noordwijk M, Bonneau X, Verchot LV
(2012) 3rd International Conference on Oil Palm and Environment (ICOPE), Bali,
Indonesia, 22-24 February 2012
Changes in soil CH4 fluxes from the conversion of tropical peat swamp forests: a
meta-analysis.
Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV (2011) 6th International Symposium on non-CO2 Greenhouse
Gases (NCGG-6), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2-4 November 2011
CH4 and NaO flux changes from forest conversion to rubber and oil palm plantation
in Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia.
Ami FK, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot LV, Smith J (2011) 6th International Symposium on non-
CO2 Greenhouse Gases (NCGG-6), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2-4 November 2011
Carbon stock in coarse root biomass in different land-use systems on tropical peat.
Persch S, Hergoualc'h K, Laumonier Y, Verchot LV (2011) Workshop on tropical wetland
ecosystems of Indonesia: Science needs to address climate change adaptation and
mitigation, Bali, Indonesia, 11-14 April 2011
Assessing GHG emissions from peatlands: methodological challenges.
Murdiyarso D, Hergoualc'h K, Verchot L (2010) Workshop on options for carbon
financing to support peatland management, Pekanbaru, Indonesia, 4-6 October 2010
Coffee production, nitrate leaching and NaO emissions in Coffea arabica systems in
Costa Rica according to fertilization and shade management.
Harmand JM, Chaves V, Cannavo P, Dionisio L, Zeller B, Hergoualc'h K, Siles P,
Vaast P, Oliver R, Beer J, Dambrine E (2010) AGRO2010, The Scientific International
Week around Agronomy, Montpellier, France, 29 August-3 September 2010
Carbon loss associated with land-use change in tropical peat forests: Methods and
quantification.
Hergoualc'h K, Verchot L (2010) In: Parrotta, J.A., Carr, M.A. (Eds.), The international
forestry review. Forests for the future: Sustaining society and the environment. XXIII
IUFRO World Congress, 23-28 August 2010. Commonwealth forestry association, Seoul,
Republic of Korea, p. 244
C loss associated with land-use change in tropical peatlands: Methods and knowledge
gaps.
Hergoualc'h K (2010) USINDO (United States - Indonesia Society) conference, The
Indonesia- United States comprehensive partnership, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2 March 2010
Carbon loss associated with the conversion of tropical peat forests to oil palm
plantations.
Hergoualc'h K, Verchot L (2010) 2nd International Conference on Oil Palm and
Environment, Bali, Indonesia, 23-25 February 2010
Balance between soil NaO emissions and aboveground COa uptakes in coffee
monocultures and agroforestry plantations in Costa Rica.
Hergoualc'h K, Harmand J-M, Skiba U (2009) Second World Congress of Agroforestry,
Nairobi, Kenya, 23-28 August 2009
Nitrate leaching and NaO emissions in Cofka arabica systems in Costa Rica
according to fertilization and shade management.
Dr. Kristell Hergoualc'h 6/7
-------
Harmand J-M, Chaves V, Cannavo P, Avila H, Dioniso L, Zeller B, Hergoualc'h K, Vaast
P, Oliver R, Beer J, Dambrine E (2009) 2nd World Congress of Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya,
23-28 August 2009
Large variability in the partitioning of net primary productivity (NPP) between growth
and litter production in major tropical plantations: Consequences for ecosystem carbon
pools, respiration partitioning and stakes for carbon sequestration methodologies
Roupsard O, Nouvellon Y, Laclau J-P, Epron D, Harmand J-M, Vaast P, Hergoualc'h K,
Jourdan C, Saint-Andre L, Thaler P, Lamade E, Gay F, Hamel O, Bouillet J-P (2008)
IUFRO International conference on Processes Controlling Productivity in Tropical
Plantations, IPEF, Porto Seguro, Bahia State, Brazil, 10-14 November 2008
Soil NaO emissions and carbon balance in coffee monocultures and agroforestry
plantations on Andosols in Costa Rica
Hergoualc'h K, Harmand J-M, Skiba U (2007) 2nd international symposium on Multi-Strata
Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 17-21
September 2007
Carbon sequestration in aerial biomass and derived products from coffee agroforestry
plantations in Central America
Harmand J-M, Hergoualc'h K, De Miguel S, Dzib B, Siles P, Vaast P, Locatelli B (2007)
2nd international symposium on Multi-Strata Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops,
CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 17-21 September 2007
Nitrogen dynamics (coffee productivity, nitrate leaching and NaO emissions) in
Coffea arabica systems in Costa Rica according to edaphic conditions, fertilization
and shade management
Harmand J-M, Chaves V, Cannavo P, Avila H, Dioniso L, Zeller B, Hergoualc'h K, Vaast
P, Oliver R, Beer J, Dambrine E (2007) 2nd international symposium on Multi-Strata
Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 17-21
September 2007
Carbon sequestration in coffee agroforestry plantations of Central America
Harmand JM, Hergoualc'h K, De Miguel, Dzib B, Siles P, Vaast P (2006) 21st international
conference on coffee science (ASIC), CIRAD, Montpellier, France, 11-15 September 2006
Dr. Kristell Hergoualc'h
-------
Curriculum Vitae
Name:
Supiandi SABIHAM [Male]
Institution:
Department of Soil Science and Land Resource
Faculty of Agriculture
Bogor Agricultural University (IPB)
Position: Professor of Land Resource Management
Address of Institution:
IPB Campus, Darmaga-Bogor 16680, INDONESIA
Email: ssupiandi(a),yahoo.com
Place & Date of Birth
Citizenship
Home Address
-th
1949
: Cianjur, West Java, Indonesia; January 5
: Indonesia
: Jin. Raya Pondok Rumput No. 3, Bogor 16162
INDONESIA. Phone;+62-251-833-8102
I. Highlights of His Careers
Supiandi SABIHAM obtained a PhD Degree in Agricultural Sciences from Kyoto
University, Japan in 1988 with the specialization in "Tropical Soil Sciences". He has
been working as Professor of Land Resource Management at the Department of Soil
Science and Land Resource, Faculty of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University,
Indonesia. As a senior staff at his institution, he has more than 40 years of experience
in teaching and researches focusing on the main topic of Ecology-Based Peatland
Management. He has also conducted more than 10 titles of multiyear-researches
supported by national and international research funds where each of the research was
conducted in two to four years. He received the first international research-fund from
Japanese Government (Monbusho) for his study in Kyoto University titled: Studies of
Peats in the Coastal Plains of Sumatra and Borneo which are conducted in the period
of 1983-1988. He received the second international research-fund from The Toyota
Foundation for the three-year research (1991-1993) titled: Wetland Development in
Sumatra, Indonesia in collaboration with the Japanese Scholars of Kyoto University.
In the period of 1993-1994 he then conducted research in the Center for Southeast
Asian Studies (CSEAS), Kyoto University as a Visiting Researcher to study peatland
development in Japan compared with that in Indonesia. In the period of 1995-2005 he
carried out research titled: Stability and Destabilization of the Indonesian Peats which
is funded by Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of Education and
Culture, the Republic of Indonesia (RI). Since 2006 he has then been working closely
with Agricultural Research and Development Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, RI to
evaluate peatland utilization for annual and perennial (plantation) crops. In the period
of February-August in 2009, again he was invited by the CSEAS, Kyoto University as
Visiting Scholar to carry out research titled: Indonesian Peatland Management Based
on Ecosystem Unique. In November 2009, he received the two-year research grant
from The Toyota Foundation in order to carry out research titled: An Adaptive Socio-
entropy System: Balancing the Economic Endeavors and Socio Ecological Dynamics
-------
at a Palm Oil Plantation in Indonesia, which is conducted together with the Japanese
Scholars of Kyoto University. Throughout all of his careers, more than 30 scientific
papers have been written and published in the national and international journals,
either written alone or with other scholars. In the period of 2011-2013 he worked as
one of Lead Authors of 2013 Supplement to the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands. He was invited by the Department of Palynology and Climate Dynamics,
Georg-August-University of Gottingen, Germany as Visiting Research Scholar during
the period of January-February 2013 to study History of Peat Deposits in Indonesia.
During the period of April 2013 to March 2014 he worked as Visiting Professor at
Graduate School / Faculty of Agriculture, Kyoto University to conduct teaching and
research titled: Carbon Management in the Tropical Peatlands.
II. His Careers / Experiences in Detail
Education Background
[1] PhD, Tropical Agriculture/ Soil Science (Kyoto Univ., Japan) 1988
[2] Master, Tropical Agriculture/Soil Science (Kyoto Univ., Japan) 1985
[3] Sarjana1) in the field of Soil Science (IPB, Indonesia) 1974
Careers in Academic-Work
[1] Visiting Professor at Graduate School of Agriculture/Faculty
of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Japan (one year) 2013-2014
[2] Visiting Research Scholar at the Department of Palynology
and Climate Dynamics, Georg-August-University of Gottingen,
Germany Jan-Feb 2013
[3] Visiting Research Scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian
Studies, Kyoto University, Japan Mar-Aug 2009
[4] Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture, IPB 2003-2007
[5] Professor at the Dept. of Soil Science & Land Resource, IPB 2000-present
[6] Vice Rector of IPB 1999-2003
[7] Chairman of the Dept. of Soil Science, IPB 1996-1999
[8] Head of the Laboratory of Soil Chemistry and Soil Fertility,
Dept. of Soil Science, IPB 1994-2002
[9] Visiting Research Scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian
Studies, Kyoto University, Japan (one year) 1993-1994
[10] Vice Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture, IPB 1990-1993
[11] Faculty Member of the Dept. of Soil Science and Land
Resource, IPB 1975-2000
Research Experiences
[1] Improving the productivity of lands on sustainable development
of Telang's Integrated Autonomous-Region (KTM). Sponsored
by Ministry of Man Power and Transmigration, RI in collabor-
ation with IPB 2012
[2] Low carbon development strategies of Bengkalis District, Riau
Province that reduces pressure on peatland ecosystems 2011
[3] Management model for improving the productivity of lands
on sustainable development of freshwater swamp areas based
on local resources. Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, RI in
1) Education program for "Sarjana degree" in IPB, in the period of 1968-1972, was six years.
CV-Supiandi SABIHAM - Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia
-------
collaboration with IPB (KPP3T) 2010-2011
[4] An adaptive socio-entropy system: Balancing economic endea-
vors and socio-ecological dynamics at a Palm Oil Plantation in
Indonesian peatlands. Sponsored by the Toyota Foundation 2009-2010
[5] Increasing the synergetic role of Brachiaria's root exudates,
mycorrhiza, and compost of rice straw that was enriched by K
for reducing Al content in soil and increasing cassava starch.
Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, RI in collaboration with
WB(KPP3T) 2009-2010
[6] Study on the ecological and technological aspects of peat lands
for sustainable agriculture. Sponsored by Agricultural Research
& Development Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, the Republic
of Indonesia (RI) 2008-2012
[7] An Ecofarming model for sustainable farming on upland agri-
cultural landuse areas. Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture,
RI in collaboration with IPB (KPP3T) 2008-2009
[8] Analysis of food-crop-based integrated farming system in the
upland and lowland areas of South Cianjur. Sponsored by
Ministry of Agriculture, R 2004-2007
[9] Improving peat productivity for paddy field by using mineral
soil which has high content of Fe +. Sponsored by Ministry of
Agriculture, RI 2001-2004
[10] Stability condition and the processes of destabilization of the
Indonesian tropical peat. Sponsored by URGE Project, DGF£E
Ministry of Education and Culture, RI 1999-2001
[11] Controlling toxic organic-acid reactivity for increasing the peat
productivity. Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, RI 1995-1998
[12] Controlling methane emission from the Indonesian paddy soil.
Sponsored by Osaka Gas Foundation, Japan 1994-1997
[13] Ecological changes and landuse transformation in tidal swamp-
lands of Sumatra. Sponsored by Toyota Foundation, Japan 1989-1992
[14] Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and Borneo
(PhD Dissertation, Kyoto University). Sponsored by Ministry
of Education and Culture, Japan 1985-1988
Work Experience in Extension
[1] Member of the Lead Authors of 2013 Supplement to the 2006
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines
For National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands 2011 -2013
[2] Assessment of the Merauke Integrated Farming for Food and
Energy (MIFFE) in Papua; sponsored by WWF 2010
[3] Assessment of tidal swamp lands in Sumatra for new settlements
of transmigration; sponsored by Ministry of Public Works 1975-1982
[4] Site Manager in order to assist the farmers in new settlements of
transmigration of the Berbak Delta, Jambi in conducting soil
cultivation for food and plantation crops; sponsored by Ministry
of Public Works 1973-1974
Society/Organization Activities
[1] President of the Indonesian Peat Society 2012-present
[2] President of the Kyoto Univ. Alumni (HAKU) in Indonesia... 2007-2009
[3] Secretary General of Agricultural Higher Education Forum in
CV-Supiandi SABIHAM - Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia
-------
Indonesia 2005-2007
[4] Vice President of Int'l Society for Southeast-Asia Agricultural
Sciences (ISSAAS) 2004-2007
[5] President of the Indonesian Soil Science Society 2003-2007
[6] Vice President of the Indonesian Peat Society 2001-2005
[7] Secretary General of the Indonesian Soil Science Society 1999-2003
[8] Member of the Indonesian Peat Society 1988-present
[9] Member of the Indonesian Soil Science Society 1975-present
Selected publication
[1] Supiandi, S., M. Setiari, T. Watanabe, S. Funakawa, U. Sudadi, and F. Agus.
2014. Estimating the relative contribution of root respiration and peat decom-
position to the total CC>2 flux from peat soils at an oil palm plantation in
Sumatra, Indonesia. J. Trop. Agri. (in press)
[2] Supiandi, S., S.D. Tarigan, Hariyadi, I. Las, F. Agus, Sukarman, P. Setyanto
and Wahyunto. 2012. Organic Carbon Storage and Management Strategies
for reducing carbon emission from peatlands: Case study in oil palm plantation
in West and Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Pedologist 55(3):426-434.
[3] Hafif, B., S. Supiandi, I. Anas, A. Sutandi and Suyamto. 2012. Impact of
brachiaria, arbuscular mycorrhiza, and potassium enriched rice-straw-compost
on aluminum, potassium and stability of acid soil aggregates. J. Agric. Sci.
13(l):27-34.
[4] Maswar, O. Haridjaja. S. Supiandi, and M. van Noordwijk. 2011. Carbon
loss from several landuse types on tropical peatland drainage (in Indonesia). J.
Tanah dan Iklim 34:13-25.
[5] Supiandi, S and U. Sudadi. 2010. Indonesian peatlands and their ecosystem
unique: A science case for conservation and sound management. Proceedings
the International Conference on Soil Fertility and Productivity - Differences of
Efficiency of Soils for Land Uses, Expenditures and Returns held at Humboldt
University, Berlin-Germany, March 17-20, 2010.
[6] Handayani, E.P., K. Idris., S Supiandi, S. Djuniwati, and M. van Noorwijk.
2010.. Carbon dioxide (COa) emission of oil palm plantation on West Aceh
Peat: The effects of various water table depths on CC>2 emission. J. Tanah
Trop. Vol.l5No.3.
[7] Sudadi, U. S. Supiandi, A.Sutandi, and S. Saeni. 2008. In situ inactivation of
cadmium (Cd) pollution in arable soils using ameliorants snf fertilizers at
rational dosage for crop cultivation (in Indonesian) J. Tanah Trop. 13(3): 171-
178..
[8] Nursyamsi, D., K. Idris, S. Supiandi, D.A. Rachim, and A. Sofyan. 2007.
Dominant soil characteristics that effect on available K at smectitic soils (in
Indonesian) J. Tanah dan Iklim 26:13-28.
[9] Indriyati, L.T., S. Supiandi, L.K. Darusman, R. Situmorang, Sudarsono, and
W.H. Sisworo. 2007. Nitrogen transformation in flooded soil: Application of
rice straw and rice straw composts and its effect on nitrogen uptake and
acetylene reduction activity in rice plant rhizosphere (in Indonesian) J.
Tanah dan Iklim 26:63-70.
[10] Subiksa, I.G.M., S. Supiandi, Sudarsono, and J.S. Adiningsih. 2006. The
relationship between the Q-I value of potassium with nutrient absorption and
growth of maize (in Indonesian) J. Penel. Pert. Terapan 5(2): 197-204.
CV-Supiandi SABIHAM - Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia
-------
[11] Muhammad, H. S. Supiandi, A. Rachim, and H. Adijuwana. 2005. Trans-
formation rate of sulfur to sulfate at three kinds of soil with the treatment of
without and with organic matter (in Indonesian) J. Tanah dan Lingkungan
[12] Supiandi, S. 2004. Ecological issues of the Mega Rice Project: Case study of
swampland development in Central Kalimantan, pp. 73-87. In Furukawa, H.
et al. (eds.), Destruction, Health, Development: Advancing Asian Paradigms.
Kyoto Univ. Press and Trans Pacific Press. 63 8p.
[13] Hartatik, W., K. Idris, S. Supiandi, S. Djuniwati, and IS. Adiningsih. 2004.
Increasing the bounded-P in peat added by mineral materials and rock
phosphate (in Indonesian) J. Tanah dan Lingkungan. 6(1):22-30.
[14] Pujiyanto, Sudarsono, A. Rachim, S. Supiandi, A. Sastiono, and J.B. Baon.
2003. Influence of organic matter and kind of cover crops on the form of soil
organic matter, the distribution of soil aggregate, and growth of cacao (in
Indonesian). J. Tanah Trap. 17:75-87.
[15] Mario, M.D., and S. Supiandi. 2002. The use of mineral soil enriched by
materials containing higher of Fe3+ as ameliorant in order to increase the rice
production and peat stability (in Indonesian). J. Agroteksos 2(l):35-45.
[16] Supiandi, S. 2001. Increasing the productivity of the Indonesian tropical peat
through controlling several toxic phenolic acids J. Agrivita. 22:170-176.
[17] Supiandi, S. 2000. Critical water content of the Center Kalimantan's peat in
relation with irreversible drying (in Indonesian) J. Tanah Trap. 11:21-30.
[18] Supiandi, S., and N.B.E. Sulistyono. 2000. Studies on several inherent pro-
perties and behavior of peat: Losses of CO2 and CFLj through the processes of
reduction-oxidation (in Indonesian). J. Tanah Trop. 10:127-135.
[19] Supiandi, S., and Riwandi. 2000. The relationship between total iron with
humification degree and derivative phenolic acids in peat of Jambi and Center
Kalimantan (in Indonesian). J. Agrista. 4(1): 10-16.
[20] Supiandi, S. 1998. Several toxic phenolic acids in peat of Sumatra and
Kalimantan (in Indonesian). In, Presiding Seminar Nasional IV Kimia
dalam Indmtri dan Lingkungan.
[21] Supiandi, S. 1997. The use of selected cations for controlling toxic phenolic
acids in peat (in Indonesian) J. Ilmu Pert. 7(1): 1-7.
[22] Supiandi, S., S. Dohong, and T. Prasetyo. 1997. Phenolic acids in Indonesian
peat. pp. 289-292. In, Riley, J.O., and S.E. Page (eds.), Biodiversity and
Sustainability of Tropical Peatlands. Smith Settle, UK.
[23] Husin, Y., D. Murdiyarso, M.A.K. Khalil, R.A. Rasmusen, MJ. Shearer S.
Supiandi, A. Sunar, and H. Adijuwana. 1995. Methane flux from Indonesian
wetland rice: The effect of water management and rice variety. Chemosphere
31(4):3153-3180.
[24] Kusmana, C., and S. Supiandi. 1992. An estimation of above ground tree
biomass of mangrove forest in East Sumatra, Indonesia. Tropics l(4):234-257.
[25] Kusmana, C., and S. Supiandi. 1991. Soil as a factor influencing mangrove
forest community occurrence in Talidendang Besar, Riau. Media Komunikasi
3(3):49-56.
[26] Supiandi, S. 1990. Studies on the Holocene peat deposits in the coastal plains
of Jambi, South Kalimantan, and Brunei: Research based on fossil pollen
analysis (in Indonesian). Geol. Indon. 13(1):37-61.
[27] Muhadiono, I, S. Supiandi, I. Mansjoer, and M.U. Garcia. 1990. Agroforestry
technology: Rhizobium and endomycorrhizal infections in the root of Albazia
procera (Roxb.) Benth., as biofertilizer for the future. Agroforestry and Tech.
39:107-114 (Biotrop Spec. Publ.)
CV-Supiandi SABIHAM - Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia
-------
[28] Supiandi, S. 1990. Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and
Borneo: IV. A study of the floral composition of peat in the coastal plains of
Brunei. Southeast Asian Studies 27(4): 461-484.
[29] Supiandi, S. 1989. Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and
Borneo: III. Micro-morphological study of peat in the coastal plains of Jambi,
South Kalimantan, and Brunei. Southeast Asian Studies 27(3): 339-351.
[30] Supiandi, S., and B. Sumawinata. 1989. Studies on peat in the coastal plains
of Sumatra and Borneo: II. The clay mineralogical composition of sediments
in the coastal plains of Jambi and South Kalimantan. Southeast Asian Studies
27(1): 35-54.
[31] Supiandi, S. 1988. Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and
Borneo: I. Physiography and geomorphology of the coastal plains. South-
east Asian Studies 26(3): 308-335.
[32] Supiandi, S., and H. Furukawa. 1987. Stratigraphy and geomorphology of the
coastal swampy lands in the lower Batang Had river basin of Jambi, Sumatra,
pp. 65-74. In, Thiramongkol, N (ed.), Proceedings of the Int'l Workshop on
Economic Geology, Tectonic, Sedimentary Processes and Environment of the
Quaternary in Southeast Asia. Department of Geology, Chulalongkorn Univ.
[33] Supiandi, S., and H. Furukawa 1986. A study of floral composition of peat in
the lower Batang Hari river basin of Jambi, Sumatra. Southeast Asian Studies
24(2): 113-132.
[34] H. Furukawa, and S. Supiandi. 1985. Agricultural landscape in the lower
Batang Hari: I. Stratigraphy and geomorphology of coastal swampy lands
(written in Japanese). Tonan Ajia Kenkyu 23(1): 3-37.
Bogor, May 23, 2014
Supiandi SABIHAM
CV-Supiandi SABIHAM'- Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia
-------
CV Arina Schrier
Personal data
Name: Adrians Pia Schrier-Uijl
Gender: Female
Nationality: Dutch
Country of Birth: the Netherlands
Date of Birth: November 4th 1974
Address: Bovenbuurtweg 66
6721 MN, Bennekom, The Netherlands
Company name: CEIC (Climate and Environment International Consultancy)
Email: Arina.schrier@ceic.org
Telephone: +31614470780
Work experience
2010-currently Owner of CEIC (Climate and Environmental International Consultancy), Bennekom
2010-currently Associate Expert Climate and Environment, Wetlands International, Ede
2005-2010 Ph.D. Wageningen University, Wageningen
2003-2005 Junior soil specialist, Environmental Services Zuidoost Utrecht, Zeist
1999-2001 X-ray technician, Gelderse Vallei hospital, Ede, Netherlands
1993-1997 X-ray technician, Hospital Lievensberg, Bergen op Zoom, Netherlands
Education
2005-2010 Ph.D., Wageningen University, Wageningen
Working on 1) spatial and temporal variability of greenhouse gas emissions in peatland ecosystems in
the Netherlands, 2) the upscaling effluxes based on regression models 3) improvement of measurement
and upscaling techniques 4) estimates of total carbon balances in managed and unmanaged peat areas
5) Implementation of results in policy.
1997-2003 M.Sc. soil science, hydrology and meteorology, Wageningen University, Netherlands and
Univ. of Saskatchewan, Canada
Thesis 1 and practical period: Carbon distribution and sediment redistribution in a Canadian pothole
landscape
Thesis 2 : Management, Soil Structure and Organic Matter Dynamics in Dutch agricultural landscapes
1993-1997 Medical visual Techniques, Fontys Hogescholen, Eindhoven, Degree for X-ray technician
Relevant experiences in past 2 years
CEIC
2014-current: Exploring possibilities for peatland rewetting schemes under Goldstandard
2012-current: Associate expert Climate and Environment at Wetlands International, tasks include
involvement as independent expert (reviewer) in the EU, UNFCCC, IPCC, EPA, RSB, RSPO and work
related to REDD(+) activities and implementation.
-------
2012-current. Expert reviewer of the IPCC Wetlands Supplement
2012-current. Various tasks related to life cycle analysis.
2013-current. Involvement in RSPO, including various tasks related to GHG emissions reporting,
peatland conservation and rehabilitation, carbon sequestration options and carbon accounting, carbon
and GHg emission monitoring, reviewer and (past) working group membership (peatland working group
and emissions reduction working group).
Wetlands International Indonesia Programme, IND
2012-current. On behalf of Wetlands International part of a multi-disciplinary, scientific team of 12
people developing GHG emission and carbon sequestration methodologies (under VCS) for peatland
conservation and restoration projects (for avoiding deforestation, forest degradation and peat soil
degradation in tropical regions).
For RSPO/Wetlands International Head Quarters, MAL/NL
2011-2013. Preparation of a scientific review on environmental and social impacts of oil palm cultivation
on tropical peat. This report is commissioned by the Peatland Working Group (PLWG) of the RSPO and
provides an independent review of available scientific information on impacts of the use of tropical
peatlands for oil palm cultivation in Southeast Asia. The report provides recommendations for reducing
negative impacts.
For RSPO/Wetlands International Head Quarters, MAL/NL
2012-2013. Preparing a document on currently available methods for determining greenhouse gas
emissions and carbon stocks from oil palm plantations and their surroundings in tropical peatlands. This
report was commissioned by the peatland workgroup of the RSPO and provides insight in measuring,
reporting and verifying carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands. The report
presents gaps in knowledge, uncertainties and recommendations.
For Brinkmann Consultancy, NL
2011. Reviewing and helping to improve a (excel based) CIPO (Carbon Impact of Palm Oil)-tool that can
be used to calculate the carbon footprint of palm oil production in a specific situation (e.g. on the level
of an estate, a company, a region or a country), and can support the decision making processes. The tool
focusses on the oil-palm-production-system. It includes the growing of palms, the processing of FFB's
and potential land use change. It excludes transport, processing and use of CPO outside the the estate.
ForShelll,NL
2011. Assisting in preparing a document on wetlands and biofuels - impact of the global increase in
biofuel use on the biodiversity, water and carbon resources of wetlands'. The purpose of this fact book
is to support the development of criteria and standards for biofuels and their production, in order to
produce fuels that are truly a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. The focus of the document is on
palm oil, rape seed and soya.
For Quantis/Epagma, FRA
2011-2012. Act as external reviewer of a Comparative life cycle assessment of peat and major growing
media constituents.
Publications in scientific journals
Schrier-Uijl, A.P. et al (Biogeosciences Discussion, 2014, in preparation): Agricultural peatlands; towards
a greenhouse gas sink.
-------
Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Veraart, A.J., Leffelaar, P.A., Berendse, F., Veenendaal, E.M (2011). Release of CO2 and
CH4 from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry, doi:10.1007/s!0533-010-
9440-7.
Kroon, P.S., Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Hensen, A., Veenendaal., E.M., Jonker, H.J.J., (2010). Annual balances of
CH4 and N2O from a managed fen meadow using eddy covariance flux measurements. Eur. J. Soil Sci.
Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Kroon, P.S., Hensen, A., Leffelaar, P.A., Berendse, F. & Veenendaal, E.M. (2009).
Comparison of chamber and eddy covariance based CO2 and CH4 emission estimates in a
heterogeneous grass ecosystem on peat, Agric. For. Meteorol., doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.11.007.
Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Veenendaal, E.M., Leffelaar, P.A., van Huissteden, J.C., Berendse, F. (2010). Methane
emissions in two drained peat agro-ecosystems with high and low agricultural intensity. Plant Soil,
doi:10.1007/s!1104-009-0180-l.
Jacobs, C.M.J., Jacobs, F.C., Bosveld, F.C., Hendriks, D.M.D., Hensen, A., Kroon, P.S., Moors, E.M., Nol, L,
Schrier-Uijl, A.P. et al. (2007). Variability of annual CO2 exchange from Dutch grasslands. Biogeosciences,
4, pp. 803-816.
Veenendaal, E.M., Kolle, O., Leffelaar, P.S. Schrier-Uijl, A.P., Van Huissteden, J., Van Walsem, J., Moller,
F. & Berends, F., (2007). CO2 exchange and carbon balance in two grassland sites on eutrophic drained
peat soils. Biogeosciences, 4, pp. 1027-1040.
Bedard-Haughn, A., Jongbloed, F., Akkerman, J., Uijl, A., et al. (2006). The effects of erosional and
management history on soil organic carbon stores in ephemeral wetlands of hummocky agricultural
landscapes. Geoderma 135, pp. 296-306.
Pulleman, M.M., Six, J., Uijl, A, et al. (2005). Earthworms and management affect organic matter
incorporation and microaggregate formation in agricultural soils. Applied Soil Ecology 29, 1, pp. 1-15.
Uijl, A., Didden, W., Marinissen, J. (2002). Earthworm activity and decomposition of C-14-labelled grass
root systems. Biology and Fertility of Soil, 36, pp. 447-455.
Other publications
A.P. Schrier-Uijl et al, on behalf of the PLWG-RSPO and Wetlands International: Environmental and
social impacts of oil palm cultivation on tropical peat in SE Asia - a scientific review (2013).
A.P. Schrier-Uijl et al, on behalf of the PLWG-RSPO and Wetlands International : Available methods for
determining greenhouse gas emissions and carbon stocks from oil palm plantations and their
surroundings in tropical peatlands (2013).
A.P. Schrier-Uijl, P.S. Kroon, D.M.D. Hendriks, P. A. Leffelaar, F. Berendse and E.M. Veenendaal (2009):
How the methane balance changes if agricultural peatlands are transformed into wetland nature and
how this transformation influences the total carbon balance - contribution to Cost Action ES0804. In:
Water in a Changing Climate, 6th international Scientific Conference on the Global Energy and Water
Cycle and 2nd Integrated Land Ecocystem - Atmosphere Processes Study (iLEAPS) Science Conference.
Australia, Melbourne.
-------
APPENDIX D
MATERIALS PROVIDED TO THE PEER-REVIEW PANEL
D-l
-------
Technical Work Product for Peer Review:
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Palm Oil Cultivation
May 15, 2014
Introduction:
In January 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a Notice of Data Availability
Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program
(the "January 2012 NODA").1 As part of the January 2012 NODA, the EPA sought comment on its
analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with palm oil-based biodiesel and
renewable diesel, which estimated that these biofuels reduce GHG emissions by 17% and 11%,
respectively, compared to the petroleum diesel baseline. Based on the Agency's analysis, these biofuels
would not meet the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction threshold and thus would not qualify for
the RFS program, with limited exceptions.2 One of the major sources of GHG emissions in the EPA's
analysis for the January 2012 NODA was emissions from development of palm oil plantations on tropical
peat soils, which requires the peatlands to be drained in advance of plantation establishment. In this
peer review EPA is requesting scientific input about the Agency's assessment of the average annual GHG
emissions from tropical peatlands over the first thirty years resulting from the draining of the land for
production of palm oil (the "peat soil emission factor") for use in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil-
based biofuels.
Background:
EPA's analysis of palm oil-based biofuels for the January 2012 NODA estimated significant indirect
emissions from land use changes, such as emissions resulting from drained organic peat soils preceding
the development of new palm oil plantations. To estimate such emissions, the Agency projected the
extent (area in hectares) by which peat soil drainage increased in a scenario with more palm oil biofuel
production compared to a baseline scenario. This estimated area was multiplied by a peat soil emission
factor, a coefficient quantifying the emissions in tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per hectare (ha) of
drained peat soil, to obtain the total GHG emissions from the expansion of peat soil drainage.
For the January 2012 NODA, EPA used a peat soil emission factor of 95 tonnes of carbon dioxide-
equivalent3 per hectare per year (tCO2e/ha/yr) over thirty years.4 EPA chose this emission factor after a
thorough survey of the literature. We are conducting further review of the scientific literature to
determine whether new information warrants revisiting our choice of emission factor. Considering the
1 U.S. EPA. 2012. Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the RFS
Program. January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4300.
2 A baseline volume of fuel produced from facilities that commenced construction prior to December 20, 2007
may qualify as renewable fuel even if it fails to achieve 20% greenhouse gas reduction (40 CFR 80.1403).
3 EPA's emission factor for drained tropical peat soil only includes heterotrophic respiration of CO2. Carbon stock
changes from clearing standing vegetation such as trees, roots and stumps were considered separately.
4 Based on extensive public comment and peer review, in the March 26, 2010, RFS final rule (75 FR 14669) EPA
decided to annualize land use change GHG emissions over 30 years for purposes of biofuel lifecycle GHG
assessment.
Page 1 of 10
-------
comments received on the NODA and new articles published or provided to EPA, our objective is to use
a peat soil emission factor that meets the following criteria:
1. Estimates the impacts of tropical peat soil drainage on CO2 emissions from heterotrophic
respiration of drained peat soils, excluding such emissions from root respiration.
2. Includes all significant GHG emissions impacts resulting from drainage over a 30-year period
following the drainage event, including any initial pulse of GHGs following drainage and loss of
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in drainage waters.
3. Represents average emissions from the development of palm oil plantations on tropical peat soil
across Southeast Asia.
The first criterion is important because several studies that EPA has reviewed did not attempt to exclude
CO2 emissions from root respiration. Respiration from roots must be excluded from the peat soil
emission factor because they are not the result of peat soil drainage, i.e., they likely would have
occurred anyway. The second criterion is important because EPA's analysis seeks to estimate all
significant emissions, including significant indirect emissions from land use changes. Many of the
studies reviewed, particularly studies using a flux-chamber measurement technique, did not estimate
the initial pulse of emissions immediately following drainage or the impacts of DOC. The literature
suggests that such emissions sources are significant, and therefore they should be included in the
emission factor used in EPA's assessment. The third criterion is based on the fact that EPA seeks to use
one peat soil emission factor to estimate average emissions from peat soil drainage across Southeast
Asia, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia. Based on our review of the literature, we believe that the
present science and data available are not sufficient to justify, for the purposes of EPA's analysis, the use
of different peat soil emission factors for different regions or peat soil types. Thus, we are working to
develop an emission factor that represents average emissions impacts considering the average climatic,
geophysical and other conditions found in tropical peatlands.
Technical Analysis:
Table 1, below, outlines the major studies EPA considered in choosing an emission factor for the January
2012 NODA, as well as studies that were referenced by commenters. The table indicates how well each
study meets some of EPA's criteria and provides summary information about the spatial and temporal
extent of measurements for the studies.
Based on EPA's review of the public comments5 and relevant literature, the Agency believes that the
peat soil emission factor of 95 tCO2e/ha/yr, based on Hooijer et al. (2012), best meets our three criteria
and is thus the most appropriate emission factor for EPA's purposes, for the following reasons.
Criterion #1: Estimates the impacts of tropical peat soil drainage on CO2 emissions from heterotrophic
respiration of drained peat soils, excluding such emissions from root respiration.
The subsidence-based approach used in Hooijer et al. (2012) excludes respiration from roots,
which is difficult to do in flux-based studies.
5 Public comments on the January 2012 NODA are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0542
Page 2 of 10
-------
Criterion #2: Includes all significant GHG emissions impacts resulting from drainage over a 30-year
period following the drainage event, including any initial pulse of GHGs following drainage and loss of
dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in drainage waters.
Hooijer et al. (2012) was the only study to integrate carbon losses from the period of time
immediately following drainage. The authors did so by measuring the impacts from the first
years following drainage, when emissions are known to be highest. In contrast, flux chamber-
based measurements can only measure emissions at the moment of measurement. The flux-
based studies that EPA reviewed took measurements over a relatively short period of time
(generally weeks or months) many years after the initial drainage.
The subsidence-based approach includes emissions from respiration of peat-derived DOC, which
may be significant.6 In contrast, the flux approach does not capture loss of DOC because it only
measures gases respired into the flux chamber, whereas DOC losses lead to offsite CO2
emissions.
Criterion #3: Represents average emissions from the development of palm oil plantations on drained
tropical peat soil across Southeast Asia.
Hooijer et al. (2012) evaluated the largest number of sampling locations of any study (>200
total, with 167 under palm oil or acacia), with the exception of one newer study that has other
limitations.7
The study provided good temporal coverage of emissions, and its measurement of subsidence
under acacia (2 years for most locations, 8 years for some) was among the longest-term studies
published. (Three other studies evaluated longer sets of data, but these studies are less
appropriate based on the EPA's criteria.8) The measurements on palm oil were conducted over
one year, similar to many other studies, but measurements were made more frequently (every
two weeks).
The study was conducted on deep, organic-rich peat with very low mineral content that is
typical of peatlands in Southeast Asia that have been converted to palm oil.
The study was carried out in a region of central Sumatra that receives intermediate amounts of
rainfall compared to other places in Southeast Asia, suggesting that these locations should have
6 See, for example, Moore, S., C.D. Evans, S.E. Page, M.H. Garnett, T.G. Jones, C. Freeman, A. Hooijer, A.J. Wiltshire,
S.H. Limin, and V. Gauci (2013) Deep instability of deforested tropical peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon
fluxes. Nature 493, 660-664.
7 Couwenberg and Hooijer (2013) studied nine more locations than did Hooijer et al. (2012), but this study did not
consider the original emissions pulse (see criterion #2 above) following drainage and thus is not as appropriate for
EPA's purposes.
8 Couwenberg and Hooijer (2013) extended the measurements included in Hooijer et al. (2012) out to three years
for both palm oil and acacia and found similar emissions but did not constrain the initial emissions pulse. Wosten
et al. (1997) measured subsidence over several decades; however, this study did not measure bulk density or
carbon content and thus their emissions estimates are based on many assumptions. Othman et al. (2011)
measured subsidence over 8 years; however, they used a relationship from Hooijer et al. (2010) to estimate
emissions from subsidence.
Page 3 of 10
-------
intermediate levels of soil moisture and thus emissions representative of the average in the
region.9
Other support for the use of the emission factor value from Hooijer et al. (2012):
The emissions determined by the study agreed very well with flux chamber-based
measurements made on one of the same locations published in Jauhiainen et al. (2012). As
such, the emission factor was supported by two distinct measurement techniques. Additionally,
a new paper by Couwenberg and Hooijer (2013) also confirms the long-term (>5 years after
drainage) emissions estimates by extending measurement of subsidence in these locations out
to three years. This last study avoided the use of estimates of the percent of subsidence due to
oxidation (versus physical processes) and thus removed one source of uncertainty in the Hooijer
et al. (2012) emission factor.
The emission factor of 95 tCO2e/ha/yr was recommended for a 30-year time period by Page et
al. (2011) in their review of the literature on peat surface GHG emissions from palm oil
plantations in Southeast Asia.
The study was peer reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal.
EPA recognizes that the emission factor based on Hooijer et al. (2012) is among the highest published,
but we believe this study is still the most appropriate for use in our lifecycle analysis of palm oil biofuels.
There are legitimate reasons for this emission factor to be among the highest published because Hooijer
et al. (2012) was the only study to consider two factors that we believe should be included as part of
EPA's analysis. Specifically, as stated above, this study was the only one to include the pulse of emissions
during the first years following drainage and was one of the only studies to include GHGs emitted via a
DOC pathway.
Furthermore, we believe that although this emission factor is among the highest published, it is still
likely a conservative representation of the net effect on GHG emissions from draining peat soils since it
does not include emissions due to burning of drained peat during land clearing or via accidental fires.
While such emissions are episodic and thus difficult to estimate, peat fires have been estimated to emit
around 1000 tCO2/ha per event, with very large variability (Couwenberg et al., 2010). The emission
factor based on Hooijer et al. (2012) also does not consider emissions that may occur on inadvertently
drained peatlands adjacent to drained palm oil plantations. Taken altogether, our qualitative
assessment of areas of uncertainty suggests that, even though this estimate falls at the high end of
published values, it is more likely an underestimate than an overestimate of the total GHG emissions
impact associated with draining tropical peatlands for palm oil development.
Because this emission factor is an important piece of our lifecycle GHG emissions analysis, we are
seeking additional input from the scientific community about whether the emission factor used by the
EPA in the January 2012 NODA is the most appropriate for our final assessment.
9 Based on data from NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Satellite,
http://pmm.nasa.gov/TRMM/TRMM-based-climatology
Page 4 of 10
-------
Literature consulted:
Agus, F., Handayani, E., van Noordwijk, M., Idris, K., & Sabiham, S. (2010). Root respiration interferes
with peat CO2emission measurement. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil
Solutions for a Changing World. Brisbane, Australia.
http://www.iuss.org/19th%20WCSS/Symposium/pdf/0739.pdf
Agus, F., Wahyunto, Dariah, A., Runtunuwu, E., Susanti, E. & Supriatna, W. (2012) Emission reduction
options for peatlands in the Kubu Raya and Pontianak Districts, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of
Palm oil Research, 24, 1378-1387.
Agus, F., Henson, I.E., Sahardjo, B.H., Harris, N., van Noordwijk, M. & Killeen, T.J. (2013). Review of
emission factors for assessment of CO2 emission from land use change to oil palm in Southeast Asia. In
T.J. Killeen & J. Goon (eds.) Reports from the Technical Panels of the Second RSPO GHG Working Group,
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil - RSPO, Kuala Lumpur.
Ali, M., Taylor, D., & Inubushi, K. (2006) Effects of environmental variations on CO2 efflux from a tropical
peatland in eastern Sumatra. Wetlands, 26,612-618.
Couwenberg, J., Dommain, R. & Joosten, H. (2010). Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in
south-east Asia. Global Change Biology, 16, 1715-1732.
Couwenberg, J. & Hooijer, A. (2013) Towards robust subsidence-based soil carbon emission factors for
peat soils in south-east Asia, with special reference to palm oil plantations. Mires and Peat, 12, 1-13.
Dariah, A., Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. (2013) Root- and peat-based CO2 emissions from oil palm
plantations, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, doi: 10.1007/sll027-013-9515-6
Furukawa, Y., Inubushi, K., Ali, M., Itang, A.M. and Tsuruta, H. (2005) Effect of changing groundwater
levels caused by land-use changes on greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peat lands. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems, 71, 81-91.
Hirano, T., Segah, H., Kusin, K., Limin, S., Takahashi, H., and Osaki, M. (2012) Effects of disturbances on
the carbon balance of tropical peat swamp forests. Global Change Biology, doi: 10.1111/J.1365-
2486.2012.02793.x
Hooijer, A., Page, S., Canadell, J.G., Silvius, M., Kwadijk, J., Wosten, H. & Jauhiainen, J. (2010) Current
and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences, 7, 1505-1514.
Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., Idris, A., & Anshari, G. (2012) Subsidence and carbon
loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9, 1053-1071.
Husnain, Agus, F., Wigena, I.P., Dariah, A. & Marwanto, S. (in preparation) Peat CO2 emissions from
several land use types in Indonesia. Manuscript provided to EPA by the Government of Indonesia.
Page 5 of 10
-------
Inubushi, K., Furukawa, Y., Hadi, A., Purnomo, E. & Tsuruta, H. (2003) Seasonal changes of CO2, CH4, and
N2O fluxes in relation to land-use change in tropical peatlands located in coastal areas of South
Kalimantan. Chemosphere, 52, 603-608.
IPCC (2014) 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands, Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M. and Troxler, T.G.
(eds). Published: IPCC, Switzerland
Jauhiainen, J., Heikkinen, J., Martikainen, P., & Vasander, H. (2001) CO2 and CH4 fluxes in pristine peat
swamp forest and peatland converted to agriculture in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Peat
Journal, 11, 43-49.
Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A., & Page, S. E. (2012). Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation on
peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences, 9, 617-630.
Kool, D.M., Buurman, P. & Hoekman, D.H. (2006) Oxidation and compaction of a collapsed peat dome in
Central Kalimantan. Geoderma, 137, 217-225.
Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. (2013) Is CO2 flux from palm oil plantations on peatland controlled by water
table, soil moisture, day/night rhythm and/or temperature. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, doi: 10.1007/sll027-013-9518-3
Melling, L, Hatano, R. & Goh, K.J. (2005). Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical peatland of
Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus, 57B, 1-11.
Melling, L., Goh, K.J., Beauvais, C. & Hatano, R. (2007). Carbon flow and budget in a young mature palm
oil agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on
Tropical Peatland, Yogyakarta, 27-29 August 2007.
Murayama, S. & Bakar, Z.A. (1996). Decomposition of Tropical Peat Soils. Japan Agricultural Research
Quarterly, 30, 153-158.
Othman, H., Mohammed, AT., Darus, F.M., Harun, M.H. & Zambri, M.P. (2011) Best management
practices for palm oil cultivation on peat: Ground water-table maintenance in relation to peat
subsidence and estimateion of CO2 emissions at Sessang, Sarawak. Journal of Palm oil Research, 23,
1078-1086.
Page, S.E., Morrison, R., Malins, C., Hooijer, A., Rieley, J.O., & Jauhiainen, J. (2011) Review of peat
surface greenhouse gas emissions from palm oil plantations in Southeast Asia. International Council on
Clean Transportation (ICCT) White Paper Number 15, Indirect Effects of Biofuel Production Series.
Setiawan, B.I. (unpublished) Study by Bogor Agricultural University. Study is preliminary so a manuscript
was unavailable, but the study was cited in comments by Bogor Agricultural University.
Page 6 of 10
-------
Setyanto, P., Susilawati, H.L, Rahutomo, S. & Erningpraja, D.L. (2010) CO2 emission from peat under
palm oil plantation. International Palm oil Conference, 1-3 June 2010, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
U.S. EPA. 2012. Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under
the RFS Program. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 18, p. 4300, January 27, 2012.
Wosten, J.M.H., Ismail, A.B. & van Wijk, A.L.M. (1997). Peat subsidence and its practical implications: A
case study in Malaysia. Geoderma, 78, 25-36.
Page 7 of 10
-------
Table 1. Outline of studies consulted. The study used by EPA is in bold, and the studies most frequently recommended by commenters are
italicized.10
Study
Murayama &
Bakar (1996)
Jauhiainen et
al. (2001)
Inubushi et al.
(2003)
Furukawa et al.
(2005)
Melling et al.
(2005)
Alietal. (2006)
Melling et al.
(2007)
Agus et al.
(2010)
Setyanto et al.
(2010)
Jauhiainen et
al. (2012)
Marwanto &
Agus (2013)
Dariah et al.
(2013)
Husnain et al.
Method
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
Peer
Reviewed?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
?
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Land
Use?
OP+
Ag
Ag/F
Ag/F
OP/F+
Ag/F
OP
OP
OP/F
Ac
OP
OP
OP
Info on
Drainage
Depth?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Info on
Drainage
Time?
Yes
Yes
Yesb
Yesb
Yesb
Yesb
Yes
Yesb
Yesb
Yesb
Heterotrophic
Respiration?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Loss
to
DOC?
Initial
Pulse?
#of
Locations
<10
20-49
<10
<10
<10
10-19
<10
<10
10-19
~100C
20-49
~50C
20-49c'd
Years
Measured
<1
1
1
1
<1
1
<1
1
2
1
1
1
Measurement
Frequency
Once
Periodic3
(>Monthly)
-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
>Monthly
Monthly
Monthly)
Periodic3
(>Monthly)
Periodic3
The studies listed in Table 1 include new and previously considered studies mentioned in comments to EPA, discussed in review papers on this topic or provided to
EPA by stakeholders. The table only includes studies that focused on estimating an emission factor based on experimental data via primary research or meta-
analysis of primary studies. The table excludes a preliminary study mentioned in a comment by Bogar Agricultural University (Setiawan et al., unpublished) because
a manuscript describing the study was not yet available, and several papers provided to EPA that did not derive a new peat soil emission factor (e.g., Agus et al.,
2012; Hirano et al., 2012). EPA also considered Kool et al. (2006), but because this study focused on the rapid collapse of a peat dome (i.e., over several months),
rather than the long-term subsidence of peats (i.e., over many decades), we do not consider these results relevant to EPA's purposes.
Page 8 of 10
-------
Study
(in prep)
Wosten et al.
(1997)
Othman et al.
(2011)
Hooijer et al.
(2012)
Couwenberg &
Hooijer (2013)
Hooijer et al.
(2010)
Couwenberg et
al. (2010)
Agus et al.
(2013)
IPCC (2014)
Method
Subsid.
Subsid.
Subsid.
Subsid.
Meta
Meta
Meta
Meta
Peer
Reviewed?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Land
Use?
?
OP
OP/AC
OP/AC
Many
Many
Many
OP
Info on
Drainage
Depth?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes?
Yes
Info on
Drainage
Time?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes?
Yes
Yes?
Yes
Heterotrophic
Respiration?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Loss
to
DOC?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Initial
Pulse?
Yes
No
#of
Locations
10-196
20-49
>100
>100
20-49
20-49
20-49
>100f
Years
Measured
21
8
2-8 (Ac), 1
(OP)
3
Measurement
Frequency
(>Monthly)
Monthly (OP)
Monthly (Ac),
>Monthly (OP)
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Notes:
Method. Flux = flux chamber method used, Subsid. = subsidence method used, Meta = meta-analysis of other studies.
Peer Reviewed. Yes = published in peer reviewed journal, Blank = not published in peer reviewed journal, ? = uncertainty regarding peer review status.
Land Use. Land use at site during study period. OP = palm oil, Ag = agricultural, Ac = acacia, F = forest, + = additional land uses.
Info on Drainage Depth. Indicates whether the study discussed drainage depth at the site.
Info on Drainage Time. Indicates whether the study discussed when drainage occurred relative to the study period.
Heterotrophic Respiration. Indicates whether the study attempted to isolate heterotrophic respiration from peat soil, e.g., by excluding root respiration.
Loss to DOC. Indicates whether the study captured emissions related to losses via DOC.
Initial Pulse. Indicates whether the study captured the initial pulse of respiration following drainage.
# of Locations. Number of sites sampled, including replicates at the same location. Grouped into bins for comparison.
Years Measured. Length of study period. Grouped into bins for comparison.
Measurement Frequency. Indicates how often measurements were taken. Grouped into bins for comparison.
a Emissions were measured intensively for several periods of time per year, e.g. weekly for one month, every third month. Overall, the number of sampling times
per year is greater than 12.
bThe paper provided information on plantation age but not explicitly on time since drainage.
c Only includes chambers used to estimate heterotrophic respiration.
dOnly includes that part of the study that was not published in other papers. Number of locations was not clear from manuscript; number is an estimate.
Page 9 of 10
-------
This study appears to have measured more locations, but only 17 were mentioned in the publication.
Number of locations is an estimate based on references cited by this study.
Page 10 of 10
-------
Charge Questions for Peer Review:
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
May 15, 2014
Instructions:
Please review the attached Technical Work Product (TWP) and respond to the charge questions
provided below. We ask that you organize your responses based on the structure of the charge
questions provided. Please provide detailed explanations for all responses and provide citations as
appropriate.
Charge Questions:
1. Overarching charge question: Given the three criteria outlined in the TWP and the estimates
available in the literature, did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) choose the most
appropriate value for the peat soil emission factor? If not, please provide a recommendation on the
most appropriate peat soil emission factor to use in EPA's analysis, with a detailed explanation.
2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012): Some commenters have raised
questions about particular values used in the Hooijer et al. (2012) study (e.g., organic carbon
content and peat bulk density). Would you recommend that EPA use the overall approach and data
published in Hooijer et al. (2012) but use a different value for: (a) organic carbon content, (b) peat
bulk density, (c) the percent of subsidence due to oxidation, or (d) another parameter (please
specify)? Please explain your recommendation and provide supporting documentation.
3. Directionality of estimate: EPA recognizes that the Hooijer et al. (2012) study that forms the
foundation of our estimate of peat soil emissions was conducted under specific circumstances. For
example, it was conducted in a limited number of plantations on the island of Sumatra. For the
reasons listed in the TWP, we believe this is the best available estimate of peat soil emissions, but
we recognize that numerous factors could cause this estimate to be higher or lower than the
average emission factor for peat soils drained for oil palm across Southeast Asia. Please discuss
whether the emission factor value used by EPA (95 tCO2e/ha/yr) is likely to overestimate,
underestimate (and if so by how much) or provide a plausible estimate of average greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from peat soil drainage for oil palm across Southeast Asia. In particular, please
discuss whether the following factors are likely to make EPA's emission factor an overestimate or an
underestimate:
a. Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of
degradation, etc).
b. Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc).
c. Differing water management practices at plantations.
d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia).
-------
e. The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first five years
after drainage.
f. Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
g. Omission of emissions due to fire. (As discussed in the TWP, omission of this factor will
cause EPA's emission factor to underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments about
how large this underestimation may be.)
h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations.
4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report: IPCC (2014) lists a Tier 1 emission factor
of 40 tCO2/ha/year for tropical drained oil palm plantations. This value does not include emissions
for the first 6 years after drainage. However, studies have shown that a pulse of higher emissions
occurs right after drainage. The IPCC report also gives a default DOC emission factor of 3
tCO2/ha/yr. In addition, the IPCC gives guidance on quantifying emissions from fires. The report
gives a default emission factor of 1701 gCO2/(kg dry matter burned) for tropical organic soil and a
default dry matter consumption value of 155 t/ha for prescribed fires in the tropics.1
a. Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40
tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more
detailed information?
b. Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the first
several years immediately following drainage?
c. Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so, are
the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA's
purpose?
d. There are also erosion losses of particulate organic carbon (POC) and waterborne transport
of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from autotrophic and
heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded that at present the
science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on CO2 emissions or
removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you agree that the science on
these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC and dissolved inorganic
carbon in its peat soil emission factor?
5. Additional input: Please provide any additional scientific information that you believe the EPA
should consider regarding the Agency's assessment of the average annual GHG emissions from
draining tropical peatlands for palm oil cultivation for use in EPA's lifecycle GHG analysis of palm oil-
based biofuels.
1 Putting these factors together yields 264 tCO2 per ha of prescribed burning.
-------
APPENDIX E
PEER-REVIEW RESPONSES
Peer Review Response from Dr. Scott Bridgham, University of Oregon
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
1. Overarching charge question
The EPA used the soil emission factor for conversion of tropical peatlands to oil palm
(OP) cultivation from Hooijer et al. (2012). I thoroughly reviewed this paper, as well as a
number of other estimates of soil CO2 emissions from drainage of peatlands in SE Asia. I am
also quite familiar with the methods described in these papers for estimating soil CO2 emissions.
Based upon my best professional judgment, the Hooijer et al. (2012) paper is the best estimate of
soil CO2 emissions from tropical peatlands converted to OP cultivation, so I concur with the
EPA's decision on this matter.
My assessment is based upon the following reasons. Hooijer et al. (2012) included 218
locations monitored over multiple time points from one to three years, which more than doubled
the extant dataset in Southeast Asia. The analysis was done very carefully, separating out the
biological oxidation component of subsidence from the physical components, with the latter not
producing CO2 emissions. They also captured the initial rapid flush of soil respiration after
conversion to OP, which is rare in these types of studies. Bulk density was measured very
carefully in this study using excavated soil pits (although a literature value for soil carbon
content was used). The subsidence methodology is based upon minimal assumptions and only
requires estimation of subsidence, consolidation and compaction, and soil carbon content within
a peatland. A carefully done soil respiration study that separated the autotrophic and
heterotrophic components of soil respiration at the same sites (Jauhiainen et al. 2012) gave
essentially the same values as the subsidence method over the time period of measurement.
A number of studies have been published using chamber-based methods that estimate
substantially lower soil CO2 emissions from OP plantations (reviewed in Page et al. 201 la).
Chamber-based estimates of soil respiration are inherently difficult to scale up to multi-year
estimates of a soil emission factor at a landscape scale. Maybe most importantly, most estimates
include respiration of live roots, and this is an unknown or poorly constrained portion of total
soil respiration. Methods of isolating heterotrophic soil respiration such as trenching likely lead
to large artifacts in the data that are difficult-to-impossible to quantify. Additionally, most soil
respiration estimates in tropical OP plantations occurred only during a limited period of the day,
were infrequent over the year, and were done for no more than one year (and often less). Also,
E-l
-------
typically only a few locations were measured. So essentially a few dozens of heterogeneous (and
potentially biased) hourly flux measurements were upscaled to years and large landscapes, with
all of the inherent limitations in such an exercise. Consequently, I have little faith in such
estimates.
Other studies give similar rates of subsidence after the rapid consolidation phase early
after drainage, supporting the results in this study (see review in Page et al. 2013). Couwenberg
and Hooijer (2013) supplemented the sampling locations in Hooijer et al. (2012), added
additional years of observation, and used a different subsidence-based technique to estimate the
soil emission factor. The CC>2 emission estimates more than five years after drainage are very
similar (68 vs. 66 CO2eq ha"1 yr"1) between the two studies, adding further confidence in the
results of Hooijer et al. (2012).
2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012)
The largest limitation to the Hooijer et al. (2012) study was that it was geographically
limited, if intensively sampled within that area. As noted above, their long-term subsidence
values appear to be very reasonable compared to other studies. Having taken many bulk density
measurements in peat myself, I am impressed by the care they took in sampling bulk density
with their deep soil pits. Hooijer et al. (2012) do a reasonable job of estimating the effect of bulk
density and soil C estimates from the literature, and show that the effect on their estimates is
small. If anything, their bulk density estimates are lower than many published values (e.g., Page
et al. 201 Ib), and using higher initial bulk density measurements would only increase their soil
CC>2 emission factor.
Given the straight-forwardness of the approach used in Hooijer et al. (2012) and the high
quality of their data, there is no reason to believe that their calculated percent of subsidence due
to oxidation is not correct.
3. Directionality of estimate
Overall, it is my impression from reading the appropriate scientific literature that the sites
used by Hooijer et al. (2012) are relatively representative of SE Asian peatlands, and also of
those areas that are converted into OP. Sumatra originally had 45% of all peatland swamp forest
area in SE Asia (Schrier-Uijl et al. 2013), and it is an area of intensive conversion of those
peatlands to OP (Page et al. 201 la).
E-2
-------
a. Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of
degradation, etc.).
It is likely that mineral content of peatlands will affect soil oxidation rates upon drainage,
although I am uncertain of the directionality of that effect. The carbon content is a direct part of
the estimate of soil CC>2 emissions using the subsidence technique, so the effect of variation in
that parameter is straight forward to estimate (they do so in Hooijer et al. 2012). The major effect
of peat depth (unless very shallow) will likely be in the absolute amount of peat that is available
for oxidation before water-table control is no longer effective (conceptually illustrated in Fig. 6
of Page et al. 201 la). The extent of peat degradation will affect both bulk density and the amount
of labile carbon available for oxidation, as illustrated by the decrease in oxidation overtime after
drainage. Increases in soil pH will also increase decomposition rates of soil organic matter (Ye et
al. 2012). However, most SE Asian peatlands have deep, acidic, woody peats and are
ombrotrophic (Page et al. 201 la; Schrier-Uijl et al. 2013), and thus they will likely resemble
reasonably closely those studied by Hooijer et al. (2012).
b. Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc.).
Increasing precipitation and the evenness of that precipitation will be important controls
over the regional water table level, and thus the effectiveness of drainage. This should affect soil
CC>2 emissions rate from OP plantations. However to my knowledge, the climate of Sumatra is
not substantially different than other areas of high density of OP plantations on peat.
c. Differing water management practices at plantations.
A number of studies (e.g., Wosten et al. 1997; Couwenberg et al. 2010; Hooijer et al.
2010) demonstrate a substantial effect of drainage level on soil subsidence and soil CO2
emissions. Interestingly, this water table effect was not observed in Hooijer et al. (2013) in OP
plantations, which they ascribed to a nitrogen fertilization effect. To my knowledge, the average
water table depth in the sites studied by Hooijer et al. (2012) is quite representative of OP
plantations.
d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia).
Soil CO2 emissions do not appear to be very different between these two land-use types if
drainage is similar.
E-3
-------
e. The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first five
years after drainage.
I have confidence in the approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions
during the first five years after drainage. In fact, it is based upon a very minimal set of
assumptions that seem quite reasonable.
/ Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
The published data strongly indicate that tropical peatlands have relatively low emissions
of both methane and nitrous oxide. Conversion of natural peatlands into OP plantations will
reduce the methane emissions and likely increase nitrous oxide emissions. However, the limited
data on these emissions in OP plantations suggest that the effect is small relative to soil CO2
emissions (Page et al. 201 la).
g. Omission of emissions due to fire. (As discussed in the TWP, omission of this factor will
cause EPA 's emission factor to underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments
about how large this underestimation may be.)
While highly episodic in nature, emissions due to fire are massive in SE Asian peatlands
(range 86 to 387 Tg C yr"1 in Couwenberg et al. 2010, Hooijer et al. 2006, van der Werf et al.
2008). Since drainage of peatlands directly leads to increased incidence of fires, it is my opinion
that the EPA should consider them in the soil emission factor.
h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations.
Hooijer et al. (2012) suggest that incidental drainage of adjacent forests can cause large
emissions of CO2, and thus they should be included in the soil emission factor in my opinion.
4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report:
a. Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40
tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more
detailed information?
The recent IPCC Wetlands Supplement (2014) used a Tier 1 emission factor that was
based on the average of chamber-based and subsidence-based estimates. Furthermore, they used
a carbon gain-loss mass budget approach that subtracted autotrophic soil respiration and above-
and belowground litter inputs into the soil. While this is a conceptually correct mass balance
approach, it has the same uncertainties as described above in my discussion of chamber-based
measurements, and includes further uncertainties associated with estimating litter inputs (which,
in my opinion, is an almost insurmountable difficulty for belowground inputs). It is clear from
the text of the IPCC document (Annex 2 A.I) that the authors were challenged by the difficulty of
E-4
-------
deriving the corrections necessary to calculate soil oxidation from flux measurements and were
divided about the best approach to take. It is my professional opinion that the emission factor
from Hooijer et al. (2012) is more accurate than that derived from the IPCC (2014). The
approach of Hooijer et al. (2012) is imminently clearer and more defensible that an averaging of
studies without regard to the quality of their data. Also, including the initial flush of carbon
emissions after drainage would increase the IPCC estimate, although it would still be
substantially lower than the one given in Hooijer et al. (2012).
b. Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the
first several years immediately following drainage?
The answer to this questions seems to be obviously yes. The only reason to not do this
would be if the data were not available, but that is not the case with the publication of the
Hooijer et al. (2012) study. It would be better if more of this type of data were available for
comparison, but to not include it would clearly underestimate soil CC>2 emissions.
c. Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so,
are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA 's
purpose?
If the subsidence method is used, then it is not necessary to include DOC fluxes because
they are already accounted for in the loss of soil carbon and mass. However if the soil respiration
method is used, then it is necessary to include DOC fluxes. This somewhat nuanced distinction is
described more clearly in 2006 IPCC Guidelines (IPCC 2006, p. 2.9) than in the 2013 Wetlands
Supplement (IPCC 2014).
As stated above, it is my opinion that a fire emission factor should be included. While the
highly episodic nature of these fires makes including them in emission estimates to be
controversial, numerous studies have shown that ignoring their massive emissions is even more
problematic. I am unsure of the correct emission factor to use for this without substantial more
reading of the underlying literature.
E-5
-------
d. There are also erosion losses of paniculate organic carbon (POC) and water borne
transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from
autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded
that at present the science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on
CO2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you
agree that the science on these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC
and dissolved inorganic carbon in its peat soil emission factor?
As in item 4c for DOC, it is not necessary to account for POC and DIG losses if a stock-
based approach is used (i.e., the subsidence method). To the extent that these losses are
important (DIG losses may be particularly large, see Aufdemkampe et al. 2011), this is another
reason that emission estimates based upon soil respiration would be lower than those based upon
the subsidence method. I have not done an extensive literature search on the availability of POC
and DIG losses from peatlands, or even more specifically in SE Asian peatlands converted to OP,
but I doubt that much, if any, of such data exists. This is yet another reason that the gain-loss
approach of the IPCC (of which soil respiration is but one component) is inappropriate for
estimating emission factors in this particular case.
5. Additional Input
I have no further information to add beyond what I state above.
E-6
-------
References Cited
Aufdenkampe, A. K., E. Mayorga, P. A. Raymond, J. M. Melack, S. C. Doney, S. R. Alin, R. E.
Aalto, and K. Yoo. 2011. Riverine coupling of biogeochemical cycles between land,
oceans, and atmosphere. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9:53-60.
Couwenberg, J., R. Dommain, and H. Joosten. 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical
peatlands in south-east Asia. Glob Chang Biol 16:1715-1732.
Couwenberg, J. and A. Hooijer. 2013. Towards robust subsidence-based soil carbon emission
factors for peat soils in south-east Asia, with special reference to oil palm plantations.
Mires and Peat 12:1-13.
Hooijer, A., M. Silvius, H. Wosten, and S. Page. 2006. PEAT-CO2, Assessment of CO2
emissions from drained peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943.
Hooijer, A., S. Page, J. G. Canadell, M. Silvius, J. Kwadijk, H. Wosten, and J. Jauhiainen. 2010.
Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia.
Biogeosciences 7:1505-1514.
Hooijer, A., S. Page, J. Jauhiainen, W. A. Lee, X. X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2012.
Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053-1071.
IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Eggleston ,H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. and Tanabe,
K. (eds). IGES, Japan.
IPCC. 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands. Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J..
Fukuda, M. and Troxler, T.G. (eds.). IPCC, Switzerland
Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S. E. Page. 2012. Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia
plantation on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9:617-630.
Page, S. E., R. Morrison, C. Malins, A. Hooijer, J. O. Rieley, and J. Jauhiainen. 201 la. Review
of Peat Surface Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil Palm Plantations in Southeast Asia.
White Paper 15, The International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC.
Page, S. E., J. O. Rieley, and C. J. Banks. 201 Ib. Global and regional importance of the tropical
peatland carbon pool. Global Change Biology 17:798-818.
Schrier-Uijl, A. P., M. Silvius, F. Parish, K. H. Lim, S. Rosediana, and G. Anshari. 2013.
Environmental and Societal Impacts of Oil Palm Cultivation on Tropical Peat: A
Scientific Review. Reports from the Technical Panels of the 2nd Greenhouse Gas
Working Group of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
E-7
-------
van der Werf, G. R., J. T. Randerson, G. J. Collate, L. Giglio, P. S. Kasibhatla, A. F. Arellano, S.
C. Olsen, and E. S. Kasischke. 2004. Continental-scale partitioning of fire emissions
during the 1997 to 2001 El Nino/La Nina period. Science 303:73-76.
Wosten, J. H. M., A. B. Ismail, and A. L. M. van Wijk. 1997. Peat subsidence and its practical
implications: a case study in Malaysia. Geoderma 78:25-36.
Ye, R., Q. Jin, B. Bohannan, J. K. Keller, S. A. McAllister, and S. D. Bridgham. 2012. pH
controls over anaerobic carbon mineralization, the efficiency of methane production, and
methanogenic pathways in peatlands across an ombrotrophic-minerotrophic gradient. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry 54:36-47.
E-S
-------
Peer Review Response from Dr. Kristell Hergoualc'h, Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR)
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
1. Overarching charge question
The 3 criteria outlined by the EPA are that the emission factor:
1. Estimates the impacts of tropical peat soil drainage on CC>2 emissions from
heterotrophic respiration of drained peat soils, excluding such emissions from root
respiration
2. Includes all significant GHG emissions impacts resulting from drainage over a 30-
year period following the drainage event, including any initial pulse of GHGs
following drainage and loss of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in drainage waters
3. Represents average emissions from the development of palm oil plantations on
tropical peat soil across Southeast Asia.
First of all, it is not clear which reference is used by the EPA for its emission factor. Page
2 of the technical work product mentions a "peat soil emission factor of 95 tCO2e ha"1 yr"1, based
on Hooijer et al. (2012)". But the results for the oil palm plantation on peat studied by Hooijer et
al. (2012) are: 109 tonnes CO2 ha"1 yr"1 for a 25-year time period or 94 tonnes CO2 ha"1 yr"1 for a
50-year time period. Page 4 of the technical work product says that the emission factor of 95
tCO2e ha l yr"1 was recommended for a 30-year time period by Page et al. (2011) in their review.
But the review by Page et al. (2011) was published before the Hooijer et al. (2012) study and
refers to both oil palm and pulp wood plantations.
Whatever the reference used (Page et al. (2011) or Hooijer et al. (2012)), the emission
factor that the EPA proposes to adopt is based on a single study and thus definitely does not
meet the 'representativeness across Southeast Asia' criterion. If the reference used is Page et
al (2011), it does not meet the 'representativeness from the development of palm oil
plantations' criterion as pulp wood plantations are merged with oil palm plantations.
I recommend the EPA to use the emission factors recently published by the IPCC.
Chapter 2 (Drosler et al., 2014) of the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2014) reviewed extensively the existing literature,
scrutinized the quality of the data and proposes emission factors that represent carbon losses in
oil palm plantations on peat across Southeast Asia. The emission factors are:
E-9
-------
On-site CC>2 emissions: 11 tonnes CO2-C ha" yr" or 40 tonnes CC>2 ha" yr"
Off-site CC>2 emissions via waterborne carbon losses: 0.82 CO2-C ha" yr" or 3 tonnes
CO2 ha"1 yr"1
CC>2 from prescribed fires: 71.9 tonnes CO2-C ha" or 264 tonnes CC>2 ha" CC>2 from
wildfires: 163.8 tonnes CO2-C ha"1 or 601 tonnes CO2 ha"1
The on-site emission factor integrates data from 10 sites, 9 different ages after drainage, 2
countries, and includes both industrial and small holder plantations. The 10 sites include the oil
palm plantation studied by Hooijer et al. (2012). Hence if the EPA judges that the study of
Hooijer et al. (2012) meets the 'initial pulse of GHGs following drainage' criterion; implicitly the
on-site emission factor of the IPCC also does. This initial pulse of emissions was in fact not
measured by Hooijer et al. (2012) but artificially introduced in the C loss calculation.
2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012)
The subsidence method is an alternative to the conventional C stock change and C flux
change approaches for estimating peat C losses following drainage and conversion. It assumes
that most induced chemical and physical changes (compaction, shrinkage, organic matter/carbon
loss) occur above the water table and that solely consolidation-induced subsidence takes place
below the water table. The method hypothesizes that the relative contribution of the different
factors leading to peat subsidence above the water table (compaction, shrinkage, organic
matter/carbon loss) is detectable by observing changes or absence of changes in peat bulk
density. It assumes that in a given volume of subsiding peat if no change in bulk density happens
then all the volume is lost in the form of organic matter/carbon. This hypothesis is erroneous as
all processes leading to organic matter/carbon loss also induce bulk density changes. The method
requires peat bulk density data at the start and end of the subsidence monitoring period of
several years; at the same site or using a nearby reference site that would represent the initial
conditions (Hooijer et al., 2012).
The study of Hooijer et al. (2012) was implemented in a mature oil palm plantation in
Jambi that was drained on average 18 years prior to the start of the experiment. The authors
specify that fire was used for land clearing before establishing the plantation. Subsidence
measurements took place over a year at 42 monitoring points and bulk density measurements
were undertaken at 10 locations. All measurements were done on average 18 years after drainage.
There was no reference site representing the initial site condition. The authors assumed that
the bulk density below the water table depth was representative of the initial bulk density
before drainage. This assumption is not correct as bulk density varies with depth in undrained
E-10
-------
peat swamp forests (Matthew Warren, personal communication). This variation is apparent on
the bulk density profile of the primary forest in Figure D-l of Hooijer et al. (2012) and is
recognized by the authors themselves in section 4.5 of their publication. The authors
hypothesized that subsidence during the first 5 years after drainage was more intense than
afterwards and assigned to the oil palm plantation an initial (0-5 years) subsidence rate which
was measured in an Acacia (N2 fixing tree which N inputs may promote peat mineralization)
plantation with different history (e.g. no fire) and practices (e.g. no fertilization and high soil
disturbance due to short rotation periods) than the oil palm plantation and located several
hundred kilometers to the north in Sumatra. The assigned subsidence rate during the first 5 years
was 28 4 cm y"1. Peat consolidation was assumed to take place over the first 3 years after
drainage and was calculated as 25% of the subsidence (75 cm) during the first year in the
Acacia plantation. These 25% and 3 years factors are arbitrary and not based on
measurements. After removing the peat volume lost due to consolidation, the organic matter
volume lost was calculated using the equations provided in section 2.5 of the article. These
calculations used, as already mentioned, hypothetical initial bulk density values from below
the water table. Organic matter losses were converted using a default peat C content value of
55% which seems high when compared to values measured in Indonesian peat swamp forests
(Warren et al., 2012). The final results indicated C losses of 119, 109 and 94 tonnes CO2 ha"1 y"1
for 18-, 25- and 50-year time periods, respectively.
Figure D-l. Variation of Hooijer et al. (2012)'s results of carbon loss rate 0-25 years after
drainage as affected by the chosen value of bulk density before drainage (left), contribution
of consolidation to subsidence 3 years after drainage (middle) and peat C content (right).
Blue lines indicate the values assigned in the study, leading to C losses of 109 tonnes
ha" y" 0 -25 years after drainage.
]on loss rate 0-25 years after
rainage(MgC02ha-lv-l)
H* h-1 IVJ W
VI O U O If
3 O O O O O
140
«** 120 -
»* 100 -
/
4' 60 -
/
20 -
140
120
*
t 100 -
80-
* 60 -
40 -
20
***'
, * *
iJ 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.17 0 0.5 1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Contribution consolidation over first 3
Bui k dens ity (g cm-3| years Peat C content
Those results, which are based on a series of hypotheses and assumptions, evaluate
peat total C losses including losses from prescribed fire(s) and paniculate losses. The results
E-ll
-------
hinge on the accuracy of the values chosen for key parameters such as bulk density before
drainage, contribution of consolidation to subsidence or peat C content A sensitivity
analysis shows that an increase of 0.01 in the bulk density value before drainage induces an
increase in the 0-25 year C loss rate of 23 tonnes COi ha"1 y"1 (Fig 1 left); an increase of 0.1
(10%) in the contribution of consolidation to subsidence over the first 3 years after drainage
induces a decrease in the 0-25 year C loss rate of 14 tonnes COi ha"1 y"1 (Fig 1 middle); and
an increase of 0.05 (5%) in the peat C content induces an increase in the 0-25 year C loss rate
of 10 tonnes COi ha"1 y"1 (Fig. 1 right).None of these three parameters was measured by the
authors therefore it's not surprising that commenters have raised questions about the values
adopted. Using an initial bulk density value of 0.9 g cm" (average value cited by the authors in
their discussion section 4.5), a consolidation contribution to subsidence of 75% instead of 25%,
and a peat C content of 50% instead of 55% leads to C losses over 0-25 years of 50 tonnes COi
ha"1 y"1 rather than 109 tonnes CO2 ha'V"1
I would not recommend the EPA to use the overall approach proposed by Hooijer et al.
(2012) and change the values of some parameters. This approach is too sensitive to the chosen
parameter values. I also would not recommend the EPA to base its emission factor exclusively on
the Hooijer et al. (2012)'s study for the same reasons.
3. Directionality of estimate
The emission factor of 95 tonnes CC>2 ha"1 y"1 (which should actually be 109 tonnes CC>2
ha" y" if truly based on the reference mentioned) based on the single study of Hooijer et al.
(2012) which calculated the highest C loss rate in oil palm plantation on peat in the scientific
literature will likely overestimate the actual loss rate. All other studies carried out in oil palm
plantations on peat show lower C loss rates.
a. Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of
degradation, etc.).
Peat properties likely affect the C loss rate after conversion. The study of Othman et al.
(2011), for instance, measured lower peat subsidence rates in shallow peats cultivated with oil
palm than in deeper peats. The differences between the studied shallow and deep peat soils such
as nitrogen content, C/N ratio, phosphorous, exchangeable bases, etc. are probably at the origin
of the differences in subsidence rate. It could also be that the importance of consolidation is
greater than previously thought and deep profiles experience ongoing consolidation for long
periods of time.
b. Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc.).
E-12
-------
To date there is no scientific evidence that rainfall patterns can influence peat C losses in
converted tropical peatlands.
c. Differing water management practices at plantations.
The studies of Othman et al. (2011) and Wosten et al. (1997) (based on DID and
LAWOO (1996)) found relationships between subsidence rate and ground water level in oil
plantation on peat. These studies indicate increasing subsidence when the ground water level
decreases. Field measurements of soil respiration in oil palm plantation on peat, on the other
hand, do not correlate well with ground water level (Figure D-2). Laboratory incubations of peat
from an oil palm plantation indicate that peat decomposition rate is related to water content via
an optimum curve (Husnain et al., 2012). Peat respiration increases sharply from wet (100 %
water-filled pore space (WFPS)) to moist soil (80 to 40 % WFPS), and decreases when soil dries
(20 % WFPS).The peat WFPS in oil plantations is usually between 60 and 80%.
Figure D-2. Annual soil respiration rate in oil palm plantations on peat as a function of the
annual average ground water level. Soil respiration rates are from the studies of Melling et
al. (2005); Comeau et al. (2013); Dariah et al. (2013); Marwanto and Agus (2013); Melling
et al. (2013). The slope of the regression is not significant (P = 0.34).
3
Oy = -0.064x+12.673
R2 = 0.0244 ~
^ +
~~*~v
ZJ
- 20
- 15
- 10
- 5
n
(0
.c
u
M
0
1
Q.
U)
y.
'5
1/1
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
Ground water level
(cm)
d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia).
Acacia plantations on peat are confined in 2 regions of Sumatra (Riau and Jambi) whereas
oil palm plantations on peat are spread over Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, Borneo and Papua.
Acacia on peat is grown by industrial groups only while oil palm is cultivated half in an
industrial way and half by small holders. Small holders usually drain their plantations less than
E-13
-------
industrial groups. For all these reasons much more variability in C loss rate can be expected in oil
palm than in Acacia plantations on peat.
The recommended drainage depth for growing Acacia is higher than the one
recommended for growing oil palm; which may lead to higher C losses in Acacia than in oil palm
plantations on peat. In addition Acacia is an N2 fixing tree which N inputs to the soil may
stimulate peat decomposition. Finally and very importantly the short rotation time (5-6 years) in
Acacia plantations induce frequent extreme soil disturbance that may also enhance the
decomposition of the peat. Soil respiration rate in Acacia plantations (29 tonnes C ha"1 y"1) is
significantly higher than that in oil palm plantations on peat (17 tonnes C ha" y" ) with, at the
same time, a higher contribution of heterotrophic respiration to total respiration (Hergoualc'h and
Verchot, 2013).
Therefore the use of an emission factor developed for both plantation types will likely
overestimate the C loss rate in oil palm plantations on peat.
e. The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first Jive
years after drainage.
As already noted, this approach is highly hypothetical:
Q-J-
Subsidence rate over the 15 years is from an Acacia plantation with different
management and history and located elsewhere in Sumatra,
Consolidation is estimated to take place over 3 years and assumed to amount to 25%
of the subsidence rate during the 1 year in the Acacia plantation.
Bulk density deep in the soil profile is assumed to represent pre-drainage bulk density
over the whole profile.
No shrink swell effects of peat fibers affecting the short term measurements of peat
elevation.
/ Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
Methane emissions in oil palm plantations on peat seem negligible (Hergoualc'h and
Verchot, 2013) and could indeed be omitted. Nitrous oxide emissions were barely measured. The
only study available (Melling et al., 2007) assessed an emission rate of 1.2 kg N ha" y" but did
not measure the high emissions expected following nitrogen fertilization. Given the high global
warming potential of nitrous oxide I would recommend to take these emissions into account and
use the IPCC emission factors:
E-14
-------
1.2 kg N ha"1 y"1 (Drosler et al., 2014) + 1% N applied kg N ha"1 y"1 (IPCC, 2006)
g. Omission of emissions due to fire. (As discussed in the TWP, omission of this factor will
cause EPA 's emission factor to underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments
about how large this underestimation may be.)
Fire-induced emissions are extremely high and should be accounted for whenever a fire
either prescribed or wild happens. The 2013 IPCC guidelines provide emission factors for both
types of fires.
h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations.
The spatial extent of the impact of the drainage in the oil palm plantation on adjacent
lands is difficult to estimate and will depend on the ground cover (forest, shrubland, cropland,
etc.) of the adjacent land. I don't think the current scientific knowledge on tropical peatlands
allows integrating this impact in the emission factor.
4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report:
a. Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40
tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more
detailed information?
The IPCC on-site CO2 emission factor for oil palm cultivation on peat of 40 tonnes CC>2
ha"1 y"1 integrates 10 sites (DID and LAWOO, 1996; Melling et al., 2005; Hooijer et al., 2012;
Comeau et al., 2013; Dariah et al., 2013; Marwanto and Agus, 2013; Melling et al., 2013), 7 for
which a soil flux balance approach (excluding root respiration) was applied and 3 for which the
subsidence method was implemented. The ages of the plantations are 1 year (n =1), 4 years (n =
1), 5 years (n = 1), 6 years (n = 1), 7 years (n = 2), 15 years (n = 1), 18 years (n = 1). For 2 of the
subsidence sites the age of the palms is unknown but the study specifies that drainage started 12
and 24 years, respectively, previous to the monitoring period. The sites are located both in
Indonesia (n = 4) and Malaysia (n = 6), in industrial (n = 6) and small holder (n = 4) plantations
and thus span the climate, peat properties and management variability existing in the region. The
review done by the author team of the IPCC is, up to date, the most complete one and all
available results in the literature were thoroughly scrutinized. There is no sound scientific
justification for the EPA to exclude 9 of the 10 sites considered by the IPCC. Such an emission
factor would certainly not meet criterion 3 set by the EPA.
The high emissions during the first years following drainage are in some sense intuitive; it
is also important to note that there is a significant physical restructuring of the peat profile as peat
E-15
-------
"matures" following drainage. Intact wood breaks down, peat compacts as buoyancy is lost, etc.
There are no good data on CO2 fluxes to the atmosphere during this phase.
b. Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the
first several years immediately following drainage?
The only study carried out in tropical peatlands measuring subsidence a few years after
drainage is the one of Hooijer et al. (2012). The subsidence rate was observed to decrease from
year 1 to year 6 after drainage in an Acacia plantation; not in an oil palm plantation The
corresponding C loss rate calculated by the authors heavily depends on a number of assumptions
notably on the contribution of consolidation to subsidence in the first years after drainage
(http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/8/C4429/2011/bgd-8-C4429-2011.pdf, see p. C4434;
and see sensitivity analysis above). The study demonstrates indeed the pulse in subsidence after
drainage but not the pulse in emissions. The study of Jauhiainen et al. (2012) which took place at
the same Acacia plantation measured heterotrophic soil respiration rates in the first rotation
transects (i.e. less than 5 years after drainage) of about 83 tonnes CO2 ha" y" , which is about
half the value of 178 tonnes CO2 ha"1 y"1 calculated by Hooijer et al. (2012) for years 0-5 after
drainage. Hence the consolidation in the first years may have been more important than estimated
by the authors. The "emission pulse in the first several years immediately following drainage"
still remains hypothetical and not based on sound scientific evidence.
c. Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so,
are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA 's
purpose?
The EPA could eventually merge the On- and Off- site emission factors of the IPCC but
the emission factors for prescribed fires and wildfires should be kept apart to acknowledge site
specific land use history.
d. There are also erosion losses of paniculate organic carbon (POC) and water borne
transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO 2) derived from
autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded
that at present the science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on
CO 2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you
agree that the science on these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC
and dissolved inorganic carbon in its peat soil emission factor?
Yes, I agree.
E-16
-------
5. Additional input:
The literature review carried out by the EPA seems incomplete. A number of soil
respiration studies were ignored. Hergoualc'h and Verchot (2013) made the list of publications
that meet the IPCC quality criteria available at:
http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/CIFOR/faces/studv/StudvPage.xhtml?globalId=hdl: 1902.1/223
51
Some sentences in the technical work product (e.g. "In contrast, the flux approach does
not capture loss of DOC because it only measures gases respired into the flux chamber") suggest
that the approach for calculating an emission factor using peat C fluxes is not fully understood by
the EPA. The C flux approach calculates at different points in time the balance between the rate
of C deposition and the rate of C decomposition and other losses. Carbon enters the peat through
above and belowground litter inputs; it exits via decomposition of the peat and litter, fire if any
and dissolved and paniculate C. In pristine peat swamp forests the rate of C deposition exceeds
the rate of decomposition and other losses so the peat accumulates C. In drained converted lands,
it is the opposite. It has been demonstrated that peat and litter decomposition rates exceed by far
C deposition as well as particulate C losses in oil palm plantations on peat (Hergoualc'h and
Verchot, 2013). However, assuming that C losses equal soil heterotrophic respiration - as the
EPA seems to - is erroneous and ignoring C inputs to and other C outputs from the peat is
incorrect. The impact on the atmosphere is the net effect of inputs and outputs and this concept is
anchored in the gain-loss approach of the IPCC. Failing to account for inputs is the equivalent of
calculating a bank balance by looking only at withdrawals and not taking deposits into account.
Using the soil C flux approach Hergoualc'h and Verchot (2013) calculated emission factors of
CC>2, CH4 and N2O for different land-use types however the study is not even mentioned in the
technical work product.
References
Comeau, L.-P., Hergoualc'h, K., Smith, J.U., Verchot, L.V., 2013. Conversion of intact peat
swamp forest to oil palm plantation: Effects on soil CC>2 fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra.
Working Paper 110. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Dariah, A., Marwanto, S., Agus, F., 2013. Root- and peat-based CC>2 emissions from oil palm
plantations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI10.1007/sl 1027-013-9515-6.
DID, LAWOO, 1996. Department of Irrigation and Drainage and Land and Water Research
Group. Western Jahore integrated Agricultural Development Project. Peat Soil
Management Study. Final report, Wageningen, The Netherlands. In.
E-17
-------
Drosler, M., Verchot, L.V., Freibauer, A., Pan, G., Evans, C.D., Bourbonniere, R.A., Aim, J.P.,
Page, S., Agus, F., Hergoualc'h, K., Couwenberg, J., Jauhiainen, J., Sabiham, S., Wang,
C., Srivastava, N., Borgeau-Chavez, L., Hooijer, A., Minkkinen, K., French, N., Strand,
T., Sirin, A., Mickler, R., Tansey, K., Larkin, N., 2014. Chapter 2 Drained inland organic
soils. In: Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Jamsranjav, B., Fukuda, M.,
Troxler, T. (Eds.), 2013 Supplement to the 2006 guidelines for national greenhouse gas
inventories: Wetlands. IPCC, Switzerland.
Hergoualc'h, K., Verchot, L.V., 2013. Greenhouse gas emission factors for land use and land-use
change in Southeast Asian peatlands. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOT
10.1007/sll027-013-9511-x.
Hooijer, A., Page, S., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W.A., Lu, X.X., Idris, A., Anshari, G., 2012.
Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9, 1053-1071.
Husnain, Agus, F., Wigena, P., Maswar, Dariah, A., Marwanto, S., 2012. Peat CC>2 emissions
from several land-use types in Indonesia. To be submitted to Mitigation and adaptation
strategies for global change.
IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.
Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A., Page, S.E., 2012. Carbon dioxide emissions from an Acacia plantation
on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9, 617-630.
Marwanto, S., Agus, F., 2013. Is CC>2 flux from oil palm plantations on peatland controlled by
soil moisture and/or soil and air temperatures? Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI
10.1007/sll027-013-9518-3.
Melling, L., Chaddy, A., Goh, K.J., Hatano, R., 2013. Soil CO2 fluxes from different ages of oil
palm in tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia as influenced by environmental and soil
properties. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 982, 25-35.
Melling, L., Hatano, R., Goh, K.J., 2005. Soil CC>2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical
peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus 57B, 1-11.
Melling, L., Hatano, R., Goh, K.J., 2007. Nitrous oxide emissions from three ecosystems in
tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 53, 792-805.
Othman, H., Mohammed, A.T., Darus, F.M., Harun, M.H., Zambri, M.P., 2011. Best
management practices for oil palm cultivation on peat: ground water-table maintenance in
relation to peat subsidence and estimation of CC>2 emissions at Sessang, Sarawak. Journal
of Oil Palm Research 23, 1078-1086.
Page, S.E., Morrison, R., Malins, C., Hooijer, A., Rieley, J.O., Jauhiainen, J., 2011. Review of
peat surface greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia.
International Council on Clean Transportation. White Paper Number 15, Indirect Effects
of Biofuel Production Series.
E-18
-------
Warren, M.W., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Anshari, G., Hergoualc'h, K., Kurnianto, S.,
Purbopuspito, J., Gusmayanti, E., Afifudin, M., Rahajoe, J., Alhamd, L., Limin, S.,
Iswandi, A., 2012. A cost-efficient method to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil.
Biogeosciences Discuss. 9, 7049-7071.
Wosten, J.M.H., Ismail, A.B., van Wijk, A.L.M., 1997. Peat subsidence and its practical
implications: a case study in Malaysia. Geoderma 78, 25-36.
E-19
-------
Peer Review Response from Dr. Monique Leclerc, University of Georgia
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
1. Overarching charge question
This reviewer/commenter praises the EPA team for recognizing the importance of the
work by Hooijer et al. (2012) to be used as an average value of peat emission factor (95t
C/ha/hr). The Hooijer et al. (2012) study has the advantage of including drainage data from the
first year onward and this is a welcome contrast with many other studies. Its second significant
advantage is to also include the emissions from waterways, something few, if any, studies
consider at the present time in the published literature (although as we speak, there are ongoing
efforts to remedy this lack of data). Given the above, this emission factor value, on a first
examination, appears to be a reasonable and sensible choice. However, there is insufficient
information to determine and constrain the range of information to derive an estimate. There is
also insufficient information on whether the proposed emission factor is biased primarily at the
low or high end of the spectrum and the degree to which this can translate into a lower and
higher revised emission factor. There are reservations regarding the estimated current value:
1. This reviewer agrees with the suggestion that data on root respiration is important and
should be excluded from all GHG estimates related to peat emissions; this
information is likely to play a significant modulating influence in reducing the
uncertainties associated with the current estimate. That is one of the three main
criteria and that one is not currently met to derive the emission factor. At this point in
time, this reviewer believes there are no such studies yet that identifies the component
of heterotrophic respiration from the assessment leading to the characterization of the
proposed emission factor. As this time, it is thus not possible to come up with a
modification related to root respiration to the proposed emission factor that would
take that variable into account. Assuming more published literature becomes
available at the time the emission factor comes into effect, the role of root respiration
should be examined to quantify the differences between peat swamp forests, oil palm
and acacia.
Thus, the aspect of quantifying and removing autotrophic respiration needs to be
assessed to refine the current proposed factor. Depending on which method of
calculation is used to arrive at this estimate, the results can vary significantly. If the
stock-difference approach is used, the root-to-shoot ratio for mature dense peat forests
hovers between 0.01-0.06 (Brady, VA (1997). Organic matter dynamics of coastal
peat deposits in Sumatra, Indonesia. PhD thesis. University, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver). The difference between these forests and tree cropping
systems is still unknown. Assuming it were the same for both the managed oil
palm/acacia plantation and the mature dense forest, the results are less likely to be
sensitive to the fact that root respiration is unknown at this time. This hypothesis
E-20
-------
however is unlikely because of the intensive management practices associated with
oil palm.
The alternate approach, the accounting approach, requires the information that the study
by Hooijer et al. (2012) suggests as needed. It is highly likely to yield a more robust,
scientifically credible estimate than the stock-difference approach as it uses measurements of the
various carbon pools. At present, there is an urgent need to characterize all the carbon sources
and sinks within oil palm grown on peat plantations and to do so in contrasting peat
characteristics of peat characteristics and management practices.
2. The Hooijer et al. (2012) is based on an approach that has large uncertainties and is
fraught with numerous assumptions which we do not understand the implications.
The change away from the proposed average emission factor should be predicated on
accessing or creating a larger database on the interrelashionship between GHG
emissions and spatially and temporally varying peat characteristics and peat
management practices and, to a lesser degree, climate characteristics of precipitation
and temperature. So, on that basis alone, no the current emission factor needs revision
which should be higher. The magnitude of this factor is in direct relation to other
factors such as peat characteristics, root respiration, peat depth, land-use history and
management practices. The second criterion used by EPA which is important and not
currently met in the present TWP document is that the peat soil emission factor
should include ALL the significant GHG emissions impacts resulting from drainage
over a 30-yr period following the drainage event and loss of carbon to the drainage
canals. This criterion is critical and should be met. Non-CC>2 GHG emissions in oil-
palm grown on peat is extremely important to be investigated as this likely will sway
the emission factor out of the average zone into the higher CCVequivalent emissions
zone. Given the global warming potential of nitrous oxide (238 times that of 62)
and given the intensive fertilization and water table practices used by the OP industry,
quantitative information on the latter is necessary before a robust, scientifically
credible value for CCVequivalent emission factor.
3. The emission factor does not represent the average emission from the development of
OP plantations on tropical peat land. The Hooijer et al. (2012) study has an extremely
narrow range of sample locations in a region which, unlike in temperate latitudes, is
characterized with extremely heterogeneous peat depth, composition and
decomposition rates. It is also subjected to rapid transformation through LUCLCC
which leads to a variety of 'signatures' on the peat. The role of management practices
and how these values vary is also absent. That is likely a reflection of the fact that
there are few if any quantitative studies that pertain to their importance.
Another addition which might be considered as a potential fourth criterion lies in the
emissions caused by logging at the time of land conversion, opening canals, and land clearing
with resulting large forest fires. The TWP has limited its task to post-clearing CO2 emissions and
focuses its attention to the period from the first pulse of CO2 following the initial drainage
E-21
-------
onward over a thirty-year period. Furthermore, the occurrence of peat fires following the
establishment of oil-palm plantations on peat land is also ignored. Fires emissions of carbon
monoxide and carbon dioxide are significant with smoldering fires that can linger for months
after their onset.
In summary, there is such a paucity of information on important questions (nitrous oxide
and methane emissions from peat) and simplifications regarding peat types and other variables
detract from the otherwise very careful work of Hooijer et al. (2012). The emissions factor could
be used TEMPORARILY as this will have already an effect on emissions, but should be made
conditional to the urgent need of further studies as we may still underestimate the emissions.
2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012)
The approach used to arrive at a suitable average emission factor should be refined. At
present, we do not know the importance of several key variables. It is thus possible that the
current proposed emission factor overestimates or underestimates the current emissions by an
order of magnitude. Having sufficient baseline information on many of these variables can harm
the economy of emerging countries or, conversely, can have an even more deleterious impact on
the climate than suspected. Organic carbon content and peat bulk density are good variables but
the broad variability in the number of estimates of the Hooijer et al. study for different (and
limited) sample locations suggest that the authors have left out other variables. A key factor lies
in the recognition that characteristics of peat lands are highly heterogeneous geographically and
over short distances from the coast (Paramanthan 2014 article published in Geoderma). The peat
varies both in composition and in depth, both of which are likely to impact the results of the
study by Hooijer et al. (2012). While it is recognized that EPA seeks an 'average' value for an
emission factor, there are still important facts that have been left out of the Hooijer et al. (2012)
study which should be taken into account before an emission factor value is formally arrived at.
The degree to which peat characteristics modulates the emissions of GHGs is unknown and
temporal changes in peat characteristics and carbon loss over decades, should be assessed and
incorporated into the emission factor. That, together with the fact that proposed emission factor
is based on CO2 gas alone, is perhaps the single, most significant variation to the current
emission factor. It is not possible at this time to provide a solid, credible revised emission factor.
Another significant factor that limits the robustness of the emission factor used is the relationship
of subsidence rate versus CO2 emissions which remains to be verified for different peat
classifications (hemic sapric, fibric). Since most current classifications were developed for the
most part for temperate latitude peat, a more meaningful classification should include peat depth
and peat composition and management other than the water table level. At present, only the peat
E-22
-------
classification of Paramanthan published in Geoderma focuses on the mapping of the
characteristics of Southeast Asian lands. The Hooijer et al. (2012) study does not appear to
recognize the important regional differences in peat composition and the variables of bulk
density and organic carbon content leave out related variables.
Always discussing why the third criterion does not represent the emissions as well as
hoped, is the issue of management practices and land-use history. Another limitation of the
Hooijer et al. (2012) study is management practices information is not considered outside water
table management. Management in this context should thus include more than water table
management: it should also include ground cover which acts both to reduce CO2 emissions and
acts to partially offset the emissions. We cannot make an informed recommendation on the level
of importance of the ground cover in reducing the carbon dioxide emissions since there is no data
at present. This addition of ground cover is increasingly being used as part of Best Management
Practices in Southeast Asian oil palm plantations.
More such factors pertaining to management practices include fertilizer application on
peat. The timing of the applications, the fact that in oil palm the applications are continuous
throughout the year and the currently standard fertilizer application rate have to be examined for
contrasting peat types. This is also left out and should be added to the two main variables. As the
amount of fertilizer in the peat changes, the amount of CC>2 emissions will also changes in ways
that have not been quantified. That is interrelated to the second criterion which encompasses the
non-CC>2 GHGs. We cannot make a revision to the proposed factor even though this is very
important as there is a lack of relevant data.
In the study by Hooijer et al. (2012), the importance of emission factor for global
warming potential should be examined and not just limited to CC>2. The nitrogen and the carbon
cycles are intertwined and modulate one another through the activity of the methanogenesis and
other bacterial action mechanisms. It is highly possible that methane and nitrous oxides can
exceed the true GWP of CO2 in terms of GHG emissions. This is because of the extremely
important nitrous oxide has the global warming potential of 238 that of carbon dioxide and 25
times that of CO2 in the case of methane. With fertilization as a standard management practice,
this aspect of emissions remains unknown and urgently needs quantification. (The two existing
related studies were discussed in a different section).
3. Directionality of estimate
There is such an unprecedented paucity of data available in quality peer-review literature
that it is challenging to adequately address this question directly. The Achilles' heel of the study
E-23
-------
is as follow: the main limitation of the study is the fact that only COz emissions are considered
when in peat, methane emissions and nitrous oxides resulting from fertilization practices are
certain. It is thus likely that the neglect of these radiatively important greenhouse gases
underestimate the proposed emission factor. It is highly recommended to include all three GHGs
and to not oversimplify this variable in the determination of a reasonable emission factor.
a. Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of
degradation, etc.).
A key factor beside the non-inclusion of two powerful GHGs lies in the fact that the
widely varying peat characteristics (as discussed earlier). The rate of peat decomposition is
intricately intertwined with the release of carbon dioxide and we can expect the proposed factor
to underestimate the emissions more for sapric peat than for fibric and hemic. There is no
literature either that documents this. Different peat types (hemic, sapric or fibric) will have
different emission rates, a fact that is ignored from the average emission factor. We do not know
at time the significance of leaving this variable out (high and low ends of the range of values and
what fraction of the total OP grown on peat is on one type of peat rather than on the other).
In addition, the Hooijer et al. study does not consider that peat changes composition over
time, that fibric material, over a 30-yr period for instance, may turn hemic and sapric. The
variation between emissions from these different peat needs to be quantified before sensible
average emission factors can be derived with more certainty.
b. Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc.).
The precipitation regime is the main climatic driver in the tropics, unlike in temperate
latitudes where temperature is an important limiting variable. The local microclimate with its
concommittant spatial and temporal characteristics of heavy precipitation near the coast, rain
clouds at high altitudes, interseasonal monsoonal variation in total precipitation and timing of the
precipitation in relation to the years following LUCLCC, are expected to impact the emissions as
it modifies the water content in the peat and its importance has yet to be examined.
c. Differing water management practices at plantations.
Current water table management practice with the suggestion of keeping it as high as
possible results in the emission of methane, due to the action of anaerobic microbial activity
(methanogenesis). That means that CO2 emissions rise when CH4 emissions fall and vice versa
due to the preponderance of one microbial population over the other. Thus, customary water
table management, as is currently practiced to keep the water level high, should be revised to
E-24
-------
decrease the total GHGs (calculated in terms of C(^-equivalent) emissions and not just CC>2. It
can thus been concluded that organic content and peat density as the main variables are
insufficient predictors of carbon dioxide emissions. The resulting emissions, framed in terms of
C (^-equivalent, is thus likely to be higher than estimated by the emission factor.
Given that the emission factor is so closely intertwined with the cycles of nitrous oxide
and methane and carbon dioxide, studies related to nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized peat
are scant and contradictory: One such study suggests thatN20 emissions from highly fertilized
crop fields and peat forests to be extremely elevated (with emissions as high as 52Mg of CO2
(Takakai, F. et al. 2006. Effects of agricultural and-use change and forest fire on NiO
emission from tropical peatlands., Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Sci. Plant Nutri.
(Tokyo) 52: 662-674). In that study, the authors conclude that nitrous oxide emissions are
comparable and even larger than total C loss resulting from conversion of peat swap forests into
oil palm. Since these emissions are peat-depth dependent, there are likely to be a wide variability
in these estimates. However, another study finds contrasting results and concluded that nitrous
oxide emissions are likely to play a minor role in the generation of nitrous oxide emissions from
oil palm grown on peat. The process of nitrification and denitrification are the main processes
that produce nitrous oxide emissions and these effluxes peak when the water content is around
field capacity (often 60% of pore-filled space filled with water). Thus, drainage is likely to
increase emissions, particularly in fertilized systems or in systems with nitrogen-fixing trees
(Murdiyarso, D., K. Hergoualc' and L. V. Verchot. Opportunities for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions in tropical peatlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science DOI
10.1073/pnas.091: 1966-107). The study by Hooijer et al. was conducted in an acacia plantation
(Melling, L., Hatano, Fl., Goh K) 2005. Methane fluxes from three ecosystems in tropical
peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. SoilBiol. Biochem 37:1445-145). The cycles of methane,
CC>2 and nitrous oxide are closely interrelated and there needs to be a greater body of studies in
this regard as well as intercomparison/validation experiments.
The frequency of the measurements used to arrive at this average value is too low. The
use of monthly data can be hazardous given the temporal variability and intermittency of
precipitation. There is a large diurnal and a seasonal variability in these estimates. The timing of
the precipitation in relation to CC>2 emission measurements needs to be addressed. The data
should be collected continuously and makes a spatial integration (with the eddy flux method)
using different instrumentation.
The impact that different plantations types have on CO2 emissions when grown in peat:
As alluded earlier, the lack of information on the role of root respiration is a limitation of the
E-25
-------
study by Hooijer et al. (2012). This information (see earlier discussion) may help revise slightly
downward the emission factor and it is unlikely to modify the two other greenhouse gases.
However, given that any difference between the root respiration of a natural peat swamp forest
and oil palm is unknown, no information can be used at the present time.
d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia).
The impact of different types of plantations on emissions is likely to be concentrated
across plantations differences between root respiration and whether the crop is one that fixes
nitrogen or not (i.e. reduced fertilizer application). Plantation age is also a factor that the TWP
does not address as this is relevant in terms of GHG emissions across different plantations (not
just plantation types but also plantation age since the degree of variability across plantation types
may be of the same order of variability seen across plantation ages for the same species of trees).
Murdiyarso et al. (2010) suggest that the differences in emissions of nitrous oxides could be
larger following the conversion of swamp forests in Acacia sp. plantations than on oil-palm. No
supporting data is provided however for this statement.
e. The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first five
years after drainage.
Given that the method itself is seen as a good first try, that may be ok but this is not an
approach that is likely to represent the mean or median of the emissions for the
Malaysian/Indonesian peninsula.
/ Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
Always related to the second criterion outlined in the TWP document, the contribution of
methane production is also not considered and converted into C (^-equivalent in the current
calculations of the present emission factor. Methane production is a function of moisture,
compaction and temperature; it is also linked to NH4+ NO3" contents in the case of fertilized
systems. Oil palm plantations on peat are subjected to frequent fertilizer applications and how
the combined result of altered soil organic content, soil porosity and water table impact these
GHG emissions should be quantified.
g. Omission of emissions due to fire. (As discussed in the TWP, omission of this factor will
cause EPA 's emission factor to underestimate emissions, but we welcome comments
about how large this underestimation may be.)
Emissions from fires arising from land-use conversion are by far the most considerable
source of emissions. In most cases, vegetation and forest fires are lit intentionally to remove
E-26
-------
vegetation residues or debris before introducing new plantations. With the detectable drying
signature of changes to the climate, droughts-induced fires are also increasingly significant.
Although peat fires are intermittent, the CO2 flux from smoldering peat fires can be at least as
large as the decomposition flux from peatlands (Rein, G., Cohen S., Simeon A. 2009. Carbon
emissions from smoldering peat in shallow and strong fronts. Proc. Combustion Ins.
32:2489-2496). Quoting Murdiyarso et al. (2010), recent data using a Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer and Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere sensors suggest
an average CO2 emissions from fires from 2000-2006 of 6.5 Pg/yr (van der Werf G. R. et al.
2008. Climate regulation of fire emissions and deforestation in equatorial Asia. Agr.
Ecosyst. Environ. 104: 47-56).
h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations.
Horizontal carbon content advected from the neighboring swamps is unknown and should
be quantified. A migration of DOC from regions of highly concentrated DOC to the lower DOC
regions within the water table is expected.
Charge Question # 4:
a. Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40
tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more
detailed information?
With regards to EPA using the IPCC Tier 1 default of 40t CO2/ha/yr, this estimate is
likely to be too low. It is based on earlier, older literature data and also does not recognize the
many factors outlined in the present review. In this regard, the EPA value appears closer to a
genuine average emission factor.
b. Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the
first several years immediately following drainage?
The emission factor that EPA uses should definitely include as much as possible all the
sources and sinks modifications that result from land-use change and the first five years
following drainage are very important.
c. Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so,
are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA 's
purpose?
EPA should include DOC and fire emission factors. DOCs are a 'hot spot' of GHGs and
are now being documented. Advection from neighboring regions is caused by land-use
E-27
-------
conversion and this is also should be taken into account for robust emission factors to be
determined.
d. There are also erosion losses of paniculate organic carbon (POC) and water borne
transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO 2) derived from
autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded
that at present the science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on
CO 2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you
agree that the science on these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC
and dissolved inorganic carbon in its peat soil emission factor?
The level of POC arising from erosion should be quantified and I agree with the assertion
that the current level of science is insufficient to decide whether these factors should be included
in the determination of the emission factor or neglected.
5. Additional input
I have no further information to add beyond what I state above.
E-28
-------
Peer Review Response from Dr. Supiandi Sabiham, Department of Soil Science and Land
Resource, Bogor Agricultural University Indonesia
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
I. Introduction
As an independent reviewer, I have read the Technical Work Product (TWP): Emission
factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation reported by US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Charge Questions provided by RTI International. I also have
read several literatures in relation to the topic in order to make comments on the EPA's report
concerning the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with palm oil-based
biodiesel, which is estimated by EPA that this biofuel should reduce the GHG emissions by 17%
compared to the petroleum diesel baseline. In January 2012, EPA released a Notice of Data
Availability (NODA) concerning the renewable fuels produced from palm oil under Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. For this January 2012 NODA, the Agency assumed that average
emission factor from drained tropical-peatlands, referring to the subsidence studies of Hooijer et
al. [2012] and review paper of Page et al. [2011], was of 95 t CO2 (eq) ha"1 yr"1 over a 30-year
time period. Based on this emission factor, EPA then analyzed that the biofuel was not meeting
the statutory 20% GHG emissions reduction. Agus et al. [2013] has calculated the CO2
emission from peat oxidation under oil palm plantation, where the result was of 43 t CO2(eq)
ha"1 yr"1; this emission factor was then used by them as a default value based on their evaluation
of various published studies with an assumption that groundwater level of peat soil under such
plantation is at approximately 60 cm below the soil surface.
II. Review of TWP
The paper of Hooijer et al. [2012] is the developed paper of Hooijer et al. [2011], from
which the Agency has adopted the emission factor of peats under oil palm plantation, i.e.: 95 t
CO2 ha"1 yr"1 over a 30-year time period as mean high-emission rate from peats covered by oil
palm plantation for 25 and 50 years of the plantation cycles (Table D-l). I observed that the
paper of Hooijer et al. [2012] has two strength and several weaknesses in relation to the
methodology they used. The strength includes: (i) the use of subsidence method that seems to
be free from root respiration confusion, which could influence the emission measurement using
closed chamber technique, (ii) large number of subsidence observation points with a total of 218,
namely: 42 points in oil palm plantations, 125 points in Acacia plantation, and 51 points in peat
swamp forest adjacent to the plantations of Acacia, and (iii) a high measurement intervals that
vary from 1 to 3 months.
E-29
-------
Table D-l. Annualized values for peat carbon losses from plantations over various time
scales, according for higher rates of emissions in the years immediately
following drainage [Page et a/., 2011]
Number of years Carbon loss (t CO2(eq) ha'1 yr'1
5 178
10 121
20 106
25 100
30 95
40 90
50 86
The weaknesses, which can disqualify a validity of the emission factor, are described as
follow. The accuracy of carbon stock measurement using the subsidence technique depends on
the complete measurements of peat soil bulk density (BD) and carbon content throughout the
profile of peat soil. I observe that no review was conducted on the change of peat BD profile.
Hooijer et al. [2011] only used peat BD data from the soil surface to the depth of 1.2 m in
Acacia plantation and 2 to 2.5 m in oil palm plantation; they assumed that peat BD data below
these depths were the same value with that at above. They also estimated the change of peat
BD only from the different locations and the different land uses, i.e.: under: Acacia plantations
of 2 years, Acacia plantations of 5-7 years, and oil palm plantations of 18 years after drainage
was started. It was not done to review peat BD at the same site, at least at the beginning and the
end of their three- year-data collection. I understand that their research approach is the best for
their research purposes since they had difficulties to meet data of peat BD at the same site for a
period of many years of observations. However, to use such data as database for calculation of
carbon stock and hence carbon emission from peat under oil palm plantation, however, it would
give information which is not scientifically justifiable. In a reality, peat thickness of even at
1000 ha (for example at the MPOB Research Station at Sessang, Sarawak) varied from 100 to
400 cm consisting of the nature of peat BD that varied from 0.09 to 0.14 [Othman et a/., 2011];
after the use of peat for oil palm cultivation in several years, peat BD sharply changed (Table D-
2).
E-30
-------
Table D-2. Mean peat BD (g cm"3) from several planting block (before and after peat
development for palm oil cultivation) [Othman et a/., 2011]
Peat Natun
devel. of peal
Thick peat
2-9 yr 0.09
6-1 Syr
t
2001
0.08 (2)
0.11(6)
After peat development for palm oil cultivation
2002
0.10(3)
0.12(7)
2003
0.11(4)
0.14(8)
2004
0.12(5)
0.15(9)
2005
0.14(6)
0.16(10)
2006
0.15(7)
0.17(11)
2007
0.16(8)
0.18(12)
2008
0.17(9)
0.19(13)
Mean
0.13
0.15
Shallow peat
9-16 yr 0.14 0.17(9) 0.18(10) 0.19(11) 0.20(12) 0.21(13) 0.22(14) 0.23(15) 0.24(16) 0.21
Notes: Numbers in blanket show year after development. Thick peat: > 150 cm; Shallow peat: 100-150 cm.
The other weaknesses are in peat subsidence and organic carbon (org-C) content
measurements. Peat subsidence monitoring carried out under oil palm plantation was only
conducted for one year (July 2009 to June 2010), which is too short a time period for a
subsidence research. The result of the cumulative subsidence from 14 subsidence poles
including in Acacia plantation was then recalculated to annual mean values that allowed
comparison between all locations.
In relation to org-C content analysis, Hooijer et al. [2011] and Hooijer et al. [2012]
adopted the analysis result of org-C content of 55% in peat based on Suhardjo and Widjaja-Adhi
[1977]. Kanapathy [1976] in his research on peat in Malaysia reported the values ranged from
58% at the peat surface to 25% in the subsoil, and studies by Tie [1982] in Sarawak showed a
range of 20% to 38%; these indicates that peat soil has large variations of org-C values both
horizontally and vertically. Sedimentation during flooding gave a possibility to decrease the
content of peat org- C. From our experiences, org-C contents in peat samples from Sumatra and
Kalimantan mostly lay around 30% to 55%. It should also be noted that Hooijer et al. [2011]
and Hooijer et al. [2012] determined that contribution of peat oxidation to subsidence was 92%
for plantations on the drained tropical peat, which is not based on the direct measurement of the
change of carbon stock according to the change of BD and org-C content. They then applied
such constant as a basis of the rates of carbon loss which is equivalent CC>2 emissions from peat.
Regarding these problems, EPA has been conducted further review to the scientific
literatures in order to revisiting the Agency's choice of emission factor. To revisit such emission
factor, EPA consideration has been focused on three criteria mentioned in TWP. However, for
the second criterion, to me it seems to have a difficulty to include indirect emissions from land
E-31
-------
use changes since the primary peat swamp-forest was mostly not converted directly to oil palm
plantation, but it has followed the long-term processes as Pagiola [2000] stated (Table 3).
Table D-3. Long-term Processes of Forest Conversion in Indonesia [modified from
Pagiola, 2000]
Transmigration Project
Logging
Estate Crops
Transmigration project that started in
1969 became the primary engine for
new settlements of the Outer Islands,
reaching its peak in the mid-1980s. In
addition to its direct impact on the
forests, the project had substantial
secondary impact through mechanical
land-clearing. During the period of
1969 to 2000, number of population
who resettled at several locations in
the main Outer Islands (Sumatra,
Kalimantan, and Papua) was of 3.05
M [Tjondronegoro, 2004]; for which
the lands of 8.94 M ha, provided by
government, are mostly derived from
primary forests. As an indirect impact
of the project, there has been
substantial amount of spontaneous
settlement into the forest areas both by
local population and by migrants from
the more heavily populated islands.
In line with the transmigration
project, systematic logging in the
Outer Islands was developed, which
is started from 1970s. Logging also
provided the access that facilitated
spontaneous settlement into the
forest areas. From a review of the
available evidence indicates that
estimated deforestation rate was of
0.6 M ha year-1, much of it due to
the programs sponsored by the
Indonesian government, including
the transmigration program and
forest concessions (HPH). The loss
of natural forest that reaching its
peak during the period of 1985 to
1997 was of about 6.7 M ha in
Sumatra and about 8.5 M ha in
Kalimantan; this amounts to an
average annual rate in such two
islands of about 1.26 M ha year-1
[Holmes, 2000].
The mid-1980s saw the government
commence its policy of promoting
the diversification of product with a
strong focus on the development of
degraded forests for tree crop and
oil palm plantations. From around
0.5 M ha in 1984, the gross area of
degraded forest under oil palm had
increased to over 1.3 M ha by 1990,
and nearly 2.4 M ha in 1997.
Expansion of oil palm into
degraded peat swamp forest,
reaching its peak in the mid-1990s,
was due to lack of available
mineral-soil lands, particularly in
the regions that having areas
dominated by peat swamp forest.
From around 8.02 M ha of oil palm
plantation in 2010, the area of most
degraded peat swamp forest under
oil palm was about 1.71 M ha
[Agusetal, 2011].
A recalculation from data availability [Gunarso et al, 2013], it can be summarized that
oil palm expansion into peatland between 1990 and 2010 used only around 6% primary forest,
28% degraded forest, 26% shrubland, and 40% other land uses including rubber plantation,
timber plantation and other low carbon biomass agriculture and grasslands. For 2000 to 2010,
based on the same database mentioned above, the expansion of oil palm into peat swamp forest
in Sumatra and Kalimantan was only 28%, which mostly replaced the degraded forest
[Table D-4].
E-32
-------
Table D-4. Expansion of Oil Palm Plantation Into Land Use Types During the Period of
1990 to 2010 Based on Agus et al [2011] estimate (in %)
Land Use Type
Peat swamp forest:
Primary forest
Degraded forest
Mixed (agroforestry)*
Shrubland
Grassland and cropland
Historical 1990 - 2010 for the Three
Main Islands in Indonesia
6
28
34
26
6
Historical 2000 - 2010 for
Sumatra and Kalimantan
28
26
23
23
*) Rubber and timber plantation - agroforestry.
III. Charge Questions
1. Overarching charge question
As I have mentioned above, the Agency chose the value of peat soil emission factor
based onHooijer et al. [2012] and Hooijer et al. [2011] that having several weaknesses,
particularly in relation to database of peat BD and peat org-C content, needs to reconsider again
for revisiting new choice of emission factor. I convinced that average emissions from peat soil
drainage of 95 t CO2(eq) ha"1 yr"1 over a 30-year time period under oil palm plantation is
categorized as a high emission rate. Table D-5 shows peat emission factor groupings under oil
palm plantation based on closed chamber measurement.
It should be noted that groundwater table of peat soil under oil palm plantations as deep
as 60 cm is considered most representative and recommended as the best management practice
for maintaining the low emission, where the production of oil palm (FFB, fresh fruit bunch) is
also still in high level (Figure D-3). Based on data availability of the emission that measured by
using closed chamber method (Table D-5) and groundwater level of 50 to 60 cm below soil
surface, I have then calculated the average of emission rate under oil palm plantation as
high as 43.6 t CC>2(eq) ha^yr"1. Therefore, I recommend that this value is the most
appropriate peat soil emission factor; such value has comparable with that of Melling's report
[Melling et al. 2007] of 411 CC>2(eq) ha"1 yr"1 with root respiration included.
E-33
-------
Table D-5. Peat Emission-Factor Groupings Under Oil Palm Plantation Based on
Different Sources, Which Are Measured by Using Closed Chamber and Peat
Subsidence Methods
Carbon emission from peat
(t CO2 ha"1 yr"1)
Remarks
References
20-56.5
33.3
8
38.5
2
43.0
0
45.4
5
63.0
4
(StdDev:21)
Based on closed chamber
Depend on age of oil palm; and having the
limitations of short-term measurements and
mixture of root respiration
Immature oil palm
9 years old mature oil palm
15 years old mature oil palm
21 years old mature oil palm
All these values have the limitations of short-
term measurements and mixture of root
respiration
Mean emission calculated from the
emissions that measured at the 8-position
between nearest (1.0m) and further (4.5m)
from the 15-year old oil palm trees, where
groundwater levels were > 100 cm below soil
surface; having the limitations and mixture of
root respiration.
Based on peat subsidence
None involves directs measurement of the
change in carbon stock; groundwater level was
assumed at 85 cm below soil surface
Agasetal. [2010] Fargione
etal. [2008] Jauhiainen et al.
[201.1] Melting 3lrn tree
50-90OTI *
X-Y °
2 x
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Max. depth of groundwater level (cm)
(a) Data from Maswar [2011]
-fc-GWL: 40 cjn JiaoQft 38-64 cm)
-Ortrtfl.: 6i om 4t**9* **-» <»*
v'V'S*^**^*^
/
Yew of h»v»t
(b) Source: Othman [2010]
E-34
-------
The emissions from peat soil under oil palm plantations shown in Table 5 exclude the
important of oil palm roots on the total CC>2 emission. Jauhiainen et al. [2012] have been
reported that the Acacia roots have important contribution to CC>2 flux in peat soils of Kampar,
Riau. However, there are few reports concerning the contribution of root respiration to the
total CC>2 emission from peat soil under oil palm plantation due to several difficulties in
measuring respiration from oil palm roots directly in flux-based studies. Relative contribution of
root respiration in mineral soil to the total CC>2 flux was obtained successfully by Werth and
Kuzyakov [2008], where the contributing proportion was found using isotopes 13C and 14C; the
result showed that the relative contribution of root respiration to the total flux ranged from 69 to
94%. In humid temperate region, the contribution of root respiration in peat soil range from 55%
to 65% of the total soil respiration.
The relative contribution of root respiration to the total CC>2 fluxes of root respiration
and peat oxidation from peat soil of Muaro Jambi, Sumatra (1° 43' 0.7" S; 103° 52' 56.7" E)
under the 15- year-old oil palm plantation was reported by Sabiham et al. [2014]; this relative
contribution of root respiration was of 74%. The average CC>2 flux based on its measurement per
oil palm tree at the 8-position observation points between the nearest (1.0 m) and the further (4.5
m) from oil palm tree was of 63.04 t CC>2 ha"1 yr"1. Dariah et al. [2013] have been reported that
contribution of oil palm root to the total CC>2 flux from peat soil at distances of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,
and 2.5 m from the 6-year-old oil palm trees was of 49%, 42%, 31%, and 17%, respectively.
These indicate that the age of oil palm has clearly influenced the root-related contribution to the
total CO2 fluxes.
2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. [2012]
It should be noted that the process of peat subsidence is not simple to be calculated
because it depends on several factors such as peat compaction, peat consolidation, peat
decomposition (peat oxidation), and the loss of peat materials due to erosion. Peat consolidation
can be estimated by using the method based on the decrease of groundwater level of peat, and
peat oxidation can be predicted by flux-based studies. However, there is lack of information
about how much the rate of peat subsidence due to respective compaction and erosion
processes. Therefore, estimating the most appropriate value for the peat soil emission factor
based on subsidence research has to be reconsidered again. I agree that subsidence based
technique seems to have better long-term effect of drainage on carbon stock depletion of peat as
opposed to the technique of closed chamber measurement which reflects instantaneous CO2
efflux and based on the majority of research design. However, subsidence technique is still
questionable whether the accuracy of carbon-stock depletion measurement is valid or not, since
E-35
-------
the complete measurement of peat BD and org-C content throughout peat profiles was not
conducted.
As I have already mentioned before that org-C content in the upper layer of peat soil
depends on specific locations that varies from 20% to 58%, and vertically (at peat profile) it
varies from 60% at the peat surface and 25% in the subsoil [Kanaphaty, 1979; Tie, 1982]. Our
experiences, based on peat soil survey in Sumatra and Kalimantan, org-C content mostly ranged
from 30% to 55%.
Therefore, I recommend that the value of the most appropriate peat org-C content that
can be used by US-EPA is not more than 45%, and it has comparable with that of our
finding in the Indonesian peats which had the majority of less than 48%.
In relation to peat BD, Agus and Wahdini [2008] showed that peat BD in oil palm
plantation varies from more than 0.25 g cm"3 at the depth of 0-50 cm to 0.20-0.25 g cm"3 at
the depth of 150-200 cm. They also reported that under secondary forest, peat BD varies from
about 0.05 g cm"3 at the depth of 0 to 100 cm up to about 0.1 g cm"3 at the depth of 450 to 500
cm. Marwanto [2012] reported that peat BD in oil palm plantation of Muaro Jambi, Sumatra
varies from 0.09 to 0.22 g cm"3 at the depth of 0-50 cm; the high peat BD was mostly at the
depth of 0-30 cm that varies from 0.14 to 0.22 g cm"3. In the case of peat BD in oil palm
plantation, I believe that the high BD at the upper layer of peat is caused by peat consolidation
due to drainage and by peat compaction due to intensive cultivation. These data clearly show: (i)
a high range of BD for peat before and after drained peat developed, and (ii) higher BD at the
upper layer of the drained peat compared with those reported by Hooijer et al. [2011] and
Hooijer et al. [2012]. This explains that generalized assumption of peat BD is not applicable.
Therefore, I recommend that the value of peat BD that can be used by US-EPA should be in
the range between 0.07 to 0.1 g cm"3 for peat soil at the start of drainage, and between 0.18 to
0.22 g cm"3 for peat soil after drained peat developed, i.e. for cultivated peat for oil palm
plantation, which means after subsidence started.
Regarding the percent of subsidence due to oxidation, it should be noted that papers
reviewed by Page et al. [2011] which is shown contrastingly different estimation of peat
oxidation/subsidence ratio. Couwenberg et al. [2010] reviewed the papers to estimate
oxidation/subsidence ratio, where they came to conclude it at 40%, Wosten et al. [1997]
estimated it at 60%, and Hooijer et al. [2011] gave with a figure of 92%. However, Kool et al.
[2006], based on their measurement of the changes of peat ash-content and peat subsidence in
Central Kalimantan which was not reviewed by Page et al. [2011], concluded that oxidation was
E-36
-------
only a small portion of the subsidence while consolidation and compaction is the major one.
As I have mentioned before that contribution of oil palm root respiration, which depends on age
of cultivated crops, and specific location, ranged from 17% to 74% [Dariah et al. 2013;
Sabiham et al. 2014]. These values could be used as another parameter for correcting the high
ratio of oxidation/subsidence proposed by Hooijer et al. [2011]. Based on this information, I
recommend that the most appropriate oxidation/subsidence ratio of peat soil under oil palm
plantation is 44% which comparable with review result of Couwenberg et al. [2010].
3. Directionally of estimate
Regarding the peat emission factor of 95 t CO2(eq) ha"1 yr"1 used by US-EPA which has
referred to Hooijer et al. [2012], Hooijer et al. [2011], and Page et al. [2011], it is likely to
overestimate of the average greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from peat soil drainage under oil
palm plantation in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia. Several reasons are discussed here.
The discussion is based on Research Triangle Institute (RTI) instruction.
a. Variation in the type of peat soil
One of the important parameter that causes variation in the type of peat soil is mineral
content or ash content. In the upper layer of thick peat (>3 m thick), ash content is mostly low to
very low (<5% of oven dried peat) compared to that in the bottom layer due to the influence
of mineral soil underlying the peat. However, in some locations, ash content in the upper layer at
the depth of 0-50 cm is often found in high level (5-6% of oven dried peat). Sedimentation
during flooding is the cause of the increasing ash content in peat. Based on our experience, such
condition could decrease the emission [Sabiham etal., 2012] (Figure D-4).
Figure D-4. The Relationship Between Ash Content of Peat Soil Under Oil Palm Plantation
at Several Locations in West and Kalimantan Provinces
o
o
ii
^V __^Y = -17.12 ln(X)+ 53.707
R2 = 0.785
6% AC = about 23 t CO2 ha'1 *]
X = Ash Contents (%)
E-37
-------
Regarding org-C content, it clearly influences the total carbon stock of peat soil, meaning
that org-C stock is one of the main parameters that should intensively be measured in order to
meet an accurate estimation of the carbon loss through subsidence research technique. Org-C
content of peat soil also depends on the type of peat soil. Peat soil with high content of mineral
material (ash content) showed org-C content in low level [Kanaphaty, 1979; Tie, 1982].
Therefore, the assumption of peat org-C of 55% is to be overestimate.
Not much information I found that thickness of peat soil under oil palm plantation is
categorized as one of the main parameters which could influence the emission measured by
using the closed chamber technique. Sabiham et al. [2012] reported that peat thickness had no
correlation with CC>2 emission measured by using such technique; they conclude that although
peat soil has the thickness of >3 m, gas CC>2 was emitted only from oxidized layers at a certain
groundwater level. This means that water content at surface layer which has relationship with
groundwater level and precipitation is also the important factor in relation to CC>2 production.
Hooijer et al. [2012] also reported that no statistically significant relation between subsidence
r\
rate and peat thickness (R =
0.002), with being around 5 cm yr"1. Instead, Hooijer et al. [2010] used the change of the
groundwater level depth, rather than the thickness of peat, for estimating the change of CC>2
emission. They then drew a linear relationship whereby the rate of the emission increases as
much as 0.91 t CC>2 ha"1 yr"1 with every 1.0 cm decrease in groundwater level depth.
Regarding extent of peat swamp forest degradation, it has close relationship with above-
ground biomass. In a peat area, significant amount of carbon stock is depending on available
above- ground biomass. Default values of the carbon stock used as emission factor for oil palm
plantation ranged from 23 to 60 t C ha"1, lower than that for undisturbed and disturbed swamp
forest which has the range from 90 to 200 t C ha"1 and 42 to 82 t C ha"1, respectively [Agus et a/.,
2013]. However, for determining the peat-oxidation-based emission in oil palm plantation, the
extent of degradation is not the main factor. The extent of degradation is mostly not caused by
expansion of plantations [see Pagiola, 2000], and it can only be used for determining the
emission factor due to land use changes.
b. Precipitation regime
Regarding annual rainfall pattern, it clearly influences groundwater level in the drained
peat soil. Nurzakiah [2014], based on her research during 2013 at peat soil under rubber garden
in Central Kalimantan (2° 30'30" S; 114° 09'30" E), has been reported that during dry season
E-38
-------
groundwater level rapidly depleted in peat profile (Figure D-5). This groundwater level pattern
was derived from piezometric time series data collected at the same year. Because the
depletion of groundwater levels, the emission measured using the closed chamber technique
was higher compared to that in rainy season (Figure D-5), but it was still much lower than the
emission factor which has been used by US-EPA.
Figure D-5. COi Flux (middle), Groundwater Level Fluctuation (below), and Annual
Rainfall (above) Based on Observation Results During 2013
Based on Figure D-5, therefore, water management in drained peat soil is important to be
done for maintaining groundwater level and conserving as much water as possible for the
incoming dry season through water control structures such as water gates/stop logs in order to
reach a level of groundwater as same high as the level during rainy season. Because the
plantation management could manage in maintaining groundwater at certain level following the
RSPO Guideline, which could be able to decrease the emission, so the emission factor used by
EPA, i.e. 95 t CC>2(eq) ha"1 yr"1, seems to be overestimate.
c. Differing water management practices at plantations
Peat development approach for plantations is always based on high production of the
planted crop(s). In order to meet the production in a high level, the management of plantations
then developed the peat soil to change its ecosystem from anaerobic condition (swampy
condition) into aerobic condition (an oxidized peat condition at the upper layers of <50 cm and
E-39
-------
>50 cm during rainy and dry seasons, respectively) as drained peat soil through the
construction of canals. According to RSPO Guideline, however, the drained peat soil under oil
palm plantation is a condition of peat soil in which groundwater level should be maintained
as deep as 60 cm below soil surface. This groundwater level has been considered by the
management of oil palm plantation as the most representatives and recommended as the best
management practice not only for maintaining the high production, but also for keeping the
emission in low level.
d. Different type of plantations
Different type of plantations, such as Acacia and oil palm plantations, has a different
system in water management and crop cultivation. Hooijer et al. [2012], based on their
calculation of total cumulative carbon loss from Acacia and oil palm plantations, found that
because both the very high loss in the first of 5 years, they then accounted the lower loss in
the subsequent period. From their calculation, over 25 years period they found the high
average carbon loss of 90 t CO2(eq) ha"1 yr"1 for the Acacia plantation and 109 CC>2(eq) ha"1
yr"1 for the oil palm plantation, and for over 50 years period the values become 79 and 94
CO2(eq) ha^yr"1, respectively.
However, to calculate the average carbon loss over 25 and 50 years period for Acacia
and oil palm plantation which are respectively becomes 100 and 86 CO2(eq) ha"1 yr"1, is not
scientifically justifiable.
e. The approach used by Hooijer et al. [2012] to estimate emission during the first five
years after drainage
Estimating emission during the first 5-years after drainage for oil palm plantation that
based on an assumption of the same subsidence in Acacia plantation proposed by Hooijer et al.
[2012] has several weaknesses particularly in using the data of peat BD and org-C as the main
factors for calculation. As I have mentioned before, peat soil has high variation in terms of peat
properties from one location to the others; therefore, using assumption on the subsidence of peat
under oil palm plantation based on that under Acacia plantation is not correct. The other
weakness is in determining a total of 0.86 m of the total subsidence of 1.42 m at the Acacia
plantation over the first 5-years that was caused by a combination of compaction and oxidation;
the question is how to differ exactly the subsidence due to compaction and oxidation in order
to meet average peat oxidative CO2 emission? These are the main problems in estimating the
emission from peat soil under oil palm plantation at the first five years cultivation after
E-40
-------
drainage that proposed by Hooijeret al. [2012], because some data for calculation were taken
by them from different type of plantation.
/ Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions
Although, recent evidence shows that some methane (CH/i) emissions occurred from the
surface of drained peat soil and from the ditch networks constructed during drainage
[Minkkinen and Laine, 2006; Schrier-Uijl et al., 2011; Hyvonen et a/., 2013], but Melling et al.
[2005] shows that CJLj emission from drained peat soil under oil palm plantation was zero.
Therefore, I agree with Hooijer et al. [2012] assumption that no carbon is lost as CILifrom
drained peat soil under oil palm plantation.
Regarding the nitrous oxide (N2O) emission from peat soil under oil plantation,
Hooijer et al. [2012] also assumed that no CC>2(eq) in their calculation is lost as N2O. Melling
et al. [2007] reported that N2O emission from drained peat soil under oil palm plantation was of
only 0.0012 tN2O-N ha"1 yr"1 which could be categorized as very low even after converted to
CC>2 emission. Therefore, I convinced that the assumption of Hooijer et al. [2012] was valid.
g. Omission of emission due to fire
It is true that omission of this factor caused EPA's emission to underestimate emission, if
the management of oil palm plantation cultivated the peat by burning method. Instead, the
emission due to fire (wildfire) was previously reported, but it mostly existed outside the
plantations and it had very high uncertainty. So far, no burning method has been used by the
management of oil palm plantation. On the Permentan (the Minister of Agriculture
Regulation) No. 14, 2009 clearly instructed that cultivating peat soil for oil palm should be
conducted by zero burning. Therefore, the emission due to fire should be neglected in the
calculation to estimate the emission factor from peat soil under oil palm plantation.
h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations
EPA's report stated that the previous decade over 50% of oil palm expansion grown
on areas classified as the forest. Table 4 showed the result of Agus et al. [2011] analysis which
is substantiated by the report of Pagiola [2000] that the expansion of oil palm plantation
between 1990 and 2010 used only around 34%, in which about 28% was degraded forest.
Recently, on the Inpres (the Presidential Instruction) No. 10, 2011 clearly stated the
moratorium of new permit for using primary forest and peat soil for any kinds of alternative
uses including oil palm plantation should be implemented. Therefore, EPA's analysis in
estimating significant indirect emissions from land uses changes is suggested to be exclusion.
E-41
-------
4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report
It should be noted, why does the value of emission factor of 40 t CO(eq) ha"1 yr"1 for
the Tier 1 not include the emission for the first 6 years after drainage? Firstly, it was not
captured by Tier 1 methodology due to lack of data for deriving default emission factor
measured by using closed chamber technique. Secondly, although there are studies based on the
subsidence rate measurement that have been reported a pulse of higher emissions which occurs
right after drainage, but the calculation in order to meet the average peat oxidative CO2
emission was only based on peat consolidation and peat compaction. In fact, before drainage,
the upper layer of peat under the forest vegetation was mostly fibric (immature) which having
high porosity. So, the subsidence at the first 5-6 years after drainage would be very rapid due
to the decrease of groundwater level. This means that carbon loss due to peat oxidation would
not be easy to calculate using subsidence research, particularly at several years immediately after
drainage.
a. Would the emission factor of 40 t C02 ha1 yr'1 proposed by IPCC [2014] be appropriate
for EPA?
It would be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40 t
CC>2 ha"1 yr"1 from peat soil under oil palm plantation, for which groundwater level of peat soil
should be maintained at the depth of <60 cm below soil surface. The value as high as 44 t CO2
ha"1 yr"1, as I have already mentioned with detailed information, are proposed as the most
appropriate for the Agency's consideration to decide the appropriate emission factor, which
is comparable with IPCC [2014].
b. Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emission pulse that occurs in
the first several years immediately following drainage?
Hooijer et al. [2012] applied the method for determining carbon stocks through
subsidence studies at both peat soils under oil palm and Acacia plantations using the assumption
that total subsidence of peat under oil palm plantation is the same subsidence with that under
Acacia plantation, i.e. 1.42 m over the first 5 years after drainage. By this method, they then
result a subsidence rate of 5 cm yr"1 in the subsequent 13 years, an equivalent average peat
oxidative CO2 emission of 119 t ha^yr"1. However, this analyses may have confused different
location based plantation, oil palm and Acacia plantations. Because of this weakness, which
has consequence to the quality of the result of carbon loss, I suggest that EPA should be
considered to exclude the emission pulse that occurs in the first several years after drainage (see
also my argumentation in the points 4 and 5).
E-42
-------
c. Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor?
Regarding DOC (dissolved organic carbon), it is commonly the largest component of
waterborne carbon loss or carbon export from the area of peat soil, which is categorized as one
of off-site C emissions [Dawson et a/., 2004; Jonsson et a/., 2007; Dinsmore et a/., 2010]. From
the tropical Peat swamp forests (Indonesia and Malaysia), carbon exports with measured fluxes
were of the range 0.47 to 0.63 t C ha"1 yr"1 [IPCC, 2014]; while from drained peat soil (from
same countries), they were of the range 0.63 to 0.97 t C ha"1 yr"1 [Inubushi et al., 1998; Moore
et a/., 2013]. This means that DOC fluxes from both natural forest and drained peat soils is not
much different. Because DOC fluxes belongs to the off-site C emission, where the fluxes
from both different peat areas is very low, therefore, I suggest that EPA is no need to
include DOC fluxes in the overall emission factor for peat soil under oil palm plantation.
Regarding fire emission factor, as I have already stated before, it had very high
uncertainty. If the fire exists it is mostly outside the plantations; no management of the
plantations recommends to using fire during peat soil cultivation for oil palm. The Minister of
Agriculture Regulation has been instructed to all managements of oil palm plantation through the
Permentan No. 14, 2009 that cultivating peat soil should be carried out by zero burning.
Therefore, I also suggest excluding fire emission factor in the overall emission factor for peat
soil under oil palm plantation.
d. Do you agree that the science on paniculate organic carbon (POC) and the dissolved
inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO 2) is not sufficient for EPA to include in the
peat soil emission factor?
POC is generally a negligible component of the carbon balance of the natural peat soil;
however, disturbance of peat soil through land use changes, including drainage, burning
(managed burning and wildfire, conversion to arable land and peat extraction, yields a high rate
of POC-loss via the waterborne and wind erosions [IPCC, 2014]. However, for drained peat soil
under oil palm plantation that has been cultivated carefully by the management, which should
follow regulations through the best management practices, such as zero burning method during
land preparation and maintaining groundwater at certain level in order to avoid over dry of peat
materials during dry season, POC should be at low level. Therefore, EPA is no need to
include POC loss in the overall emission factor for peat soil under oil palm plantation.
Regarding the dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO2) derived from
autotrophic and heterotrophic respirations, I agree that it still not sufficient for EPA to include in
the peat soil emission factor. Research on these topics for tropical drained peat-soil under oil
E-43
-------
palm plantation is still rare, although from several research results [Dariah et a/., 2013;
Sabiham et a/., 2014] indicate that the contribution of root respiration could be considered as
the value for correction factor of the carbon emission, particularly for such emission measured
by closed chamber technique.
5. Additional Input
Peat soil in the tropical regions, such as in Indonesia, is rather similar in peat
composition, being very rich in wood, i.e. more or less decomposed trunks and branches derived
from the former vegetation covers [Sabiham, 1988]. In relation to this peat composition, the
Indonesian peat soils under the forest vegetation contain mostly fibric peat with have high total
porosity that showed in the range of 88 to 93% based on the total volume [Sabiham, 2010] with
the average total porosity of about 90%. This parameter is very important for calculation of the
carbon loss using subsidence measurement technique, particularly for the first 5-years after
drainage. Because fibric peat has very high total porosity, it causes that subsidence of peat in the
first several years immediately after drainage is very rapid, so it would give confusion in the
calculating subsidence rate due to peat oxidation.
The other important factor that influenced the subsidence rate of peat is a critical water
content (CWC). The value of the CWC could be resulted by calculation method based on the
relationship between water content at certain levels and the proportion of irreversible
drying of organic matter [Bisdom et al., 1993]. The irreversible drying is a condition of
organic matter in which the organic materials could not be able to adsorbing water again.
Based on our observation on the upper layer of peat soil in the first year immediately after
drainage, fibric peat has higher average value of the CWC (364.9% w/w based on dried
oven) compared to hemic and sapric peats which have the average values of 263.9% and
253.6% w/w, respectively. Fibric peat needed a shorter period to reach an irreversible drying
condition compared with hemic and sapric peats. Peats at the condition of irreversible drying
are called as pseudo-sand, at which carbon loss (emission) due to peat oxidation could not
exist, but it very easy to be fire.
IV. Closing Remarks
a. Emission factor of 95 t CO2 ha1 yr'1 derived from the results of subsidence
measurement technique, not from CO 2 flux measurement (carbon stock changes), had
several weaknesses, although subsidence measurement at a long term period after
drainage is the best method; some difficulties in getting data from the same sites under
the same plantation crops were the main problem for subsidence measurement technique.
E-44
-------
b. I suggest that US-EPA choose the emission factor as high as 44 t CO 2 ha yf that
represents direct measurements ofCO2flux using closed chamber technique from the
location of Southeast Asia countries and thus at present it most appropriate peat soil
emission.
c. Although there are still lacks of information regarding dissolved inorganic carbon
(CO 2), I propose that US-EPA should consider to use root respiration value from peat
soil under oil palm plantation as a correction factor for carbon emission.
d. Omission ofCH4 and Nf) emission and omission of the emission due to fire (wildfire)
from peat soil under oil palm plantation are valid. Because DOC andPOC losses are
very few, so US-EPA is no need to include them in the overall emission factor for peat
soil under oil palm plantation.
e. Subsidence research for the future should address the uncertainty emission factor;
therefore, the measurement of subsidence rate in order to determine the change of
carbon stock should include the direct measurement ofBD, org-C content, and the total
porosity and critical water content of peat at the same site for the long-term multi-
location subsidence research.
References
Agus, F., I.E. Henson, B.H. Suhardjo, N. Harris, M. van Noordwijk, and TJ. Killen. 2013.
Review of emission factors for assessment of CO2 emission from land used change to
oil palm in Southeast Asia. Technical Panels of the 2nd Greenhouse Gas working Group
of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).
Agus, F., P. Gunarso, B.H. Sahardjo, K.T. Joseph, A. Rashid, K. Hamzah, N. Harris, and M. van
Noordwijk. 2011. Strategies for CO2 emission reduction from land use changes to oil
palm plantations in Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. RSPO, Kuala Lumpur.
Presented at the Roundtable 9 of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Kota Kinabalu,
Malaysia. (http://www.
rt9.rspo.org/ckfmder/userfiles/files/P6_3_Dr_Fahmuddin_Agus(2).pdf
Agus, F., E. Handayani, M. van Noordwijk, K. Idris, and S. Sabiham. 2010. Root respiration
interferes with peat CO2 emission measurement, pp. 50-53 In Proceedings 2010 19th
World Congress of Soil Science, 1-6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia. Published on
DVD.
Agus, F. and W. Wahdini. 2008. Assessment of carbon stock of peatland at Tripa, Nagan Raya
District, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province of Indonesia. Indonesian Centre for
Agricultural Land Resources Research and Development and World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF). Bogor, Indonesia.
Bisdom, E.B.A., L.W. Dekker, and J.F. Th. Schoute. 1993. Water repellency of sieve fraction
from sandy soils and relationship with organic material and soil structure. Geoderma
56:59-70.
E-45
-------
Couwenberg, J., R. Dommain, and H. Joosten. 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical
peatlands in south-east Asia. Global Change Biology 16: 1715-1732.
Dariah, A., S. Marwanto, F. Agus. 2013. Root- and peat-based CO2 emission from oil palm
plantation.
Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change. Published online. Springer. DOT 10.1007/sl 1027-013-
9515-6.
Dawson, J.J.C., M.F. Billett, D. Hope, S.M. Palmer, and C.M. Deacon. 2004. Source and
sinks of aquatic carbon in a peatland stream continuum. Biogeochemistry. 70:71-92.
Delft Hydraulics. 2006. Peat-CO2, Assessment of CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in
Southeast Asia (Report Q3943). Delft, The Netherlands: A. Hooijer, M. Silvius, H.
Wosten, and S. Page.
Dinsmore, K.J., M.F. Billett, U.M. Skiba, R.M. Rees, J. Drewer, and C. Helfter. 2010. Role
of the aquatic pathway in the carbon and greenhouse gas budget of a peatland catchment.
Global Change Biology 16:2750-2762.
Hyvonen, N.P., J.T. Huttunen, N.J. Shurpali, S.E. Lind, M.E. Marushchak, L. Heitto, and P.J.
Martikainen. 2013. The role of drainage ditches in greenhouse gas emission and surface
leaching losses from a cutaway peatlands cultivated with a perennial bioenergy crop.
Boreal Environment Research 18:109-126.
Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 319: 1235-1238.
Gunarso, P., M.E. Hartoyo, and Y. Nugroho. 2013. Analysis of land-cover changes to oil
palm in
Indonesia (in Indonesian, Analisis penutupan lahan dan perubahannya menjadi kelapa sawit
di Indonesia). Universitas Negeri Jakarta. Indonesia
Holmes, D. 2000. Deforestation in Indonesia: A review of the situation in Sumatra,
Kalimantan, and Sulawesi. Jakarta. World Bank.
Hooijer, A., S. E. Page, J. Jauhiainen, W..A. Lee, X.X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2012.
Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053-1071.
Hooijer, A., S.E. Page, J. Jauhiainen, W.A. Lee, X.X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2011.
Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatland: reducing uncertainty and
implications for emission reduction options. Biogeosciences Discuss. 8:9311-9356.
Hooijer, A., S.E. Page, J.G. Canadell, M. Silvius, J. Kwadijk, H. Wosten, and J.
Jauhiainen. 2010. Current and future Commissions from drained peatlands in
Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences 7:1505-1514.
E-46
-------
IOPRI, Indonesian Oil Palm Research Institute. 2009. CO2 emission on oil palm plantation: field
observation. Paper presented on Indonesian Palm Oil Conference and price Outlook
2010. Bali, December 1-4 2009.
Inubushi, K., A. Hadi, M. Okazaki, and K. Yonebayashi. 1998. Effect of converting wetland
forest to sago palm plantation on methane gas flux and organic carbon dynamics in
tropical peat soil. HydrologicalProcesses 12:2073-2080.
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes. 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006
IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands. Task Force on
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. WHO-UNEP.
Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S.E. Page. 2012. Carbon dioxide emission from an Acacia
plantation on peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9:617-630.
Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S.E. Page. 2011. Carbon dioxide fluxes in an Acacia
plantation on tropical peatland. Biogeosciences Discuss. 8:8269-8302.
Jonsson, A., G. Algesten, A.K. Bergstrom, K. Bishop, S. Sebek, IJ. Tranvik, and M.
Jansson. 2007.
Integrating aquatic carbon fluxes in a boreal catchment carbon budget. Journal ofHydrologi
334:141-150
Kanapathy, K. 1976. Fertilizer requirement on peat soils. Malaysian Agric. J. 50:292-307
Kool, D.M., P. Buurman, and D.H. Hoekman. 2006. Oxidation and compaction of a collapsed
peat dome in Central Kalimantan. Geoderma 137:217-225.
Marwanto, S. 2012. Contribution of oil palm roots on CO2 flux at peatland of Sungai Gelam
Subdistrict, Muaro Bungo, Jambi (in Indonesian: Kontribusi perakaran kelapa sawit
terhadap fluks CO2di lahan gambut Kecamatan Sungai Gelam, Muaro Bungo, Jambf).
Magister Thesis. Graduate School of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University.
Maswar. 2011. Studies on carbon stock on tropical peatland drained for perennial crops (in
Indonesian: Kajian cadangan karbonpada lahan gambut tropikayang didrainase untuk
tanaman tahunan. Dissertation Doctor Program. Graduate School of Agriculture, Bogor
Agricultural University.
Minkkinen, K. and J. Laine. 2006. Vegetation heterogeneity and ditches create spatial variability
in methane fluxes from peatlands drained for forestry. Plant and Soil 285:289-304.
Melling, L., KJ. Goh, C. Beauvais, and R. Hatano. 2007. Carbon flow and budget in a young
mature oil palm agroecosystem on deep tropical peat. In: Rieley J.O., CJ. Banks, and B.
Radjagukguk (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on
Tropical Peatland, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/carbopeat/media/pdf/yogyapapers/yogyaproceedings.pdf
E-47
-------
Melling, L., R. Hatano, and KJ. Goh. 2005. Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in tropical
peatland of
Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus 57B:1-11.
Moore, S., C.D. Evans, S.E. Page, M.G. Garnett, T.G. Jones, C. Freeman, A. Hooijer, A.
Wiltshire, S. Limin, and V. Gauci. 2013. Deep instability of deforested tropical
peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon fluxes. Nature 493:660-664.
Murayama, S., and Z.A. Bakar. 1996. Decomposition of Tropical Peat Soils. Japan Agricultural
Research Quarterly, 30, 153-158.
Murdiyarso, D., K. Hergoualc'h, and L.V. Verchot. 2010. Opportunities for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in tropical peatlands, PNAS 107:19655-19660.
Nurzakiah, S. 2014. Estimation of the potential carbon emission from acrotemic and catotelmis
peats. J. Trop. Soil, (in press)
Othman, H., A.T. Mohammed, P.M. Darus, M.H. Harun, and M.P. Zambri. 2011. Best
management practices for oil palm cultivation on peat: Groundwater table maintenance in
relation to peat subsidence and estimation of CC>2 emissions at Sessang, Sarawak.
Journal of Palm Oil Research 23:1078-1086.
Othman, H. 2010. Best management practices (BMP) for oil palm planted in the field.
Malaysian Palm Oil Board.
Page, S., E.R. Morrison, C. Malins, A. Hooijer, J.O. Rieley, and J. Jauhiainen. 2011. Review
of peat surface greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia.
The International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC.
Pagiola, S. 2000. Land use change in Indonesia. A background paper for Indonesia:
Environment and natural resource management in a time of transition. World Bank.
Reijnders L. and M.A.J. Huijbregts. 2008. Palm oil and the emission of carbon-based
greenhouse gases. J. Cleaner Prod 16 477-482.
Sabiham, S., S. Marwanto, T. Watanabe, S. Furukawa, U. Sudadi, and F. Agus. 2014.
Estimating the Relative Contributions of Root Respiration and Peat Decomposition to
the Total CO2Flux from Peat Soil at an Oil Palm Plantation in Sumatra, Indonesia. J.
Trop. Agric. Dev. (in press)/
Sabiham, S., S.D. Tarigan, Hariyadi, I. Las, F. Agus, Sukarman, P. Setyanto, and
Wahyunto. 2012.
Organic carbon storage and management strategies for reducing carbon emission from peatlands:
A case study in oil palm plantations in West and Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Pedologist 55(3):426-434
E-48
-------
Sabiham, S. 2010. Properties of Indonesia peats in relation to chemistry of carbon emission.
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Soil Carbon organized by Food and Fertilizer
Technology Center (FFTC) and the Indonesian Soil Research Institute, Bogor-Indonesia,
September 2010.
Sabiham, S. 1988. Studies on peat in the coastal plains of Sumatra and Borneo. PhD
Dissertation. Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Schrier-Uijl, A.P., AJ. Veraart, PJ. Leffelaar, F. Berendse, and F.M. Veenendaal. 2011. Release
of CO2and CFU from lakes and drainage ditches in temperate wetlands. Biogeochemistry
102:265-279
Suhardjo, H., and I.P.G. Widjaja-Adhi. 1977. Chemical characteristics of the upper 30 cm of
peat soils from Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. In, Final Report, Agricultural Technical
Assistance Programme (Indonesia-The Nederlands 1974-1977. pp.: 74-92. Lembaga
Penelitian Tanah, Bogor, Indonesia. Tie, Y.L. 1982. Soil classification in Sarawak.
Technical Paper No. 6. Department of Agriculture, Sarawak. 86p.
Tjondronegoro, S. M. P. 2004. From colonization to transmigration: Changing policies in
population resettlement. In, Furukawa, H. et al. (eds.), Destruction, Health, and
Development: Advancing Asian Paradigms. Kyoto University Press and Trans Pacific
Press. 638p.
Werth, M., and Y. Kuzyakov. 2008. Root-derived carbon in soil respiration and microbial
biomass determined by 14C and 13C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40: 625-637
Wicke, B., V. Dornburg, M. Junginger, and A. Faaij. 2008. Different palm oil production
systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 32, 1322-1337.
Wosten, J.M.H., A.B. Ismail, and A.L.M. van Wijk. 1997. Peat subsidence and its practical
implications: A case study in Malaysia. Geoderma 78:25-36
E-49
-------
Peer Review Response from Dr. Arina Schrier, CEIC (Climate & Environment
International Consultancy)
Emission Factor for Tropical Peatlands Drained for Oil Palm Cultivation
1. Overarching charge question
For now, EPA chose the most appropriate value for the peat emission factor for oil palm
on peat. Given the literature that is currently available (annex 1) for drained peat soils in tropical
regions, the CC>2 EF for oil palm on peat given by Hooijer et al. 2012 (calculated for the first 30
years) is within the uncertainty range at the high end of published EF's. Hooijer et al. 2012
included the emissions in the first years of development. Emissions directly after and during
plantation development are higher compared to the emissions of later years (Page et al., 2011;
Hooijer et al., 2012). These elevated emissions are potentially driven by rapid consumption of a
limited labile (readily decomposable) carbon pool, leaving behind a greater fraction of
recalcitrant carbon in later years (Hooijer et al. 2012). By using the soil subsidence method for
carbon loss estimates, Hooijer (2012) automatically included the losses of carbon transported by
rivers, ditches and streams.
However, it is recommended to evaluate this value each year since more research
becomes available and EF's for CH4 and DOC emissions as well as initial pulse emissions are
currently very uncertain although EF's are provided by IPCC. In fact, Hooijer et al. 2012 did not
discuss in detail the separation between CO2-C and CH4-C emissions related to drainage of peat
(ditch emissions) and given the assumptions made for the oxidation, compaction and
consolidation components of soil subsidence (including the uncertainties and discussions around
bulk density and carbon fraction of the peat) the following is recommended for the near future:
1. Consider a separation between 'base emissions' (the continues, long term emissions
following land use change, and resulting from the continues drainage of peat soil for
agriculture) from 'initial pulse emissions'. The reason is that the 'base EF' can be
established with a small uncertainty range, while initial emissions, including CO2and
CH4 are much more uncertain and make the EF less strong in terms of uncertainty. It is
recommended to add the initial pulse emissions as a 'multiplication factor' for the first
five years based on the literature available. Hooijer et al. (2012) found that for the first 1-
4 years after draining, average rate of carbon loss from Acacia plantation sites was 178
tons CO2 ha"1 yr"1 at an average water depth of 70 cm, 262% greater than carbon loss 5-8
years after drainage. Until more studies are able to contribute information about the
magnitude of these initial emissions within oil palm and similar plantation ecosystems,
multiplying the base emissions rate (based on water table depth) by 2.6 offers a potential
emissions estimate during the first five years after peat draining. It has to be noted that
E-50
-------
this modification is highly uncertain. These results are strictly applicable only to peat
with low mineral content and low bulk density (Hooijer et al. 2012).
2. Consider a cross-check with a meta-analysis of all available literature that fulfills strict
(quality and method) criteria, and includes chamber-based research. The soil subsidence
methods has advantages, but nonetheless it is an 'indirect' measure, or 'proxy' for the
actual emissions and includes certain assumptions in the calculations (e.g. carbon fraction
and bulk density) and besides, it cannot separate between carbon losses released as CO2
and CH4. Since CH4 emissions are important in the consideration of the total warming
potential (it is a 24 times stronger GHG) it is important to consider the height of these
emissions. The chamber based method is used to measure the gas exchange between the
soil and atmosphere 'directly'. By using this method the different GHG's (CC>2, CH4 and
N2O) can be measured separately if done properly on land and on water (e.g. Jauhiainen
et al. 2012). For fulfilling the criteria set by EPA for chamber based research, the total
carbon cycle shall be considered and therefore also losses through water should be added
(DOC losses, CH4 from ditches, CO2 from ditches (with no double counting)) as well as
the initial pulse emissions directly after drainage. In all cases fire based emissions
resulting from drainage should be added (either by using the new IPCC EF's provided or
by using numbers that are and will be published for specific areas). In summary the meta-
analysis should include:
Soil subsidence research: CH4 and CO2 should be separated and it is recommended to
establish a separate multiplication factor for the first five years after drainage.
Chamber based research: DOC should be considered as well as ditch fluxes (avoiding
overlap between DOC transported to the oceans and carbon released from drainage
ditches and rivers) as well as the initial pulse emissions.
Research on fire emissions
a. IPCC provides DOC TIER 1 values for drained tropical peat (Baum et al.
2008; Alkhatib et al. 2007; Yule et al. 2009; Moore et al. 2003)
b. IPCC provides TIER 1 values for CH4 released from ditches in tropical
regions (0.4491 CH4-C ha-1 yr-1 for drained abandoned tropical peat and
2.939 t CH4-C for drained tropical pulp wood plantations on peat).
c. IPCC provides default values for the initial pulse emissions following
drainage, as well as Hooijer et al. 2012.
Note that currently Carlson et al. (Union of Concerned Scientists and University of
Minnesota) prepare a manuscript that involves a meta-analysis of current available peer
reviewed and grey literature for the EF for oil palm on peat. This manuscript is in the
second round of review and will be published approximately mid- 2014.
E-51
-------
3. Recommended is to update the EF based on the crosschecks with available literature and
based on the most recent publications and new knowledge on the different components of
the total balance. A large part of the currently available research is too short term, or is
concept research. Although the research of Hooijer et al. 2012 is robust, large scale and
long term and perhaps currently the best study to base the EF on, there are still
uncertainties around this study (initial pulse, the contribution of CFLj, DOC) that need to
be updated by recent and new studies and it is better to have a broader spatial coverage of
different peats and climate zones. The main issue with soil subsidence studies is that the
different components of the total GHG and carbon balance cannot be separated and
therefore also chamber based studies shall be considered in the establishment of a robust
EF.
4. It is recommended for EPA to establish, besides a fixed EF for drained peat, also a water
table dependent EF. Previous work suggests that the relationship between drainage depth
and C loss is non-linear, especially at high (>80 cm) or low (<20 cm) water table depths
(Jauhiainen et al. 2008, Verwer et al. 2008, Couwenberg et al. 2009, Hirano et al. 2009,
Jauhiainen et al. 2012a). Note that currently, in many plantations in SE Asia the water
table is varying between 100 cm and 50 cm (average around 75 cm) below field level.
Therefore a linear least squares model relating emissions (C02op>4yrs, tons CO2 ha"1 yr"1)
to water table level (WT, cm) could be established at least for the range 20-80 cm. Like a
few previous models (Wosten et al. 1997, Couwenberg et al. 2009, Hooijer et al. 2010).
Given the relation between water table and CC>2 emissions, lower emission can be
expected at higher water tables. The main question will be if a zero intercept can be
assumed and besides if drains are not spaced properly and dams have not been built in the
right way, and also because of the large seasonal variation of rainfall in Indonesia, over-
or under-drainage is a common problem.
a. Note that RSPO has launched its Best Management Practices in 2012, and the
Malaysian Palm Oil Board has launched its Best Management Practices in
2011. RSPO advises to keep the water table between 40 and 60 cm below
field level, or 50 - 70 cm in collection drains. MPOB advices in their
management practices a water table of 30-50 cm below the peat surface in the
field or 40 and 50 cm in the collection drain. Given the water table - emission
relation of Hooijer and Couwenberg, reducing the average drainage depth to
50 cm compared to the current 75 cm could potentially lead to a future
reduction of over 20 t CO2 ha"1 yr"1 or even almost 30 tons CO2 ha"1 yr"1 if a
water table of 45 cm could be maintained. The reality is that maintaining the
water table at 40-50 cm in a large plantation is generally not feasible with
most current drainage lay outs. Therefore, RSPO and MPOB encourage
plantation owners to optimize their drainage systems.
E-52
-------
2. Potential adjustment of emission factor from Hooijer et al. (2012)
My recommendation would be to NOT use different values for organic carbon content
and peat bulk density and oxidation percentage in the study of Hooijer et al. (2012), unless the
authors of the publication agree on this.
Related to oxidation: The value of 92% oxidative contribution as proposed by Hooijer et
al. (2012) is on the high end of published values, but until now it is the most robust study that
was specifically designed to determine the contribution of oxidation to soil subsidence since
drainage started. Note that in the method set out by Couwenberg & Hooijer (2013) an estimate of
the oxidative component is not needed to determine emissions. Only subsidence rate, bulk
density and carbon content of the peat below the water table have to be known. Nevertheless, the
authors did calculate an oxidative contribution to subsidence of 80%. Jauhianen et al. (2012)
calculated that around 80% of subsidence was a result of oxidation in a stabilized situation.
Other, more short term studies calculated between 40 and 80% oxidative loss. It is clear that
more research is needed to establish (if needed) a correction factor. Future research should focus
on disentangling these different processes that result in soil subsidence and under what
conditions they are different (rain fall, length of dry/wet period, peat type, mineral content).
Related to Carbon fraction: Page et al, 2011 (white paper) quotes carbon densities of
0.068 and 0.138 g C cm"3. Couwenberg et al. (2010) gives a value of 0.068, who later corrected
this value to 0.061 for C-Kalimantan and 0.044 for coastal peat swamp forests (Dommain et al.
2011). Note that this value would be applicable to the peat below the water table only and is
(very) conservative when applied to the upper peat layer. The value of 0.138 g C cm"3 is taken
from Ywih et al. (2009); this value is caused by very high peat bulk densities of-0.300 g cm"3.
In summary, carbon concentration values on a dry weight basis of around 55% were found
representative for hemic and fibric tropical peat in SE Asia. Similar values were reported by
Couwenberg et al. (2010), Wosten et al. (1997), Warren et al. (2012), Hooijer et al. (2012),
Dommain et al. (2011), Page et al. (2004) and Yulianto et al. (2007). Hergoualch and Verchot
(2011) used a value of 50% (IPCC, 2003) if no C concentration was provided in a publication.
Overall, carbon content of tropical peat ranges between 40% and 60% depending on the nature,
mineral content and location of the peat. Lower values of 40% (Sajarwan et al., 2002), 23.8%
(Jaya, 2007) and 26.0% (Sajarwan et al., 2002) are associated with samples taken near to the
underlying mineral substrate or for peaty soils with a large proportion of inorganic material.
Lower values that have been found in the past can be attributed to the method that was used to
determine the carbon fraction. The basic principle for the quantification of soil organic carbon
relies on the destruction of organic matter, which can be performed chemically (which was often
E-53
-------
used in the past) or via heat (which is currently used). In studies where chemical destruction was
used the carbon fraction was underestimated with reported values of 20-30% in tropical peat.
Currently, the method with elevated temperatures (loss-on ignition) is most common to
determine the C fraction. Warren et al. (2012) suggest using values established by element
elemental analysers only.
Related to peat bulk density: Page et al., 2011 (white paper) presented a comprehensive
overview of bulk density (BD) values of tropical peat. In the given overview, only the study of
Melling et al. (2007) provides values for BD in oil palm plantations (mean 0.20 g cm"3, SD 0,007
g cm"3). The lowest average bulk density values below the water table reported for large
plantation areas are those in Hooijer et al. (2012) and Couwenberg & Hooijer (2013) which vary
from 0.073 to 0.078 g cm"3 and are well within the range suggested by Page et al. (2011).
Overall, in many studies a BD of around 0.1 g cm"3 is being assumed the most comprehensive
value for the BD of tropical, drained peat. Note that plantation development on peat requires
compaction before planting of trees to create optimal conditions to anchor the roots of palm
trees. The compaction by heavy machinery starts after removing the vegetation and is in many
cases practiced over a period of years before planting starts. Therefore, the density of the upper
soil is higher in plantations compared to undisturbed peat soils. Othman et al. (2011) reported
BD values before and after land development for oil palm of 0.14 - 0.09 g cm"3 and 0.26 -
0.16 g cm3, respectively.
It is recommended to EPA to not amend or correct the study of Hooijer et al. (2012) with
other numbers and/or defaults and/or multiplication factors for oxidation fraction, Bd or C
fraction of the peat. Instead, the recommendations described under Charge Question 1 should be
considered. It is recommended in the near future to not base the EF for oil palm on peat on 1
study, but to do a meta-analyses including soil subsidence based research and chamber based
research added with values for the 'missing' components of the total C- and GHG balance.
3. Directionality of estimate
In summary: the EF for drained tropical peat provided by EPA (based on Hooijer et al.
2012) is an underestimation of the reality. The number provided by EPA excludes non-CC>2
emissions, it excludes emissions related to fire and off-site impacts.
a. Variation in the type of peat soil (mineral content, carbon content, depth, extent of
degradation, etc.).
b. Precipitation regime (annual rainfall, timing of rainfall, etc.).
E-54
-------
Add a+b. See earlier suggestion for performing a meta analyses to capture the spatial and
temporal variability. The results of the meta analysis (including variations in peat soil and
variations in climate) will result in a similar or slight overestimation of the EF provided by EPA
(Hooijeretal., 2012).
c. Differing water management practices at plantations.
Add c. See earlier comments and discussion on the water table dependency of CC>2 and
CFLj emissions for tropical peats.
d. Different types of plantations (e.g., oil palm versus acacia).
Add d. The Wetlands Supplement of IPCC provides in its current and first version EF's
for both oil palm and Acacia. However, the cited references do not support the numbers provided
(see also discussion under Question 4).
The significant difference between the established EFs for oil palm and Acacia on peat
provided by IPCC in the new Wetlands Supplement (11 vs 20 t C ha-1 yr-1) is in sharp contrast
with the EFs given in available (scientific) literature. Available information suggests an almost
similar EF for oil palm and Acacia. Hooijer et al. 2012 was the only study available in December
2013 that reported on EF's for oil palm and Acacia in the same study site:
Oil palm: 21.2 tC ha-1 yr-1
Acacia: 18.5 t C ha-1 yr-1
Husnain et al. (2014) is the second study that reports on the difference between oil palm
and Acacia in the same area, which was not published at the time of writing of Chapter 2 of the
Wetlands Supplement, but is now available:
Oil palm: 18 tC ha-1 yr-1
Acacia: 16.11 C ha-1 yr-1
In conclusion: the only studies that measured in the same area on both oil palm and
Acacia do not report a major difference between the EFs for oil palm and Acacia plantations on
peat, but the slight difference reported indicates actually a higher EF for oil palm than for Acacia
on peat. Tropical peat experts and government reviewers have expressed disagreement with
IPCC on the large difference in IPCC report for oil palm and Acacia on peat. However, no
explanation or scientific justification has been provided for the discrepancy yet. If the TIER 1
E-55
-------
numbers of IPCC are going to be used, the Hooijer et al. numbers and thus EPA EF for oil palm
is overestimated. However, I argue that the IPCC number is a wrong interpretation of the
available literature (see discussion under Charge Question 4).
e. The approach used by Hooijer et al. (2012) to estimate emissions during the first Jive
years after drainage.
f. Omission of methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
Add e+f. See discussion earlier. The recommendation to EPA is to include IPCC TIER 1
default values for
N2O (from drained peatlands): IPCC Wetlands Supplement, Table 2.5: summary of
TIER 1 EF's for drained tropical peat
CFLi (from drained peatlands): IPCC Wetlands Supplement, Table 2.3: summary of
TIER 1 EF's for drained tropical peat
CH4 (from drainage ditches in plantations): IPCC Wetlands Supplement, Table 2.4:
summary of EF's for drainage ditches in drained tropical peats
DOC (in plantation peat areas): IPCC Wetlands Supplement, Table 2.2: Default DOC
emission factors for drained organic soils in tropical peatlands.
g. Omission of emissions due to fire.
Add g. Emissions due to fire
IPCC provides TIER 1 information for the EF directly to drainage related peat- and forest
fires.
Although it is known that 'wet' peats do not burn, it is uncertain what part of the peat
fires are directly related to drainage for oil palm and/or Acacia and what part is a direct result of
the severe droughts that are a result of climate change. Given the fact that a main part of the peat-
and forest fires is a direct result of drainage, the EF used by EPA is underestimated in this
respect. EPA could indeed use the IPCC value provided in the Wetlands Supplement which later
could be updated by more recent and more focused research.
The increased human interventions such as drainage of peat and the changes in climate
(increase in temperature and droughts) are two main reasons that in many areas peat starts drying
and becomes very susceptible to fire. Peat drainage is expected to continue at a high rate in the
future since more and more peatland is developed for agricultural or excavation purposes. The
E-56
-------
high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from peat drainage and peat fires might entail
positive feedbacks such as accelerating climate changes because of the increase in radiative
forcing. In other words, negative impacts that arise from peat fires are expected to increase in the
future since future climate change scenarios predict drought events of greater severity and
frequency in many areas, including those with the potential for peat fires to occur. Emissions
from peat fires currently have been estimated at roughly 15% of human induced emissions
(Poulter et al., 2006; Hadden et al., 2013).
Since the 1980s, large scale fires in the peatlands of Indonesia have increased in
frequency and intensity and have caused serious damage (Page et al., 2002). The largest peat
fires registered took place in Indonesia during the El Nino dry season of 1997-1998 (previous
severe fire events occurred in 1982, 1991, and 1994, and later in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006 and
2010) and lasted for several months, destroyed over 104 km2 of peat swamp with a loss of peat
layers between 0.2 and 1.5 m in depth (Reins et al., 2009). Studies have shown that there is a
direct link between the peat and forest fires and the peat drainage needed for the development of
oil palm and timber plantations. Although burning for land clearing is forbidden by law in
Indonesia, fire is commonly used in oil palm and timber plantations because it is cheap and
effective (Tomich et al., 1998). By removing or disturbing the peat swamp forest, the risk of
large-scale fires increases because such disturbances dry peat and leave much plant debris, which
is flammable (Page et al., 2002). Also in Brunei, peat soils make up 18% of the land area and fire
has been identified as a major threat. Studies show that fires in the dry El Nino years started
easily in accessible degraded peat areas, especially those close to roads and other infrastructure
developments in peat swamp forest areas.
Estimates of carbon losses during peat fires differ, but are within a certain range per
climate zone. It has been estimated that for example the 1997-1998 fires in Indonesia released
between 0.8 to 2.6 Gton of carbon into the atmosphere in total, equivalent to 13-40% of the
global fossil fuel emissions of that year (Page et al., 2002). Specified per square meter area of
9 1
burn, Couwenberg (2010) estimated a release of 26 kg C m" yr" during the 1997 peat fires in
Southeast Asia. Heil (2007) estimated that the mean burn depth and rate of fire related peat loss
9 1
amounted to 34 cm per fire event and 26,1 kg C m" yr" averag
2002 in an abandoned, degraded peat area in tropical SE Asia.
9 1
amounted to 34 cm per fire event and 26,1 kg C m" yr" averaged for the years 1997, 2001 and
Some sources report that fire is not a dominant source of methane (CFLj) (e.g., Forster et
al., 2007; Dlugokencky et al., 2011). Others report that CFLi represents a significant contributor
to the seasonal variability of atmospheric methane (e.g., Bousquet et al., 2006) and vd Werf et al.
(2004) concluded in their study that over the period 1997-2001, Central America, South
E-57
-------
America, Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, Canada and the Russian Far East where substantial
contributors to the emissions of both CC>2 and CFLj. Van de Werf et al. (2004) concluded also
that although previous studies have identified wetlands as the primary source of methane during
the 1997-1998 anomaly in the tropics, all of the CFLj anomalies observed in this period in SE
Asia can be attributed to fires. This finding is confirmed by Worden et al. (2013) for the year
2006 based on methane observations over Indonesia.
Knowledge of peat fires and their huge impacts has increased in recent years, however,
available scientific research is scattered and for the purpose of understanding and tackling the
main problems related to peat fires, there is a need for a summary of this information. The just
launched Wetlands Supplement of IPCC for the first time reports on the carbon impacts of fire
for tropical peat:
Lfire = A * Mb * Cf * Gef * 10-3
Lfire = amount of CC>2 or non-CC>2 emissions, e.g., CFLj from fire, tonnes
A = total area burned annually, ha
MB = mass of fuel available for combustion, tonnes ha"1 (i.e. mass of dry organic soil fuel) (
default values in Table 2.6)
Cf= combustion factor, dimensionless
Gef = emission factor for each gas, g kg"1 dry matter burnt
With Gef for Tropical peat (Christian et al., 2003):
464 g per kg dry matter
210 g per kg dry matter (CO-C)
21 g per kg dry matter (CH4-C)
and MB for tropical peat
Tropical
Wildfire (undrained peat): No literature found
Wildfire (drained peat): 353 (mean in t dry matter per ha peatland burnt)
Prescribed fire (agricultural land management): 155 (mean in t dry matter per ha peatland burnt)
h. Omission of incidentally drained peat swamps adjoining the plantations.
Add h. Off-site impacts of drainage (e.g. hydrological leakage impacts) are not yet
included in EPA's EF. This is conservative (underestimation of emissions). The recommendation
to EPA is to wait with amending the EF with off-site impacts until research becomes available.
However, the conservativeness of omitting these emissions should be clearly mentioned.
E-58
-------
4. IPCC report (Wetlands Supplement).
a. Would it be appropriate for EPA to use the IPCC Tier 1 default emission factor of 40
tCO2/ha/year, or is it scientifically justified to use a different number based on more
detailed information?
Add a NO. There are major concerns regarding the IPCC emissions factor for oil palm
on peat.
1. The emissions factor (EF) for oil palm on peat is not consistent with the emissions
reported in literature for the drainage depths that are required for oil palm plantations on
peat. No scientific or other justification is provided for the established EF.
2. This low EF for oil palm on peat also results in a large difference between the EFs for oil
palm and Acacia on tropical peatland, which is not supported by literature and which is
very unlikely. No scientific justification is provided for the large discrepancy.
It is not possible to track down how the final EF for oil palm on peat was established, or
to follow the logic/rationale behind the chosen EF. The EF options for oil palm reported in the
first order draft and the second order draft and the EF published in the final draft (resp. FOD,
SOD and FD) of Chapter 2 all differed substantially: the EF for Oil palm shifted from 5.24 in the
FOD, to 11 OR 14 with 'no consensus' in the second order draft (in the Annex of this SOD), to
11 t C ha"1 yr'Hn the FD with no specification of water table /drainage depth (see Annex 2 for an
overview of the process) and lacking a scientific justification or substantiated explanation.
Detailed concerns:
The significant difference between the established EFs for oil palm and Acacia on peat
(11 vs 20 t C ha"1 yr"1) is in sharp contrast with the EFs given in available (scientific) literature
(see earlier comments and discussion on this issue)
Many (tropical) peat experts raised concerns on the first order and second order draft, and
have independently expressed their deep concerns on the robustness of the EF for oil palm on
peat.
Many expert reviewers raised the concern that recent literature was not considered and
some (tropical) peat experts have responded that the EF for oil palm on peat shall be in the range
16-25 t C ha"1 yr"1 given the available literature. Many reviewers have provided useful
comments, suggestions and references. The selection of literature used in the analyses is not clear
E-59
-------
In the second order draft, experts expressed their deep concerns, because the 'options'
given for the EF for oil palm on peat were not supported by scientific literature, nor explained;
and moreover, it was stated in the SOD that there was no consensus between the authors.
Process:
The writing process of the IPCC Wetlands Supplement was carried out in 2011-2013
over four Lead Author meetings and two rounds of expert review followed by a round of written
comments by governments.
The IPCC Government and Expert Review of the First Order Draft (FOD) started 17-4-
2012 and of the Second Order Draft (SOD) 11-2-2013. The final round of submission of written
comments by Governments on the Final Draft of the Wetlands Supplement was 12 August - 8
September 2013.
Below a description is provided for how the EF's for oil palm and Acacia on peat
changed in a very intransparent way during the various writing and review stages.
1. First Order Draft of Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement.
Reported EFs in table 2.1 in the 1st order draft establishment unclear.
o Cropland 9.111 C ha"1 yr"1
o Oil palm Plantation 5.24 t C ha"1 yr"1
o Plantation, e.g. Acacia 11.67 t C ha"1 yr"1
> First Round of expert review on the FOD
2. Second Order Draft, EF's for oil palm and Acacia reported in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands
Supplement, with NO CONSENSUS.
Emissions factors 'under discussion' reported by IPCC in the 2nd order draft in the Appendix
2a.2 (CO? emission factors for drained tropical peatlands: Basis for future methodological
development)
o Acacia Plantation Alternative I: 22 or Alternative 2: 19 t C ha"1 yr"1
o Oil palm Plantation Alternative 1: 11 or Alternative 2: 14 t C ha"1 yr"1
o Cropland, Drained Alternative 1: 21 or Alternative 2: 16 t C ha"1 yr"1
> Second Round of expert review on the SOD
3. Final Draft, EF's for oil palm and Acacia in Chapter 2 of the Wetlands Supplement.
E-60
-------
Emissions factors reported by IPCC in final draft in Table 2.1, establishment unclear
o Forest plantation 20 t C ha"1 yr"1
o Oil palm Plantation 11 t C ha"1 yr"1
o Cropland, Drained 14 t C ha"1 yr"1
> Round of governments review
Batumi meeting for acceptance by governments of the final draft of the Wetlands
Supplement.
b. Should the emission factor that EPA uses include the emissions pulse that occurs in the
first several years immediately following drainage?
Add b. No. Its more robust to have an additional multiplication factor for the first 5 years
after drainage and is increased the certainty of EF for the continues emissions related to
cultivation of peat.
c. Should EPA include DOC and fire emission factors in the overall emission factor? If so,
are the IPCC emission factors appropriate to use, or are there better estimates for EPA 's
purpose?
Add c. Yes, as well as non-CC>2 emissions (expressed in warming potential impacts
(C(^-equivalents)). It is recommended to use IPCC defaults and EF's until more research
becomes available.
d. There are also erosion losses of paniculate organic carbon (POC) and water borne
transport of dissolved inorganic carbon (primarily dissolved CO 2) derived from
autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration within the organic soil. The IPCC concluded
that at present the science and available data are not sufficient to provide guidance on
CO 2 emissions or removals associated with these waterborne carbon fluxes. Do you
agree that the science on these factors is not sufficient for EPA to consider losses of POC
and dissolved inorganic carbon in its peat soil emission factor?
Add d. Yes. Science related to this issue is not sufficient yet. It should be omitted from
the EF.
5. Additional input:
All additional scientific information that I believe EPA should consider is mentioned in
the former text. The meta analysis of Carlson et al. (in prep) should be considered as soon as it
becomes available.
E-61
-------
Annex 1. Available literature related to the EFs of oil palm and Acacia
Citation
Couwenberg, J. and A. Hoosier. 2013.
Towards robust subsidence based and soil
carbon factors for peat soils in South-East
Asia, with special reference to oil palm
plantations. Mires and Peat 12:1-13.
Dariah, A., S. Marwanto and F. Agus. 2013.
Root- and peat-based CO2 emissions from oil
palm plantations. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 18.
Hooijer, A., S. Page, J. Jauhianen, W. A. Lee,
X. X. Lu, A. Idris, and G. Anshari. 2012.
Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical
peatlands. Biogeosciences 9:1053-1071.
Othman, H., A. T. Mohammed, F. M. Darus,
M.H. Harun, and M.P. Zambri. 201 1. Best
management practices for oil palm cultivation
on peat: ground water-table maintenance in
relation to peat subsidence and estimation of
CO2 emissions at Sessang, Sarawak. Journal
of 'Oil Palm Research 23: 1078-1086.
Comeau, L. P., K. Hergoualc'h, J. U. Smith
andL. Verchot. 2013. Conversion of intact
peat swamp forest to oil palm plantation -
effects on soil CO2 fluxes in Jambi, Sumatra.
Working Paper 110, CIFOR.
Jauhiainen, J., A. Hooijer, and S.E. Page.
2012. Carbon dioxide emissions from an
Acacia plantation on peatland in Sumatra,
Indonesia. Biogeosciences 9: 617-630.
Agus, F., E. Handayani, M. van Noordwijk, K.
Idris, and S. Sabiham. 2010. Root respiration
interferes with peat C02 emission
measurement. 19th World Congress of Soil
Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World.
1 -6 Aug 20 10. Brisbane.
Pub Type
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
White Paper
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
LU
oil palm, Acacia
oil palm
Acacia and oil
palm
oil palm
primary forest,
logged forest,
oil palm
Acacia
plantation
oil palm
Loc (s)
Jambi, Riau
Jambi
Riau and
Jambi
Sarawak
Jambi
Riau
Aceh
Measures
C02
Subsidence
Closed
Chamber
Subsidence
Subsidence
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
not applicable
yes
not applicable
not applicable
yes
yes
yes
Period of
Measurement
2007-2012
2011-2012
2007-2010
2001-2008
Jan-Sept 20 12
Apr 1997 to Apr
2009
Nov-Oct2008
Frequency of
Measurement
every 2-4 weeks
8 times
variable
monthly, 9:00-
14:00
2-weekly to
monthly
W
a\
to
-------
w
a\
Citation
Ali, M., D. Taylor, and K. Inubushi. 2006.
Effects of environmental variations on CO2
efflux from a tropical peatland in Eastern
Sumatra. Wetlands26: 612-618.
Chimner, R. 2004. Soil respiration rates of
tropical peatlands in Micronesia and Hawaii.
Wetlands 24: 51-56.
Chimner, R. and K. Ewel. 2004. Differences in
carbon fluxes between forested and cultivated
Mironesian tropical peatlands. Wetlands
Ecology and Management 12: 419-427.
Dariah, A., F. Agus, E. Susanti and Jubaedah.
2012. Relationship between sampling distance
and carbon dioxide emission under oil palm
plantation. Journal of Tropical Soils 18: 125-
130.
Darung. 2005. The effect of forest fire and
agriculture on CO2 emission from tropical
peatlands, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Human Dimension of Tropical Peatland Under
Global Environmental Change. 8-9 Dec 2004.
Bogor, Indonesia.
Furukawa, Y., K. Inubushi, M. Ali, A.M. Itang
and H. Tsuruta. 2005. Effect of changing
groundwater levels caused by land-use
changes on greenhouse gas fluxes from
tropical peat lands. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 71: 81-91.
Hadi, A., K. Inubushi, E. Pumomo, F. Razie,
K. Yamakawa and H. Tsuruta. 2000. Effect of
land-use change on nitrous oxide emission
from tropical peatlands. Chemosphere - Global
Change Science 2: 347-358.
Pub Type
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
Peer Review
LU
logged forest,
cleared forest,
agriculture
(banana,
cassava,
coconut, rice)
forest, shrub,
taro
secondary
forest, taro
oil palm
annual crops,
natural forest,
burnt forest
drained forest,
cassava, paddy
secondary
forest, converted
paddy, upland
cassava,
converted
uplands
Loc (s)
Jambi
Micronesia,
Hawaii
Micronesia
Jambi
Central
Kalimantan
Jambi
South
Kalimantan
Measures
CO2
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
no
no
no
no
no
no
not applicable
Period of
Measurement
Mar-Aug2001
2001-2002
May 2001 -June
2002
2011
Mar 2002-2004
Oct2000-Mar
2002
1998-1999
Frequency of
Measurement
5-7 am, 11-2 pm,
4-6 pm
2-4 times
4 times
7 times, before
and after
fertilizer
monthly
monthly
December
-------
w
a\
Citation
Hadi, A., K. Inubushi, Y. Furukawa, E.
Purnomo, M. Rasmadi and H. Tsuruta.
Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical
peatlands in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems 71 :73-80.
Hadi, A., L. Fatah, Syaiffudin, Abdullah, D. N.
Affandi, R. A. Bakar and K. Inubushi. 2012
greenhouse gas emissions from peat soils
cultivated to rice field, oil palm, and vegetable.
Journal of Tropical Soils 17: 105-114.
Hadi, A., M. Haridi, K. Inubushi, E. Pumomo,
F. Razie, H. Tsuruta. 2001. Effects of land-use
change in tropical peat soil on the microbial
population and emission of greenhouse gases.
Microbes and Environments 16: 79-86.
Hirano, T., H. Segah, K. Kusin, S. Limin, H.
Takahashi and M. Osaki. 2012. Effects of
disturbances on the carbon balance of tropical
peat swamp forests. Global Change Biology
18: 3410-3422.
Hirano, T., H. Segah, S. Limin, H. Takahashi
andM. Osaki. 2007. Comparison of CO2
balance among three disturbed ecosystems in
tropical peatlands. Proceedings of
International Workshop on Advanced Flux
Network and Flux Evaluation, 1 9-22 Oct 2007.
Hirano, T., H. Segah, T. Harada, S. Limin, T.
June, R. Hirata and M. Osaki. 2007. Carbon
dioxide balance of a tropical peat swamp
forest in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Global
Change Biology 13: 412-425.
Hirano, T., J. Jauianen, T. Inoue and H.
Takahashi. 2009. Controls on the carbon
balance of tropical peatlands. Ecosystems 12:
873-887.
Hirano, T., K. Kusin, S. Limin and M. Osaki.
2014. Carbon dioxide emissions through
oxidative peat decomposition on a burnt
tropical peatland. Global Change Biology 20:
555-565.
Pub Type
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
LU
secondary
forest, paddy,
upland crop,
fallow, rice-soy
oil palm,
vegetable field,
rice field
secondary
forest, paddy
field, paddy-soy
intact forest,
drained forest,
drained burnt
forest
swamp forest
and drained cut
area
forest
forest, drained
forest,
agricultural land
burned peat
Loc (s)
South
Kalimantan
South
Kalimantan
South
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Measures
CO2
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
C02
C02
C02
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
no
no
no
no
not applicable
no
no
no
Period of
Measurement
Dec 1998, Dec
1 999, Nov 2000
July-Nov 2009
Nov-99
2004-2008
2004-2005
Nov 2001 -Jan
2005
2002-2005
2004-2009
Frequency of
Measurement
weekly
once
half hour
unknown
1 min
half hour
-------
w
a\
Citation
Inubushi, K. and A. Hadi. 2007. Effect of
land-use management on greenhouse gas
emission from tropical peatlands- carbon-
climate-human interaction on tropical
peatland. Proceedings of the International
Symposium and Workshop on Tropical
Peatland, 27-29 Aug 2007. Yogyakarta,
Indonesia.
Inubushi, K., Y. Furukawa, A. Hadi, E.
Purnomo, and H. Tsurata. 2005. Factors
influencing methane emission from peat soils:
comparison of tropical and temperate
wetlands. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems7l\93-99.
Inubushi, Kazuyuki et al. 2003. Seasonal
changes of CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes in
relation to land-use change in tropical
peatlands located in coastal area of South
Kalimantan. Chemosphere 52: 603-608.
Ishida, T., S. Suzuki, T. Nagano, K. Osawa, K.
Yoshino, K. Fukumara and T. Nuyim. 2001 .
CO2 emission rate from a primary peat swamp
forest ecosystem in Thailand. Environ Control
5w/39: 305-312.
Ismail, A.B., M. Zulkefli, I. Salma, J.
Jamaludin and MJ. Hanif. 2008. Selection of
land clearing technique and crop type as
preliminary steps in restoring carbon reserve in
tropical peatland under agriculture.
Proceedings of the 13th International Peat
Congress, June 2008, Tullamore, Ireland.
Jauhiainen, J. 2002. Carbon fluxes in pristine
and developed Central Kalimantan peatlands.
Peatlands for people: natural resource
functions and sustainable management.
Proceedings of the international symposium on
tropical peatlands, 22-23 August 2001, Jakarta.
Pub Type
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
Conference
Proceedings
LU
secondary
forest, paddy
field, rice-
soybean rotation
crop, abandoned
paddy,
abandoned crop,
drained forest
secondary
forest, paddy
field, upland
field
primary forest
oil palm,
jackfruit,
pineapple
peat swamp
forest, clear cut
peat drained for
agriculture
Loc (s)
South
Kalimantan;
Jambi
South
Kalimantan;
Jambi
South
Kalimantan
Southern
Thailand
Sarawak
Central
Kalimantan
Measures
CO2
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
no
not applicable
no
yes
no
no
Period of
Measurement
Nov2001
November 1999;
Jan 2001
unknown
June 2002 - Sept
2004
1999-2001
Frequency of
Measurement
once
monthly
unknown
unknown
four month-long
measurements
-------
w
a\
Citation
Jauhiainen, J., H. Silvennoinen, R.
Hamalainen, K. Kusin, R. J. Raison and H.
Vasandres. 2012. Nitrous oxide fluxes from
tropical peat with different disturbance history
and management. Biogeosciences 9: 1337-
1350.
Jauhiainen, J., H. Takahashi, J. E. P. Heikken,
P. J. Martikainen and H. Vasandres. 2005.
Carbon fluxes from a tropical peat swamp
forest floor. Global Change Biology 11: 1788-
1797.
Jauhiainen, J., S. Limin, H. Silvennoinen and
H. Vasander. 2008. Carbon dioxide and
methane fluxes in drained tropical peat before
and after hydrological restoration. Ecology 89:
3503-3514.
Kwon, M. J., A. Haraguchi and H. Kang.
2013. Long-term water regime differentiates
changes in decomposition and microbial
properties in tropical peat soils exposed to
short-term drought. Soil Biology &
Biochemistry 60: 33-44.
Kyuma, K. 2003. Soil degradation in the
coastal lowlands of Southeast Asia. Taipei
City, Taiwan: Asian and Pacific Council.
Kyuma, K., N. Kaneko, A.B. Zahari and K.
Ambak. 1992. Swamp forest and tropical peat
in Johore, Malaysia. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Tropical
Peatland. 6-10 May 1991. Kuching, Sarawak,
Malaysia.
Lovelock, C., R. Ruess and I. C. Feller. 2011.
CO2 efflux from cleared mangrove peat.
PLOSone 6.
Marwanto, S. and F. Agus. 2013. Is CO2 flux
from oil palm plantations controlled by soil
moisture and or soil and air temperatures?
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Chang. DOI: 10.1007/sll027-013-
9518-3.
Pub Type
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
Peer Review
LU
undrained forest,
drained forest,
drained
recovering
forest, drained
burned, drained
for ag
mixed-type peat
swamp forest
peat swamp
forest and
deforested
burned area
intact and
degraded peat
forest
degraded swamp
forest,
agriculture
forest, reclaimed
field
cleared
mangrove
oil palm
plantation
Loc (s)
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Johore,
Malaysia
Johore,
Malaysia
Belize
Jambi
Measures
CO2
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Other
Closed
Chamber
Other
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no, but
minimizes root
interference
Period of
Measurement
2001-2007
wet and dry
season, 1999,
2000,2001
April 2004 to
April 2006
??
Sep 1988-Aug
1989
Feb 2004 and Jan
2007
2010
Frequency of
Measurement
variable
3-5 weeks
frequent
28 day incubation
every 2 weeks
once
-------
w
a\
Citation
Melling, L., A. Chaddy, K. J. Goh and R.
Hatano. 2013. Soil CO2 fluxes from different
ages of oil palm in tropical peatland of
Sarawak, Malaysia as influenced by
environmental and soil properties. Act
HorticultWl.
Melling, L., K. J. Goh, C. Beauvais and R.
Hatano. 2008. Carbon flow and budget in
young mature oil palm agroecosystem on deep
tropical peat. The Planter.
Melling, L., R. Hatano and K. J. Goh. 2005.
Soil CO2 flux from three ecosystems in
tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Tellus
57:1-11.
Melling, L., R. Hatano, KJ. Goh. 2005. Global
warming potential from soils in tropical
peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Phyton
(Austria) 45: 275-284.
Mezbahuddin, M., R.F. Grant and T. Hirano.
2013. Modelling effects of seasonal variation
in water table depth on net ecosystem CO2
exchange of a tropical peatland.
Biogeosciences Discussions 10: 13353-13398)
Murayama, S. andZ.A. Bakar. 1996.
Decomposition of tropical peat soils 2.
estimation of in situ decomposition by
measurement of CO2 flux. Agricultural
Research Quarterly 30: 153-158.
Sumiwinata, B. 2012. Emission of CO2 and
CH4 from plantation forest of Acacia
crassicarpa on peatlands in Indonesia.
Proceedings of the 14th International Peat
Conference. 3-8 June 2012. Stockholm,
Sweden.
Sundari, S., T. Hirano, H. Yamahada, M.
Kamiya, and S. H. Limin. 2012 effect of
groundwater level on soil respiration in
tropical peat swamp forests. Journal of
Agricultural Meteorology^?,'. 1 2 1 - 1 34 .
Pub Type
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
(undergoing)
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
LU
oil palm
oil palm
mixed forest, oil
palm plantation,
sago plantation
mixed forest, oil
palm plantation,
sago plantation
degraded peat
forest
forest, oil palm,
maize, okra,
fallow
Acacia
undrained and
drained peat
forests
Loc (s)
Sarawak
Sarawak
Sarawak
Sarawak
Central
Kalimantan
Peninsular
Malaysia
Riau, Jambi
Central
Kalimantan
Measures
CO2
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
Period of
Measurement
July 2006-June
2008
one year
August 2002 to
July 2003
August 2002 to
July 2003
1991-1992
one year
July 2004-April
2006
Frequency of
Measurement
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
unknown
every 1 -2 weeks
daily
-------
w
a\
oo
Citation
Suzuki, S, T. Ishida, T. Nagano and S.
Wahharoen. 1999. Influences of deforestation
on carbon balance in a natural tropical peat
swamp forest in Thailand. Environmental
Control in Biology 37: 115-128.
Takakai, F., T. Morishita, Y. Hashidoko, U.
Darung, K. Kuramochi, S. Dohong, S. Limin
and R Hatano. 2006. Effects of agricultural
land-use change and forest fire on N2O
emission from tropical peatlands, Central
Kalimantan. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
52:662-674.
Takakai. 2005. The effect of forest fire and
agriculture on CH4 and N2O emission from
tropical peatlands, Central Kalimantan,
Indonesia -Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Human Dimension of Tropical
Peatland Under Global Environmental
Change. 8-9 Dec 2004. Bogor, Indonesia.
Toma, Y., F. Takakai, U. Darung, K.
Kuramochi, S. Limin, S. Dohong and R.
Hatano. 201 1 . Nitrous oxide emission derived
from soil organic matter decomposition from
tropical agricultural peat soil in Central
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition 57: 436-451.
Ueda, S., C. S. U. Go, T. Yoshioko, N.
Yoshida, E. Wada, T. Miyajama, A. Sugimoto,
N. Boontanon, P. Vijarnsom, S. Boonprakub.
2000. Dynamics of dissolved O2, CO2, CH4,
and N2O in a tropical coastal swamp in
southern Thailand. Biogeochemistry 49: 191-
215.
Pub Type
Peer Review
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
Peer Review
LU
peat swamp
forest,
secondary forest
grassland,
cropland, forest,
burned forest,
regenerated
forest
arable, natural
forest, burnt
forest
cropland, bare,
grassland
swamp forest,
reclaimed,
paddy, tidal
gate, arable
land,
Loc (s)
Thailand
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Central
Kalimantan
Thailand
Measures
CO2
C02
Closed
Chamber
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
not applicable
not applicable
no
Period of
Measurement
1995-1996
March 2002 to
March 2004
April 2004 to
March 2007
1990 to 1993
Frequency of
Measurement
unknown
1 to 3 monthly
1 to 2 x per
month
dry and wet
season
-------
w
a\
Citation
Vien, D.M., N.M. Phoung, J. Jauhianen and
V.T. Guong. 2008. Carbon dioxide emissions
from peatland in relation to hydrology, peat
moisture, humidification at the Vodoi National
Park, Vietnam. Carbon-climate-human
interaction on tropical peatland. Proceedings
of the International Symposium and Workshop
on Tropical Peatland. 7-29 August 2007.
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Wantanabe, A., B. H. Purwanto, H. Ando, K.
Kakuda and F. Jong. 2009. Methane and CO2
fluxes from an Indonesian peatland used for
sago palm (Metroxylon sagu Rottb.)
cultivation: effects of fertilizer and
groundwater level management. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 134: 14-18.
Warren, M.W. 2012. A cost-efficient method
to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil.
Biogeosciences 9:4477-4485.
Wosten, J.H.M., A.B. Ismail and A.L.M. van
Wijk. 1997. Peat subsidence and its practical
implications: A case study in Malaysia.
GeodermalQ. 25-36.
Wright, E., C. R. Black, B. L. Turner and S.
Sjogersten. 2013. Environmental controls of
temporal and spatial variability in CO4 and
CH4 fluxes in a neotropical peatland. Global
Change Biology 19: 3775-3789.
Chin,K. K. andH.L. Poo. 1992. The
Malaysian experience of water management in
tropical peat. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Tropical Peatland, 6-10 May
1991, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Husen, E., S. Salma and F. Agus. 2013. Peat
emission control by groundwater management
and soil amendments: evidence from
laboratory experiments. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18.
Pub Type
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
LU
secondary peat
swamp forest
sago
drained peat
(agriculture)
intact peat
oil palm,
pineapple, rice,
agriculture
oil palm
Loc (s)
Vodoi Nat
Park Vietnam
Riau
Western
Jorhore
Malaysia
Panama
Peninsular
Malaysia,
Sarawak
Riau
Measures
CO2
Closed
Chamber
Closed
Chamber
Subsidence
Closed
Chamber
Subsidence
Other
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
yes
no
not applicable
no
no
Period of
Measurement
Oct 2006 to July
2007
2004 to 2007
21 years
2007
1980s
Frequency of
Measurement
once
various
various
each month
n/a
-------
w
-------
w
Citation
Wosten, J.H.M. and H.P. Ritzema. 2001. Land
and water management options for peatland
development in Sarawak, Malaysia.
International Peat Journal.
Dradjad, M. 2003. Subsidence of peat soils the
tidal swamplands of Barambai, South
Kalimantan. Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan
Lingkungan4\ 32-40.
Hadi, A., I. Kazuyuki, P. Erry, F. Yuchiro and
T. Haruo. 2002. Emission of CH4 and CO2
from tropical peatland and factors affecting
them. Proceedings of the 17th World Congress
on Soil Sciences, Bangkok.
Hooijer, A. 2008. Master plan for the
conservation and development of the ex-mega
rice project area in Central Kalimantan, cluster
3 - hydrology and peatland water management.
Euroconsult MottMacDonald/Deltares.
Jauhiainen, J. 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions
from a plantation on thick tropical peat. 14th
International Peat Congress. 3-8 June 2012.
Stockholm, Sweden.
Jauhiainen, J., H. Silvennoinen, S.H. Limin
and H. Vasander. 2008. Effect of hydro logical
restoration on degraded tropical peat carbon
flux. Proceedings 1 3th International Peat
Congress. Dec 2008. Tullamore, Ireland.
Jauhiainen, J., H. Vasander, J. Heikkinen and
P. J. Martikainen. 2004. Carbon balance in
managed tropical peat in Central Kalimantan,
Indonesia. Proceedings of the 12th
International Peat Congress. Tampere.
Jauhiainen, J., J. Heikkinen, P. J. Martikainen
and H. Vasander. 2001 . CO2 and CH4 fluxes in
pristine peat swamp forest and peatland
converted to agriculture in Central
Kalimantan. International Peat Journal 11.
Pub Type
Peer Review
Peer Review
Conference
Proceedings
White Paper
Conference
Proceedings
Conference
Proceedings
Conference
Proceedings
Peer Review
LU
Loc (s)
Sarawak
Measures
CO2
Autotrophic
respiration
correction
Period of
Measurement
Frequency of
Measurement
4 three week
periods
4 month-long
periods with
measurements 1-
5 times a week
-------
w
------- |