Comparison of greenhouse gas emission estimates from six hydropower reservoirs using modeling versus field surveys
DOE
Questions this answers
Sources
- doe_osti · checked 2025-02-27
Source record
The underlying research record — supporting evidence for the object above.
Key Details
- Posted Date
- Source
- doe_osti
Description
As with most aquatic ecosystems, reservoirs play an important role in the global carbon (C) cycle and emit greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>). However, GHG emissions from reservoirs are poorly quantified, especially in temperate systems, resulting in high uncertainty. We compared reservoir C emission estimates and uncertainty of diffusive, ebullitive, and degassing pathways in six hydropower reservoirs in the southeastern United States among four data sources: two field-based surveys and two models (including the GHG Reservoir “G-res” Tool). We found that CH<sub>4</sub> diffusion was most similar across data sources (modeled minus observed, bias = - 21 g CO<sub>2-eq</sub> m<sup>-2</sup> y<sup>-1</sup>) and had low relative uncertainty (coefficient of variation, CV = 0.98). On the other hand, CO<sub>2</sub> diffusion was least consistent across data sources (bias = - 518 g CO<sub>2-eq</sub> m<sup>-2</sup> y<sup>-1</sup>). Both field surveys indicated strong negative CO<sub>2</sub> diffusion (i.e., CO<sub>2</sub> uptake) at all reservoirs, while G-res estimated positive CO<sub>2</sub> diffusion. By extension, total C emissions showed similar discrepancies, leading to high uncertainty in upscaling and interpreting reservoir source-sink dynamics. Finally, CH<sub>4</sub> ebullition had the highest relative uncertainty (CV = 2.77) due to high variability across sites. We discuss limitations of field surveys and these models, including temperature-based annualization methods, varying definitions of ebullition zones, low sampling resolution, and lack of dynamism. Future field efforts focused on capturing variability in CO<sub>2</sub> diffusion and CH<sub>4</sub> ebullition will be especially valuable in reducing uncertainty and improving models to advance our understanding reservoir GHG emissions.. Authors: Pilla, Rachel M. [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)] (ORCID:0000000191569486); Griffiths, Natalie A. [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)] (ORCID:0000000300687714); Hansen, Carly [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)] (ORCID:0000000193280838); Turner, DeMarcus [University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC (United States)] (ORCID:0009000333239624); Fortner, Allison M. [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)] (ORCID:0000000218711236). DOE Contract: AC05-00OR22725. Subjects: 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; Carbon dioxide; G-res tool; Greenhouse gas emissions; Hydropower reservoirs; Methane; Sensitivity; Uncertainty