- Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report
- Featured Publications
- All Publications
Alternatives : HTML JSON YAML text N-Triples JSON Triples RDF+XML RDF+JSON Graphviz SVG
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> . @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> . @prefix gcis: <http://data.globalchange.gov/gcis.owl#> . @prefix cito: <http://purl.org/spar/cito/> . @prefix biro: <http://purl.org/spar/biro/> . <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/inland-waters/finding/key-message-14-1> dcterms:identifier "key-message-14-1"; gcis:findingNumber "14.1"^^xsd:string; gcis:findingStatement "The total flux of carbon—which includes gaseous emissions, lateral flux, and burial—from inland waters across the conterminous United States (CONUS) and Alaska is 193 teragrams of carbon (Tg C) per year. The dominant pathway for carbon movement out of inland waters is the emission of carbon dioxide gas across water surfaces of streams, rivers, and lakes (110.1 Tg C per year), a flux not identified in the <em>First State of the Carbon Cycle Report</em> (SOCCR1; CCSP 2007). Second to gaseous emissions are the lateral fluxes of carbon through rivers to coastal environments (59.8 Tg C per year). Total carbon burial in lakes and reservoirs represents the smallest flux for CONUS and Alaska (22.5 Tg C per year) (<em>medium confidence</em>)."^^xsd:string; gcis:isFindingOf <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/inland-waters>; gcis:isFindingOf <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report>; ## Properties of the finding: gcis:descriptionOfEvidenceBase "Estimates for the export of carbon to U.S. coasts have been well documented through long-term observations (Stets and Striegl 2012) and syntheses (Butman et al., 2016; Stackpoole et al., 2016; Zhu and McGuire 2016). Carbon burial is derived from recent model results (Clow et al., 2015). Gaseous emissions of CO<sub>2</sub> were originally assessed in Butman and Raymond (2011) for streams and rivers and McDonald et al. (2013) for lakes and reservoirs of CONUS only. Previous data do exist to support inland waters as dominated by supersaturated conditions (Striegl et al., 2012; Tranvik et al., 2009).<br><brThe finding that the dominant pathway for carbon loss through inland waters is through surface emissions was identified in Richey et al. (2002) and Cole et al. (2007) and quantified for CONUS in (Butman and Raymond 2011). Estimates that support this finding for Alaska are presented in Zhu and McGuire (2016). McDonald et al. (2012) showed that across CONUS, lake carbon burial and lake emissions are similar in magnitude when considered at the national scale, with regional variation based on the input of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) to lake systems."^^xsd:string; gcis:assessmentOfConfidenceBasedOnEvidence "The overall confidence level of medium reflects 1) advancements in inland water spatial representations in a global information system (GIS) format to develop surface areas, 2) completion of datasets enabling the calculation of lateral fluxes, and 3) advancements in databases relevant to sedimentation rates in U.S. lakes and reservoirs. Confidence is reduced because modeling approaches available to estimate gas transfer velocities used for calculating carbon emissions are limited, and there are few chemical measurements in small stream systems."^^xsd:string; gcis:newInformationAndRemainingUncertainties "Large uncertainties exist for the emission of CO<sub>2</sub> from stream and river systems based on empirical estimates of the gas transfer velocity of CO<sub>2</sub> presented in Raymond et al. (2012). The modeling of gas transfer is poorly constrained under high-flow conditions in steep topography. High levels of uncertainty also exist regarding the temporal dynamics of both lentic and lotic CO<sub>2</sub> emissions (Battin et al., 2008; Striegl et al., 2012; Tranvik et al., 2009), where limited data exist to assess carbon gas concentrations under ice or storm flow conditions.<br><br>Uncertainties also exist regarding the use of the empirical model for carbon burial presented in Clow et al. (2015). Limited concentration data exist for lakes in Alaska, and there may be significant bias in the concentrations used to scale lake fluxes across regions (Stackpoole et al., 2017a; Zhu and McGuire 2016). These constraints may result in overestimates of emissions. In addition, limited data on carbon burial exist for northern latitudes, resulting in the use of empirical models derived from samples that do not capture the level of variability that exists across Alaska (Stackpoole et al., 2016)."^^xsd:string; a gcis:Finding . ## This finding cites the following entities: <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/inland-waters/finding/key-message-14-1> prov:wasDerivedFrom <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/second-state-carbon-cycle-report-soccr2-sustained-assessment-report/chapter/preface/figure/figurep-4>.