the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Where can rewetting of forested peatland reduce extreme flows?
Abstract. Historical drainage to improve forestry practices has resulted in 0.6–0.7 million hectares drained forested peatland in Sweden. This has reduced the storage of water in the landscape and may impact greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and the damping of extreme water flows. National restoration actions therefore aim at rewetting 0.1 million hectares of forested peatland in Sweden, despite the limited and sometimes contradictory evidence in the impacts of rewetting. To clarify the potential impact on extreme flows and their cause-effects relationships from rewetting, we simulated flow under various conditions of the climate, local hydrology and rewetting practices (ditch blocking alone or combined with reduced tree cover). For this, we used the HYPE model setup across Sweden (450 000 km2) with improved calculations of runoff in drained forest and routines for inflow and outflow regions. National evaluation of changes in discharge extremes was combined with a detailed study in south-east Sweden, with the aim to understand rewetting impacts at various scales. We found that the change in discharge extremes from catchments of 10 km2 is small, because there is considerable mixing with runoff from various landcover. Hence, at the larger scale, rewetting is not an efficient measure to combat droughts or floods. However, for ecosystems in the streams only draining peatlands, rewetting can have an impact if appropriate sites for restoration are selected. The results show that groundwater level prior to rewetting and reduced tree cover are governing the effect on water runoff. Wetland allocation and management practices are thus crucial if the purpose is to reduce flow extremes in peatland streams.
- Preprint
(2490 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 Nov 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-271', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Oct 2024
reply
General comments
Rewetting of peatland does impact greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and extreme low and high flows. The authors investigated the effect of rewetting on high and low flows in Sweden. They employ an hydrological model (S-HYPE), which has been calibrated across Sweden. In addition to the national scale, they performed a sensitivity analysis with S-HYPE in a part of Sweden to determine which factors determine the hydrologic effect of rewetting. They show that at a larger scale (> 10km2) rewetting has hardly any impact on extremely high and low flows. At a smaller scale (< 10km2) the effects are mainly determined by the groundwater levels before rewetting and the reduction of tree cover after rewetting.
The current insecurities regarding rewetting policies, extensive distributed modelling of rewetting and the systematic sensitivity analysis make the study very relevant to readers of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. The modeling study is novel and allows them to answer their research questions. I especially appreciate Figures 7 and 9, which explain clearly why rewetting does not always result in higher low flows or larger high flows.
In general, the paper reads fluently and is well structured. Below I list several specific comments which would strengthen the paper.
Specific comments
Line 39: The term “air-water holding capacity” is not common among hydrologists. Please explain what you mean.
Line 94: “whereas peat soils cover 17 % of the entire surface and 7 % of forests”. Probably you mean that 7% of the entire surface is forested peat soil. This is not clear in your sentence.
Line 115: “following 5 years of initialization”. Do you mean that the initialization occurred in the years 2007-2011? Clarify in the text.
Line 119: “these HRUs are described using three soil layers extending to 0.25 m, 0.7 m and 1.5 or 2.25 m below the soil surface”. In the next paragraph, you describe the land cover data. Mention also the source of your soil profile data.
Line 142: Table 2 should be Table 1.
Line 146: In the baseline scenario you assumed a ditch depth of 0.7 m. As ditch depth is important in the sensitivity analysis, what is the base of 0.7 m?
Lines 163-167: You show that the change of tree density after rewetting has a significant impact on interception and evapotranspiration and thus on high and low flows. As your results entirely depend on modeling, we should be sure that sound modeling concepts are used for interception and evapotranspiration. Describe the used concepts for interception and evapotranspiration and show how reliable the concepts are.
Line 163 and Table 2: You discuss the reduction in tree cover and its effect on model parameters. How large is the reduction in tree cover that you have in mind?
Figure 2: The amount of information is relatively small in relation to the space it takes. You can explain the main result in the text and, if needed, move the Figure to Supplementary Material.
Figure 9: The difference is unclear between the sub-figures right-center, left-bottom and right-bottom. Do you need these 3 subfigures?
Table 3 and Figure 3: You apply S-HYPE with (Scen. A and B) and without (Scen. G and H) regional calibration. Figure 3 shows that the impact of regional calibration is relatively limited. Mention this when you discuss Figure 3.
Lines 364-368: This sentence is too long. Split the sentence.
Line 389: This is the conclusion section. Before you discuss the impact for policymakers and field research, answer the main research questions of your study:
- What are the main drivers behind the heterogenous impacts of rewetting on discharge extremes?
- Where can rewetting of forested peatland reduce extreme flows?
Line 399: Be more specific on implications for other ecosystem services and risks.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-271-RC1
Data sets
Research data for the article Elenius et al, 'Where can rewetting of forested peatland reduce extreme flows?' Maria Elenius et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13472209
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
216 | 36 | 57 | 309 | 2 | 1 |
- HTML: 216
- PDF: 36
- XML: 57
- Total: 309
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1