Technische Universität Berlin
Fakultät VI - Planen Bauen Umwelt
Institut für Ökologie
Fachgebiet Standortkunde und Bodenschutz
Forecasting the Peat Subsidence of Drained
Organic Soils in North-east Germany
Master Thesis
For the acquisition of the academic title
Master of Science
Author
Albrecht Richter
Matriculation Number
316277
Academic Advisors
Mr. Prof. Dr. Gerd Wessolek
Mr. Dr. Björn Kluge
Berlin, 08 May 2013
II
III
Acknowledgements
My thanks go to Prof. Gerd Wessolek for guidance and Dr. Björn Kluge for providing such an
interesting topic. I also want to thank Mr. Michael Facklam and Mr. Joachim Buchholz for the
technical support.
I wish to express my thanks to all institutions and people who cooperated willingly in
providing the necessary data, in particular Dr. Jens Thormann and Mrs. Barbara Hölzel
(LUGV), Mr. Karsten Stornowski (Wasser-Boden Verband Welse) and Prof. Dr. Jutta Zeitz
and Mrs. Evelyn Wallor (HU Berlin).
I also appreciated the help of Mrs. Inge Alff and Mrs. Helga Graetz (Landesvermesssung und
Geobasisinformation Brandenburg). Further thanks are expressed to Dr. Albrecht Bauriegel
(LBGR) and to all authors that provided me with their articles.
I want to acknowledge my parents for giving me the opportunity to study and my whole family
and friends for the emotional balancing.
IV
Abstract
Peatlands have been drained for three centuries in Europe for agricultural use. A geographic
information system (GIS) has been used to analyse and evaluate multiple geographic data
for one large peatland in eastern Germany, the Randow-Welse-Bruch.
First, an estimation of the present rate of subsidence, based on agricultural mapping form the
1960s in combination with field measurements by KLUGE (2008), was done.
Second, a comparison of highly detailed scenarios with current soil profile descriptions and
the small-scaled area "Wendemark Area”, which has been sampled over 40 years, was used
to evaluate the peat subsidence.
Third, an estimation of groundwater levels was done to evaluate the CO2 emissions of
peatland soils in the Randow-Welse-Bruch.
The forecasts until 2060, with regulated groundwater levels show that thick peat layers can
lose up to 30 dm over a century due to peat mineralization. On the contrary, areas with thin
peat layers were estimated with a loss of up to 6 dm.
Using a GIS compilation and inventory of multiple data sources might help to create new
estimations of peat thickness, groundwater levels and total carbon pool. As such, this study
tries to represent the first high-resolute maps for the Randow-Welse-Bruch for limiting peat
oxidation and greenhouse gas emissions.
Contents
1
Contents
Acknowledgements..............................................................................III
Abstract.................................................................................................IV
Contents.................................................................................................1
List of Figure..........................................................................................3
List of Tables..........................................................................................5
List of Abbreviations...............................................................................6
I Introduction..........................................................................................7
1.1 Introduction............................................................................................7
1.2 Climatic Role of Peatlands.....................................................................7
1.3 Definition................................................................................................8
1.4 Stages of Peat Subsidence....................................................................9
1.5 Literature Study......................................................................................9
1.6 Choice of Research Area and Assignments........................................11
II Study Area..........................................................................................12
2.1 Geographical Location.........................................................................12
2.1.1 Randow-Welse-Bruch..........................................................................12
2.1.2 "Wendemark Area”...............................................................................14
2.2 Geological Formation...........................................................................14
2.3 Peatland Formation..............................................................................15
2.3.1 Substrate Composition.........................................................................16
2.3.2 Substrate Composition in the Subareas...............................................18
2.3.3 Typical Soil Profile from the Study Area...............................................19
2.4 Climate.................................................................................................20
2.5 History of Land Use and Draining........................................................21
2.5.1 Before and During World War II...........................................................21
2.5.2 After World War II.................................................................................21
2.5.3 Consequences of Complex Melioration...............................................22
III Material and Methods........................................................................23
3.1 Classification........................................................................................23
3.2 Soil Maps.............................................................................................23
3.2.1 Data Analysis.......................................................................................24
3.2.2 Data Processing...................................................................................27
3.2.3 Interpolation.........................................................................................29
3.2.4 Categorising.........................................................................................30
3.2.5 Output..................................................................................................30
IV Results and Discussion.....................................................................31
2
4.1 Peat Thickness.....................................................................................31
4.1.1 Peatlands Scenarios............................................................................31
4.1.2 Overview over the Peatland´s Development........................................44
4.1.3 Evaluation............................................................................................48
4.1.4 Peatland´s Borders..............................................................................50
4.2 Surface Heights....................................................................................52
4.3 Groundwater Tables.............................................................................61
4.4 CO2-C Release.....................................................................................64
V Conclusion..........................................................................................70
VI References..........................................................................................71
VII Appendix.............................................................................................83
7.1 Figures.................................................................................................85
7.2 Tables..................................................................................................99
7.3 Rehabilitation Measures.....................................................................112
VIII Declaration........................................................................................117
List of Figures
3
List of Figures
1 Annual peat subsidence rates at selected sites in relation to the time after land reclamation.................................................................................................................10
2 A view into the Randow-Welse-Bruch........................................................................11
3 Schematic representation of the study site.................................................................12
4 Location of the Randow-Welse-Bruch and "Wendemark Area”.................................13
5 Profile section through the valley of the Randow-Welse-Bruch.................................16
6 Structural changes of soil horizons within 23 years....................................................17
7 Climate chart with annual temperature and precipitation of the weather station Angermünde from 1961-1990 (reference) and 2011................................................20
8 Control circuit for the logging of drained peat soils.....................................................22
9 Flow chart for map preparation for peat subsidence, CO2-C release and surface heights........................................................................................................................24
10 Dependence of CO2-C release rate on groundwater and peat thickness..................29
11 Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the “Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung 1964”...............................................34
12 Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003) - "Conformal Decrease"...........35
13 Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2012) - "Conformal Decrease"...........36
14 Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2060) - "Conformal Decrease"...........37
15 Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003) - "Sectorial Decrease"..............40
16 Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2012) - "Sectorial Decrease"..............41
17 Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2060) - "Sectorial Decrease" ..............42
18 Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch with a raised groundwater level(2060) - "Sectorial Decrease"...................................................................................................43
19 Horizontal decrease of peat thicknesses in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1997) - View on borders: "Sectorial Decrease" from 2003 - 2060..........................................51
20 Conceptual diagram of water table draw-down and subsequent volume change (in chronological order)...............................................................................................53
21 Groundwater levels after land reclamations in the Randow-Welse-Bruch.................54
22 Stratigraphical changes of a soil profile over 40 years...............................................55
23 Surface heights (AMSL/m) in the "Wendemark Area” (1913 - 2012)........................58
24 Surface heights in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1993)..................................................59
25 Surface heights in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003)..................................................60
26 Derived (annual) groundwater levels in the Randow-Bruch (2012)............................62
27 Derived (annual) groundwater levels in the Randow-Bruch (2060) - Rededication to more extensive land use (30%) .......................................................63
28 CO2-Crelease in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on current groundwater level (2012) and peat thickness (2012)...............................................................................65
4
29 CO2-Crelease in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on current ground water level (2012) and peat thickness (2060)...............................................................................66
30 CO2-Crelease in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on raised ground water level (rehabilitation) and peat thickness (2012)...................................................................67
31 CO2-Crelease in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on raised groundwater level(rehabilitation) and peat thickness (2060)...................................................................68
List of Tables
5
List of Tables
1 Distribution of peat thickness in the subareas of the Randow-Welse-Bruch ...............16
2 Percentage of different soil types at different sample times .........................................17
3 General information and location of "Soil Profile 1" ......................................................19
4 Detailed soil description of "Soil Profile 1" ....................................................................19
5 Classification for drained peatlands: TGL 24 300/04 and used classification for the peatland´s area of the Randow-Welse-Bruch ...............................................................23
6 Data on groundwater table, land use and surface heights from 1913 - 2003 in "Wendemark Area” .......................................................................................................25
7 Decrease of surface heights in various peat classes from 1963 - 2003 in the "Wendemark Area” .......................................................................................................25
8 Data on groundwater table, land use and decrease of peat thickness from 1913 - 2060 ......................................................................................................................................31
9 Calculated decrease of surface heights in various peat classes with linear adjustments (*) in the Randow-Welse-Bruch from 1963 - 2060 .......................................................38
10 Peat areas in the subareas of the Randow-Welse-Bruch ............................................44
11 Peat loss at classified peat layers in the Randow-Welse-Bruch ..................................46
12 Peat loss in ranges in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, compared to the "Wendemark Area” (view of the prediction) .................................................................................................47
13 Validation for the scenarios of peat thicknesses in the Randow-Welse-Bruch ...........48
14 CO2-C release in Subarea II depending on peat thickness and groundwater table ....64
List of Abbrevations
6
List of Abbreviations
A Arable land AMSL/m Above mean sea level/meter(s) DPSC Deep-Plow-Sand-Covering: Restoration method, applied in the Upper
Rhinluch in 1988(SCHINDLER & MÜLLER 2001) DTK Digital Topographic Cards DTM Digital Terrain/Elevation Model EG Extensive Grassland ETRS European Terrestrial Reference System G (Extensive - and/or intensive) Grassland GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) GIS Geographical Information Software GRS Geodetic Reference System GWL (Mean) Groundwater level (below surface) [cm] HU Berlin Humboldt-University to Berlin IG Intensive Grassland IDW Inverse Distance Weighted: Interpolation method LBG Landesvermessung und Geoinforamtion Brandenburg:
Land survey and geographic information of Brandenburg LBGR Landesamt für Bergbau, Geologie und Rohstoffe Brandenburg:
State Office for Mining, Geology and Raw Materials of Brandenburg LUA Landesuntersuchungsamt (Brandenburg):
State Environmental Agency of Brandenburg LUGV Landesamt für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz
(Brandenburg): State Office for Environment, Health and Consumer Protection of Brandenburg
MIL Minesterium für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft (Brandenburg): Ministry for Infrastructure and Agriculture of Brandenburg
MMK Site specific concept of the agricultural medium-scale site map from the GDR for agricultural land use in 1960s
MUGV Ministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz (Brandenburg): Ministry for Environment, Health and Consumer Protection of Brandenburg
NFAs "No-Fen-Areas": Areas with very shallow peat layers (below a thickness of 3 dm) on top of the surface, classified as "No Fen"
RaWe Randow-Welse-Bruch: Search area Sp. Subspecies TGL Technische Normen, Gütevorschriften und Lieferbedingungen:
Technical standards, quality regulations and order conditions of the GDR
UTM Universal Time Mercator: Global Coordinate System We "Wendemark Area” X-Cord. X-Coordinate(s) Y-Cord. Y- Coordinate(s) + Available/used data
I Introduction
7
1.1 Introduction
Peatlands have always fascinated many people. These ecosystems presented over several
centuries a kind of danger and eeriness. The charm and vigour of an intact nature was
gradually taken in the late 17th century.
Large areas of peatland in central and eastern Europe have been converted to pastures,
meadows, ploughed fields, forestry plantations and fishponds (GÖTTLICH 1990, p. 387,
JOOSTEN & CLARK 2002, p. 51). From the 1950s to 1980s remaining peatland areas were
drained further out of agricultural and forestry reasons or mined for the peat itself, which was
burnt for energy (BAIR & GAFFNEZ 2000, p. 2489). Furthermore, extensive areas in
peatlands were activated systematically for grassland and agricultural farming. The general
crisis of land utilisation in the European Community stopped the draining activity in the
1990s.
Especially the last interventions of the 20th century have resulted in a wide degradation of
peatlands in eastern Germany. The technical complex drainage destroyed the natural water
balance and peat chemistry irreparably (SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 406).
The peat body is sensible to a fluctuating groundwater table over long periods of time. The
continuous land subsidence in drained peatlands caused a combination of sacking,
shrinkage, hydrodynamic consolidation, humification and mineralisation (SUCCOW et al.
2001, p. 47). The combination of complex drainage, peat harvesting, clearing and
monoculture for more than 40 years has seriously endangered European peatlands with area
loss (BYRNE et al. 2004, p. 7, SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 404).
1.2 Climatic Role of Peatlands
During the last six decades there has been an increase in protection for peatlands out of
climatic reasons, as they are an important terrestrial storage for carbon and nutrients
(TREPEL 2008, p. 62, SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 38). The projections of general models
predict warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons and enhanced precipitation with a
high confidence around the northern high latitudes (IPCC AR4 2007, p. 30).
The global content of carbon in peat is equivalent of up to 75% of all atmospheric carbon
(PARISH et al. 2008, p. 102). Peatlands can play an important role in future climate change,
owing to mobilisation of sequestered carbon stocks and their return to the atmosphere or
release to surface water (FREEMAN et al. 2004, p. 196). They represent a long-term net sink
of atmospheric carbon dioxide and a net source of atmospheric methane (Moore et al. 1998,
I Introduction
8
cited by PRICE & WADDINGTON 2000, p. 1583). Under natural conditions(GWL = 0-10cm),
a peatland´s surface would grow 1 mm per year and would be a carbon sink (SUCCOW et al.
2001, p. 19, TREPEL 2008, p. 64).
Peatlands once accumulated carbon out of plant debris in a saturated, anaerobic
environment retarding the decomposition over thousands of years (EVERETT 1983, cited by
EWING et al. 2006, p. 119). At the same time, peatlands absorb nutrients and toxic
substances under stable conditions (LEHRLAMP 1987, p. 91, OLESZCUZK et al. 2008, p.
84, SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 186 & 404, ROULET et al. 2000, p. 5).
After drainage, the content of carbon, water and nutrients in an organic soil such as peat will
be much less. Consequently, changes occur in the peatland topography. They can become a
net source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 47, LEHRKAMP 1987,p.
2, SCHOTHORST 1977, p. 275, SCHOTHORST 1979, p. 153).
1.3 Definition
JOOSTEN & Clark (2002) define a peatland as an area with or without vegetation with a
naturally accumulated peat layer at the surface. The definition of the minimum thickness has
always been in a state of confusion. Depending on country and scientific discipline, a
minimum thickness of peat has been suggested of 20, 30, 40, 50 or 70cm (JOOSTEN &
CLARK 2002, p. 30, MONTANARELLA et al. 2006, p. 1). For this study a minimum peat
depth of 30cm was used like in researches from JOOSTEN & CLARK (2002) (JOOSTEN &
CLARK 2002, p. 33).
Peat consists out of at least 30% dry mass of dead organic material (JOOSTEN & CLARK
2002, p. 33). Peat has been used in several soil classification systems under names like
"peat soils", "muck soils", "bog soils" or "organic soils". It was formed in growing peatlands,
where the activity of decomposing organisms is suppressed by water logging. It ranges in
character from moss peat in arctic, subarctic and boreal regions; via reed/sedge peat and
forest peat in temperate regions; to mangrove and swamp forest peat in the humid tropics
(DRIESSEN et al. 2001, cited by MONTANARELLA et al. 2006, p. 1).
The most commonly used name for peat nowadays is "Histosol" (WRB 2008, p. 86). A
Histosol has got a surface or a shallow subsurface (histic or folic horizon), which consists of
partially decomposed plant remains with or without admixed sand, silt and/or clay (FAO
2006, p. 32). This organic horizon must be at the top of the soil surface with a thickness of at
least 10 cm, the whole top soil layer must be at least 40cm thick (WRB 2008, p. 86).
I Introduction
9
1.4 Stages of Peat Subsidence
Tillage operations, like melioration and ploughing change peatlands morphology due to
physical processes (GEBHARDT et al. 2010, p. 485). There are three components of (peat)
subsidence (NIEUWENHUIS & SCHOKKING 2012, p. 41):
1) (Hydrodynamic) consolidation causes a decrease in pore water pressures and the
consequent increase in effective stress causes a soil volume decrease (LEHRKAMP
1987, p. 71). A primary consolidation is resulted by a rapid compression of saturated
peat layers below the water table during drainage. Upper (aerated) peat layers can lose
their buoyancy, increasing strain on the peat layer below. The subsidence, due to the
self-weight of the upper peat layer leads, after a few years post-draining, to a secondary
consolidation.
2) Shrinkage (and compaction) leads to a volume reduction of peat in the aerated zone
above the water table. Sand - / loam coverage, concrete lanes, water filled ditches and
heavy equipment on the surface result in further compactions.
3) (Peat) mineralization and (biological oxidation/humification): Under aerobic conditions,
micro-organisms degraded the organic matter in all upper peat layers that have been
used for cultivation. This active process still happens, whereas shrinkage and
consolidation are diminishing in the time of constant groundwater level. The peat
decomposition can result in a carbon loss through a release of gaseous CO2, too. In
areas with clay cover and without artificial drainage, the oxidation is less.
1.5 Literature Study
A consequent lowering of the groundwater level lead to decreasing surface heights, often
with irreparable losses in upper peat layers (SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 468). In the following
chapter, search sites with typical peatlands all over the world were analyzed and
summarized. The search sites were compared to each other, having the same climatic
conditions (moderate climate zone) and/or the same drainage history according to their loss
of surface heights (annex; tab. 1).
Every reclamation, including a permanent lowering of the groundwater table leads to a
decomposition of peat. A peak describing a maximum of height loss gives a hint that the
areas have once been deeply drained (fig. 1) (cf. tab. 22).
The graphs show the typical physical behaviours and properties of organic peat soils. Deep
meliorations lead to much higher height losses. The rate is depending on climate, peat type,
I Introduction
10
groundwater level and the drainage duration and intensity (BEHRENDT (2004),
SCHOTHORST (1977), LEHRKAMP (1987), LEIFELD (2011) and SNOWDEN (1980)).
The search sites "Home Post", "Lake Pontcharatrain", "Smola Island" and "Wendemark Area”
showed after first reclamations (including a deeply drawn down groundwater within 15 years)
an increasing surface height loss, some areas experiencing their maximum height loss (fig.
1).
10 years later a second maximum height loss can be observed at "Smola Island", "Lake
Pontcharatrain" and "Pointa Plain". There has been a second deeper draining, which led to
further height losses (fig. 1). In some cases, farmers stopped draining out of increasing
infertility connected with hydrological problems in areas like "Smola Island" or “Lake
Pontcharatrain". But, subsidence is only minimized slowly and continues in smaller
dimensions. It takes several decades or centuries to reduce a rapid height loss (fig. 1, annex;
tab. 1).
Figure 1: Annual peat subsidence rates at selected sites in relation to the time after land reclamation
I Introduction
11
1.6 Choice of Research Area and Assignments
Peatlands in the northern latitude, which are valuable in nature conservation terms, are
important elements in the carbon footprint (GORHAM 1991, p. 186). One connected peatland
area is the Randow-Welse-Bruch in the north-east of Germany. It is one of the few remaining
calcareous peatland systems in eastern Germany, like the Lieper Posse in Eberswalde (VAN
DIGGELN 1991, p. 466). The Randow-Welse-Bruch is an open cultivated landscape with
some nature reserve areas (fig.2) that are mainly used for dairy farming (LEHRKAMP 1987,
p. 65). It is one of the remaining peatlands with a high importance for protection of species
and habitats (BERHORN 2010, p. 1). The complex meliorations in the 20th century caused
wide-ranging changes.
Consequently, adequate land use and field management are necessary for the promotion of
sustainable nature conservation and agriculture. For such management, a suitable land
evaluation, based on data of subsidence, should be developed. The following tasks should
be assigned for the Randow-Welse-Bruch:
1) Subsidence in shallow peat areas will decrease rapidly at the current groundwater level,
especially at the edges of the study area. Deep peat layers may not be significantly
affected, but can still decrease.
2) Disappearing shallow peat areas lead to changing peatland borders.
3) The annual CO2-C emissions will increase within the next 40 years(STRACK 2008, p. 78).
The aim of the present study is to report the findings of topographic and soil surveys. The
results are compared to current survey data, in order to assess the rate of peat subsidence
and its variations. A modelled prediction may promote a further protection and a sustainable
development of the Randow-Welse-Bruch.
Figure 2: A view into the Randow-Welse-Bruch (HERMMANN 2012)
II Study Area
12
II Study Area
In the following chapter the study area is characterised in terms of its geographical location,
such as its history, peatland formation, substrate composition and climate conditions.
2.1 Geographical Location
2.1.1 Randow-Welse-Bruch
A 70 sq.km area in eastern Germany has been selected to determine the subsidence of the
peatland, named Randow-Welse-Bruch. The area is situated in the region of the Uckermark
and is about 150 km north-east from Berlin (fig. 3). The main study area includes the part in
Brandenburg only (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1077).
Figure 3: Schematic representation of the study site (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1077)
The "Verband zur Melioration des südlichen Randow- und unteren Welsetales" and
"Genossenschaft zur Melioration der Wiesen zwischen Biesenbrow und Passow" were
founded in the 1860s to maintain the ditches for agricultural use. At the beginning the
Randow-Welse-Bruch was divided into two subareas. The "Meliorationskombinat
Frankfurt/Oder" decided in 1969 to regard the southern Randow as a separate independent
area (Subarea II) (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 21). This administrative division is also applied in the
present study (fig. 4).
II Study Area
13
Figure 4: Location of the Randow-Welse-Bruch and "Wendemark Area” - Historical position and expansion of the subareas (Data: LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 150; LGB (a)2012&LUGV 2012)
Subarea I, also known as Lower Welse River (2.134 ha), begins at the railroad "Berlin-
Szczecin". This area follows the Welse River downstream to the south-east near
II Study Area
14
Vierraden/Schwedt. Subarea II, called southern Randow River (3.383 ha), was founded in
1969 and starts in the North at the highway "A 11" (fig. 4). The area follows along the
Randow River downstream until the railroad "Berlin-Szczecin". The third subarea, Subarea III
or Middle Welse (1.487 ha), begins near Passow where Subarea I and II meet each other at
the railroad. This area follows the Welse upstream until Greifenberg in the south-west (fig. 4).
The whole study site has got an area of about 7.0004 ha (tab. 1).
2.1.2 "Wendemark Area”
A small section in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, the 80 ha large "Wendemark Area” was used
for comparisons and evaluations. This area is well documented by LEHRKAMP (1987, p. 36)
and KLUGE (2008, p. 1077) before and after the 1970s complex melioration. The
"Wendemark Area” is situated in Subarea II, near the city Wendemark (UTM 33N:
440500/5891517). The Randow River limits the area from the northern to eastern side (fig.
4).
2.2 Geological Formation
The Randow-Welse-Bruch was mainly shaped by the last stage of the "Weichsel Glaciation",
the "Pomeranian Stage".
Alternating ice masses, such as the "Brandenburg-" and "Frankfurt stages", formed over
several thousand years staggered moraines. Big sub glacial outer channels flew in the
moraines that have slowly been filled with melt water. These edges characterise the natural
course of the southern Randow River, the Upper and Middle Welse River (LEHRKAMP 1987,
p. 23).
In the "Angermünde Stage" of the "Pommeranian Stage" almost all the continuous ice
disappeared. Only small ice margins covered the fringes along the Randow and Welse
rivers. The "Pommeranian Stage" was followed by the "Mecklenburg Stage". In the
"Rosentahler- or Randow Stage" all margins on the edges melted and its water flowed into
the glacial valley, where nowadays the Randow and Welse rivers are running (SCHROEDER
1994, p. 35, cited by KLUGE 2003, p. 16).
The melt waters, which cut a V-shaped slit into ground, flowed at first to the "Eberswalder
Glacial Valley". Ice glaciers then retreated to the North. The melt waters could now flow
through the Randow River in the opposite direction, to the North (OVERBECK 1950, p. 80,
SCHROEDER 1994, p. 35, cited by KLUGE 2003, p. 16).
II Study Area
15
The melt waters carried along sand and gravel that have been deposited in the Randow
Bruch. The deposits filled up the valley with a thickness of about 10 to 20 m. The sediments
remained in the valley and on these sands grew a peatland in the Holocene (LEHRKAMP
1987, p. 24, KLUGE 2003, p. 17).
2.3 Peatland Formation
The peatland formation in the valley was accelerated by climate-, groundwater- and sea level
fluctuations in the "Pomeranian Stage" of the "Weichsel Glaciation" (LEHRKAMP 1987, p.
23).
In the "Atlantic Period" (8.000 - 5.000 yr. BC) the sea level of the Baltic Sea raised from -22
to -5 m (OVERBECK 1950, p. 84, KLIEWE & JANKE 1982, cited by MEYER 2002, p. 7). The
water level increased in the valley, limited step by step by the lateral moraines.
This caused the formation of swampy areas with small raised bogs. One of the first peatlands
was the Randow-Welse-Bruch that occurred about 11.000 years ago (LEHRKAMP 1987,
p. 23). The hydrological principles for a peatland formation were fulfilled (cf. SUCCOW et al.
2001, p. 186). The valley was slowly silted up in the Holocene. Little by little a peat body,
comparable to percolations mire, grew. The dead plant material reached the waterlogged
zone quickly. At first some (sadic) mud occurred, followed by sedge - and then reed peats.
The deposited peats were often over stowed and silted. Therefore, the peat layers overlap
several times (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 23). They are often interrupted on a small-scale by the
mud.
The slow but strong marine flooding on the mainland led to further peatland formations in
wide valleys, such as the Randow-Welse area.
In the 12thand 13th century large-scale deforestation caused a rapid rise of the water table
and an increase water supply in the valley. Bogs and swamps grew further. Thus, due to the
nutrient depletion and favourable climatic conditions, peatlands could develop further
(LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 25). The Randow-Welse area can be characterised, due its geological
and morphological structure, as a flood mire (SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 434).
SUCCOW denominated the Randow-Welse-Bruch as a "River Valley Peatland", because of
its two valleys that are filled with peaty soils (SUCCOW 2001, p. 369). The peat body is
dependent from groundwater that flows from the upper loamy edges to the Randow and
Welse rivers in the peatland (fig. 5). The valley is fully filled with peaty soils (SUCCOW et al.
2001, p. 396).
II Study Area
16
Figure 5: Profile section through the valley of the Randow-Welse-Bruch (SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 368)
2.3.1 Substrate Composition
Table 1 shows the characterisation of the substrate composition according to LEHRKAMP
toward the TGL-classification (annex; fig. 1 - 3) (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 45).
Table 1: Distribution of peat thickness in the subareas of the Randow-Welse-Bruch (Data: "Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue" (1964) & LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 26)
Subarea /Year
Area "No Fen"
[dm]
Peat thickness [dm] in classes - TGL 24 300/04
2 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 12 12 - 30 > 30 Total
I 1963
[ha] 322 367 577 419 432 17 2.134
[%] 15 17 27 20 20 1 100
II 1963/64
[ha] 92 197 499 464 1231 900 3.383
[%] 3 6 15 14 36 27 100
III 1962
[ha] 3 15 203 278 885 103 1.487
[%] 0 1 14 19 60 7 100
Total [ha] 417 579 1.279 1.161 2.548 1.020 7.004
[%] 6 8 18 17 36 15 100
A comparison of peat layers of LEHRKAMP (1989) from 1964 to 1985 showed a strong
increase of the soil stage "Mulm" (German notation), which is a characteristic stage for a
degraded peatland (tab. 2, annex; fig. 1) (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 61). The peat subsidence
II Study Area
17
changed the moisture classes in peat areas, increasing strongly through droughty- and/or
periodically wet conditions (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 84).
Table 2:Percentage of different soil types at different sample times (LEHRKAMP 1989, cited by SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 71 & 435)
Soil stages
(TGL 24300/04) Characteristics
Moisture
classes 1962/64 [%] 1985 [%]
"Ried" Growing peatland
5+ 0,2 n.a.
"Fen" Moderate drained
4+/3+ 6,6 2,6
"Erdfen" Strongly drained 3+/2+ 63,4 34,2
"Mulm" Degraded 2- 5,2 37,6
Coverage (Sand/loam)
Deposits n.a 24,6 24,6
No Peatland No peaty soils
("No Fen") n.a. n.a 1,0
Total 100 100
The interaction of shrinkage, mineralisation and structural changes as a result of lowering the
groundwater table, led to a compression of the all soil horizons (LEHKAMP 1987, p. 65, cited
by SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 435). The characteristic soil horizons and peaty materials were
degraded through higher aeration. The degradation was intense for the upper horizons and
less intense for deeper soil layers (fig. 6) (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1080).
Figure 6: Structural changes of soil horizons within 23 years (SAUERBREY & LEHRKAMP 1989, cited by SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 435)
II Study Area
18
2.3.2 Substrate Composition in the Subareas
The following excerpt from LEHRKAMP (1987) gives a detailed overview of the substrate
composition of the peat soils in the subareas of the Randow-Welse-Bruch in the 1980s
(LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 27).
Lower Welse River (Subarea I)
The area is dominated by sedge- and reed peats, which derived from Carex sp. and
Phragmites sp.. Both peat substrates often include lime and mollusc shells (KLUGE et al.
2008, 1077). The western part consists of "sedge-reed-mixed-peats" and also of pure sedge-
peat. In contrast, in the eastern part there are mainly "reed-sedge-mixed-peats" and pure
reed peats. Next to the Welse River pure reed peats dominate.
All peats have got a high mineral and timber content. In this region, a typical changing
between peat and mud layers is mostly present. Muddy layers are mixed up out of peat-,
calcareous- and clay mud. In the western part there are many thick calcareous muds, while
in the eastern part the muds are dominant by clay. There are also many loamy edge surfaces
(LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 27).
Southern Randow River (Subarea II)
In Subarea II are mainly calcareous muds, less clay- and peat muds. Some calcareous muds
take place in the upper peat layers, especially towards the valley-edge surfaces. Mud layers
do not interrupted peat layers near the Randow River. The sedge peats reach a peat
thickness between 50 and 70dm. Some parts of the surface edges are covered with
toppings. In the northern part of Subarea II there are bloated loam toppings, in the southern
part there are added sand toppings, caused by intensive peatland management in the past.
The mineral underground consists out of fine to medium sand (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 28).
Middle Welse River (Subarea III)
The determining type is reed peat, which is mixed up only in the edge areas with sedge peat.
The peat decomposition varies between low and high. However, middle decomposed peats
take the major share. Sedge peats do not contain any impurities. There are a lot of "mixed-
up-peats" at the edge surfaces that have got a high proportion of chalk, loam, sand and
molluscs. Muddy layers are less apparent in this region. Only some calcareous muds are
present in subordinate peat layers with deep depressions. The valley-edge surfaces are
covered with loam. The mineral base consists mainly out of fine - and medium grit-sand
(LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 28).
II Study Area
19
2.3.3 Typical Soil Profile from the Study Area
A typical soil profile (Symbol: HNm: og-Hn/og-Fhh)located northern from the "Wendemark
Area” has been recorded in detail and has been classified according to the AG-BODEN 2005
(tab. 3). The soil profile was created up to 90 cm deep before groundwater entered into the
pit.
Table 3: General information and location of "Soil Profile 1"
Position No.: 2440730 Map number: (D)TK 25 2850 X-Cord.: 3439608 County: Brandenburg Y-Cord.: 5899097 Region: Uckermark Land use: Grassland Vegetation: Meadow Date: 26.10.2011 GWL: 80 - 90 cm
"Soil profile 1" represents the typical substrate composition in the Randow-Welse-Bruch. The
groundwater draw-down caused biochemical and physical changes, which lead to a
formation of characteristic soil horizons (fig. 6). The soils are mixed out of flow-through,
filling-up and paludifying reed and/or sedge peat (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 51, SAUERBREY &
LEHRKAMP 1994, p. 1). Deposits of limnetic sediments often interrupt the peat layers, for
example detritus, lime or clay mud (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1077). The mineral underground
consists out of glacifluvial sands (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 23). The upper peat layers mostly
contain peat, which derived from sedges (Carex sp.). Deeper layers contain reed peat
(Phragmites sp.) or a mixture of both peat types (KLUGE 2008, p. 1077) (tab. 4).
Table 4: Detailed soil description of "Soil Profile 1"
No. Depth [cm] Symbol Description & Characteristics (1) 0 12 nHmp
(og-Hn) Black/dark brown earthified topsoil of intensive drained peatland with intensive tillage actions, strongly earthified high degree of decomposition cultivation Fen peat out of amorphous peat
(2) 12 30 nHap (oh-Hn)
Black earthified topsoil of a moderate drained fen; small remnants of mud Fen peat out of amorphous peat
(3) 30 55 nHa (og-Hn)
Black/dark brown sub-soil horizon with a segregation structure (coarse to fine angular blocky); resulting from swelling and shrinkage Fen peat out of amorphous-sedge peat
(4) 55 89 nHt (og-Hnr)
Black shrinkage horizon with small vertical cracks and coarse prismatic structure; lead over to pedogenic unchanged subsoil Fen peat out of amorphous-reed-peat
(5) > 89 nHr Permanently below the groundwater table with attributes of reductions Fen peat out of amorphous-sedge peat
II Study Area
20
2.4 Climate
The study site is in the transition zone between the maritime climate from north-west
Germany and continental climate from Poland (LIEDTKE & MARCINEK 2002, p. 48).
The annual mean temperature is about 8, 3°C and rainfall about 532mm. The coldest months
are January and February with a mean temperature of about -1°C and the warmest is July,
when the average temperature is around 18°C (fig. 7).
The Randow-Welse-Bruch is one of the driest areas of Germany because the distribution of
the precipitation is very low during the vegetation period. It is about 300 mm in six months
(DWD 2012).
The climatic water balance during the vegetation’s growth period (1 April to 30 September) is
with a mean value of about -110mm, negative (KLUGE 2003, p. 1077).
Through global climate change, temperatures may increase and precipitations will decrease
(DWD 2012) (fig. 7). The data was taken from a weather station in Angermünde, 17 km away
from the study area (fig. 7).
Figure 7: Climate chart with annual temperature and precipitation of the weather station Angermünde from 1961-1990 (reference) and 2011 (Data: DWD 2012)
‐5
5
15
25
35
45
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez
Average
monthly
air
temperature
[°C]
Average
precipitation
level
[mm]
Month
Precipitation [mm] 1961‐1990 Precipitation [mm] 2011
Air temperature [°C] 1961‐1990 Air temperature [°C] 2011
Station Angermünde; 53°01' latitude, 13°59' longitude ; altitude above sea level NN 54 m1961‐1990 8,3°C 532 mm
2011 9,6°C 590 mm
II Study Area
21
2.5 History of Land Use and Draining
2.5.1 Before and During World War II
The Randow-Welse-Bruch was first mentioned in Swedish maps, which were created
between 1693 and 1698. The farmer could only cultivated meadows on the upper edges of
the Randow-Welse-Bruch (fig. 2).
A first impact was between 1720 and 1730. The Randow ditch was built up as a boundary
between Prussia and Swedish Vorpommern (annex; tab. 2). Historians claim that the
Randow ditch slumped more than once (GLOATZ1931, p. 25).
In 1864 two melioration associations were found to administer the administrative and
economic conditions for melioration stages in the region. Thereupon, some large estates
carried out first comprehensive melioration measures, for example in 1878 in Schönow
(LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 35, GLOATZ1931, p. 26).
The melioration buildings and ditches mouldered out of a lack of manpower during World
War II. In spring 1945, German armed forces tried, by flooding the whole Randow-Welse-
Bruch, to stop the Red Army. Thereby, almost all melioration facilities were destroyed
(KLUGE et al. 2008, 1078) (annex; tab. 2). Additionally, the flooding caused a fouling of the
grassland (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 38).
2.5.2 After World War II
The "Rote Armee" arranged the most urgent maintenance work for ditches and control
buildings. A consortium "Moorboden", from the "Institut für Grünland und
Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue", sampled the Randow-Welse-Bruch area from 1962 to
1964 (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1078) (annex; tab. 2).The greatest impact on the peat soils
were caused by complex meliorations in the 1970s, which was decided upon by the council
of the district Frankfurt/Oder in 1969. Important melioration stages are listed in the following
(SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 434, LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 44) (annex; fig. 4 - 11):
1) Building and expansion of the central pre-flooder to 53km length,
2) A partial shifting of the river beds and ditches (GWL-Lowering),
3) Complete drainage (lowering the groundwater table during construction to 2m),
3) Complete clearance of the landscape on 6.585ha,
4) Grassland renewal on 3.290 ha (ploughing and reseeding),
5) Building sealed driveways.
II Study Area
22
2.5.3 Consequences of Complex Melioration
The melioration stages took place from 1971 to 1975. After six years the grassland lost
earnings, which should provide five livestock facilities (SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 434).
Following a failed reseeding, dairy farming and intensive agriculture was discontinued at the
beginning of the 1980s (STORNOWSKI 2012, p. 16). Groundwater levels were gradually
increased, but peat subsidence still began (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 91, KLUGE 2008, p. 1078,
SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 434) (annex; tab. 2, annex; fig. 4 - 11).
Figure 8: Control circuit for the logging of drained peat soils (KUNTZE 1984, cited by LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 130)
As a consequence of consolidation and mineralisation, the peat subsidence increased rapidly
(fig. 8). Many areas suffered from the failed water management problems and were
increasingly dependent on the rainfall.
Dry weather conditions led to water shortages (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 89). Some areas had to
occasionally be irrigated up until the late 1980s with mobile irrigation systems (SUCCOOW et
al. 2001, p. 434).
Nowadays, the groundwater levels are raised up to 40cm to avoid further peat subsidence.
Nearly all areas in the Randow-Welse-Bruch have been extensified for taking care of the
local conditions (annex; tab. 2). The subsidence is expected to continue for a number of
decades, due to the huge impacts on the groundwater systems in the 1970s (KLUGE et al.
2008, p. 1078, STORNOSKI 2013, oral communication).
III Material and Methods
23
III Material and Methods
The following chapters provide an overview of the methodical approaches for the map
preparations.
3.1 Classification
The peat thickness is subdivided, for a meaningful description, into several stages. The
currently effective structure is based on the assumption that peatlands have to be covered
with peat - or mud layers of at least 2 dm (no drainage) or 3 dm (drainage) (TGL 24300/04
1977, p. 2). Because the definition has been changed by the FAO (2006) and the WRB
(2008) (cf. chapter 1.3), for a closer view the old classification has to be updated (tab. 5).
Table 5: Classification for drained peatlands: TGL 24 300/04 and used classification for the peatland´s area of the Randow-Welse-Bruch (TGL 24 300/04 1977, p. 2)
Sta
ge
s
Classification
Description Notice Peat thickness
regarding to TGL
(24 300/04) [dm]
Definition of peat
thickness in present
study [dm]
(0) 0 - 2 0 - 3
Very shallow/ "No Fen"
/
1 > 2 - 4 - No classification -
"Crossover peat layer"
(SUCCOW et al. 2001)
2 > 4 - 8 > 3 - 8 Shallow /
3 > 8 - 12 > 8 - 12 Medium deep /
4 > 12 - 20 > 12 - 20 Deep /
5 > 20 - 50 > 20 - 50 Very deep /
6 > 50 > 50 Extreme deep /
3.2Soil Maps
ESRI´s Arc GIS 10 (with Service Pack 4) was used for calculation, interpolation and
comparison of topographic data. Adequate topographic data like peat thickness, surface
heights, land use-/cover, deposits, groundwater levels or soil descriptions were available for
the "Wendemark Area” and the Randow-Welse-Bruch from different public institutions
(annex; tab. 3). Figure 9 shows a flow chart for the map preparation. In the first step,
published topographic data was collected and analysed (fig. 9).
III Material and Methods
24
Figure 9: Flow chart for map preparation for peat subsidence, CO2-C release and surface heights
3.2.1 Data Analysis
Digital Topographic Maps
All maps were presented using DTKs from 2011, provided from the LGB Brandenburg (LGB
(a) 2012. The non-coloured cards were delivered in card series with different map numbers
and layers showing topographic data such as land use, vegetation, infrastructure, surface
heights, etc. (annex; tab. 4, annex; fig. 12). The outlines of the Randow-Welse-Bruch were
reconstructed with information from the DTKs, a map from LEHRKAMP (1987, p. 150) and
published data from various institutions (annex; tab. 5).
Peat Thickness& Surface Heights in the "Wendemark Area”
Topographic data of the "Wendemark Area” from the years 1913, 1964, 1981 and 2003 was
used to calculate the peat thickness (annex; tab. 13). The coordinates of 83 mapping points
at the "Wendemark Area” were converted into an UTM grid (ETRS 89-System; seven digits,
Zone 33 North) using the 1964 topographic data. During 1913 - 1963 the peat thickness
III Material and Methods
25
decreased by a mean of 0, 7 cm/yr., during 1963 - 1981 with a mean of 1, 5 cm/yr. and
during 1981 - 2003 with a mean of 0, 3 cm/yr. (tab. 6 & 7). These values were comparable to
other soil surveys (AKKER 2008, p. 4; EGGELSMANN 1975, p. 4; ILLNICKI 1977, p. 167,
RICHARDSON 1977, p. 488) (tab. 6 & 7). The strongest decreases were measured in the
north-eastern part of the area. Deep peat layers have got a much higher loss of surface
heights than thinner peat layers (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1079).
Table 6: Data on groundwater table, land use and surface heights from 1913 - 2003 in the "Wendemark Area” (Data: KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1080)
No.
Tim
e
peri
od
Nu
mb
er
of
ye
ars
GW
L [
cm
]
La
nd
us
e Decrease of surface heights
Total
[dm]
Total
[cm]
Annual
subsidence
rate [cm/yr.]
1 1913 - 1963 50 60 - 80 Extensive grassland
3,4 34 0,68
2 1963 - 1981 18 80 - 120 Intensive grassland
2,7 27 1,50
3 1981 - 2003 22 50 -70 Extensive grassland
(since 1990) 0,6 6 0,27
Total 1913 -2003 90 70 - 80 Grassland 6,7 67,0 0,82
Table 7: Decrease of surface heights in various peat classes from 1963 - 2003 in the "Wendemark Area” (Data: KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1081)
Peat
thic
kn
es
s
Peat classes
(0) (1) (2) (3)
Very
shallow/
"No Fen"
Shallow Medium deep Deep
(0 - 3) (> 3 - 8) (> 8 - 12) (> 12 - 20)
1963 - 2003
[dm] 0 2,4 3,2 5,1
Annual
subsidence
[dm/yr.]
0 0,06 0,08 0,13
III Material and Methods
26
Peat Thickness, Surface Heights &Moisture Classes in the Randow-Welse-Bruch
The basis for the scenarios of peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch was the survey
data from the consortium "Moorboden" at the "Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung
Paulinenaue 1964" that was provided from the HU Berlin Moorarchiv 2012 (annex; fig. 2, 13
& 14, annex; tab. 3). The coordinates of 6.245 mapping points were converted to the current
UTM projection (ETRS 89-System; seven digits, Zone 33 North).
The surface heights were provided from the LGB Brandenburg (LGB (b) 2012), using a DTM
"classic" from 1993 (in a 50 m grid), and a DTM "laserscan" (in a 2 m & 50 m grid) from 2012
(ETRS 89-System; seven digits, Zone 33 North).
To classify moisture of peaty soils and land use in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, data of
ELLAMANN & SCHULZE (2002) was used. The moisture classes are comparable to
groundwater levels, for example a moisture class "3+" is characterised by a mean annual
water median from 21 to 45 cm below the soil surface (annex; tab. 6). Data from ELLMANN
& SCHULZE (2002) and the soil mapping between 1962 and 1964 (HU Berlin Moorarchiv
1964) was analyzed and interpolated for Subarea II and northern parts of Subarea I & III.
Both data sets were converted from "Gauß Krüger-Coordinates into "UTM-Coordinates" in
reference to the "ETRS 89-System with Arc GIS 10 (IHDE et al. 2000, p. 1).
III Material and Methods
27
3.2.2 Data Processing
Annual decreases of peat soils from KLUGE 2008 et al. were taken to estimate present and
future peat thicknesses (tab. 11). There are two procedures to estimate the peat subsidence
in "Wendemark Area” and in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on tab. 6 & 7:
1)
a)
b)
c)
The decrease of peat thickness from 1981 - 2003, after the 1970s complex
melioration, was measured at 0,27cm/yr. (tab. 6). This subsidence rate was applied
for all peat layers in a so called "Conformal Decrease".
The following steps were taken:
Calculating the number of years (n):Subtraction of the time periods (TP);
|n| = TP2 - TP1
Calculating the subsidence rate for (SRTP2): Multiplication of "n" with annual
subsidence (AS) of pervious time period (TP1 - TP0= SRTP1);
SRTP2 = SRTP1 * n
Compilation of peat thickness for time period (PTTP2):Subtracting the peat
thickness of time period 1 (PTTP1) with the subsidence rate of time period 2
(SRTP2);
PTTP2 = PTTP1 - SRTP2
2)
a)
b)
c)
The peat layers are not homogenous; There are different layers of peat and muds
(stratigraphic structure; chapter 2.1.4). The decreasing rates of the peat classes 4
and 5 were adjusted with a linear function (y = 0,168x + 0,414) according to the peat
classes 1 to 3. The annual peat loss was calculated for every single peat class and
applied for further estimations. This is called "Sectorial Decrease".
The follow steps were taken in general:
Calculating the number of years (n):Subtraction of the time periods (TP);
|n| = TP2 - TP1
Calculating the subsidence rate for one peat layer (SRPLTP2): Multiplication of
"n" with annual subsidence for one peat layer (ASPL) of pervious time period
(TP1 - TP0= SRPLTP1);
SRPLTP2 = SRPLTP1 * n
Compilation of peat thickness for time period (PTPLTP2):Subtracting the peat
thickness from one peat layer of time period 1 (PTPLTP1) with the layer
subsidence rate of time period 2 (SRPLTP2);
PTPLTP2 = PTPLTP1 - SRPLTP2
III Material and Methods
28
The results of the calculation of the "Wendemark Area” were applied to the whole Randow-
Welse-Bruch with the methods "Conformal- & Sectorial Decrease". The data of peat
thickness was based on the survey data from the soil mapping of the consortium
"Moorboden" at the "Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964".
All forecasts were applied to a groundwater level of 60 cm - 70 cm (below surface) that
farmers have tried to apply since the 1980s (STORNOWSKI 2012, p. 16, STORNOWSKI
2013, verbal message). One scenario ("Sectorial Decrease 2060 (b)") is applied by a
groundwater level of about 40 cm based on CO2-C release functions of KLUGE et al. (2008 &
2013).
Checkpoints, Surface Heights, Groundwater Tables and CO2-C Release
in the Randow-Welse-Bruch
To prove the calculated scenarios with actual peat thickness (and groundwater levels),
current data of soil mapping from different surveys, was used. In the following these were
described as checkpoints. The information for the checkpoints was provided by data of
ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002, HÖLZEL 2012 (LUGV), KLUGE 2003, LBGR 2004/2012 and
WALLOR 2012 (HU Berlin Moorarchiv) (annex; tab. 7).
Elevation data of DGM "classic" from 1993 and DGM "laserscan" from 2012 was used to
build a 100 m grid of surface heights in the Randow-Welse-Bruch. For three sites
("Wendemark Area”, Stendell & Biesenbrow), a 100 m gird of elevation for DGM "classic"
and a 2 m grid for DGM "laserscan", were used for additional illustration.
Using a resolution of a 100 m was the best compromise between practicality and data size.
Using 50 m or even 2 m grids leads to long loading sequences and failures at interpolation
with Arc GIS 10.
Current groundwater levels derived from moisture classes, land use and 21 checkpoints(cf.
BRÜNE 1952, p. 30, SCHINDLER et al. 2003, p. 367, STORNOWSKI 2013, verbal message,
SUCCOW et al. 2001, p. 472, VOS et al. 2010, p. 1892). The map presenting the current
groundwater table includes 12 classes without involving sealed surfaces, for example from
the city Stendell (annex; tab. 8).
A rededication for rehabilitation measures was used for a transformation from intensive used
areas to 30% more extensive used areas. The current groundwater tables were taken as a
reference situation for this additional derivation for a more extensive use in the Randow-
Welse-Bruch. They were divided into three classes (annex; tab. 9).
III Material and Methods
29
CO2-C release scenarios were created using results from a current soil survey from KLUGE
2013. The CO2-C release was estimated from derived groundwater levels that have been
estimated from the current land use provided by ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002 and LGB
2012. Furthermore, a "Voronoi Map" has been compiled with Arc GIS´s Geostatistical
Analyst.
Laboratory measurements were applied according to the methods described by KLUGE et al.
2008 (p. 1078). The CO2-C release functions of KLUGE et al. (2008 & 2013) were used to
derivate CO2 losses for 2012 and 2060 depending on estimated groundwater levels (land
use) and (shallow-, deep- & extreme deep) peat thicknesses (fig. 10).
Figure 10: Dependence of CO2-C release rate on groundwater and peat thickness (Data: KLUGE 2013)
3.2.3 Interpolation
The peat thickness and surface heights were mapped using the Geostatistical Analyst of
ESRI´s Arc GIS 10 (Service Pack 2). Arc GIS´s Geostatistical Analyst is a powerful tool for
raster-based modelling and analysis (GAMBOLATI & TEATINI 2002, cited by HU et al. 2009,
p. 272).
Interpolation methods like Kriging or Local Polynomial Interpolation in ESRI´s Arc GIS and
Golden Software`s Surfer 10.0 did not work to satisfaction.
III Material and Methods
30
The method "Inverse Distance Weighted" (IDW) interpolation ensured that we did not over-
estimate the mean peat thickness (ANDERSON 2010, cited by NEZAMI & ALIPOU 2012,
p. 37). The IDW method estimates directly a value at nearby points rather than far away,
especially when calculating the mean. Thus, only values from soil profiles in the vicinity are
used. The measured values that are close to the predicted location will have more influence
on a predicted value than far away values (CHANG 2010, cited by KHEIRANDISH et al.
2012, p. 13).
Peat thickness, surface heights, thickness of muddy and peaty soils, moisture classes,
groundwater levels, etc. were interpolated for "Wendemark Area” and the Randow-Welse-
Bruch. Best image quality has been achieved with a "Smoothing Factor" (cf. JOHNSTON et
al. 2001, p. 118).
According to the thickness of the peat layers, the results for the "Wendemark Area” (0 – 22
dm) were classified into 22 classes and for the Randow-Welse-Bruch (0 – 50 dm &> 50 dm)
into 51 classes (cf. JOHNSTON et al. 2001, p. 230). Peat layers less than 3 dm were
categorized into one class named "No Fen". Surface heights include 39 classes in irregular
increments out of a wide range between 1 m and 50 m AMSL. The main interval (7 m – 13 m
AMSL) was classified in 25 cm-increments. The CO2-C release was classified into 12
classes.
3.2.4 Categorising
Uniform comparable colour ramps were created in Arc GIS that show detailed changes at
peat thickness, surface heights and CO2-C release (cf. JOHNSTON et al. 2001, p. 229)
(annex; tab. 10 - 12).
3.2.5 Output
Some of the following elements were added into the soil maps presenting the results in the
"Wendemark Area” and in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (for example fig. 4, annex; fig. 12).
1) Cities within the Randow-Welse-Bruch
2) Randow River (course in the "Mittelgraben" during 1970s melioration)
3) Welse River
4) Highway "A 11"
5) Railroad " Berlin-Szczecin"
6) Area of Mecklenburg Vorpommern (no search site)
7) North arrow
8) Scale bar (12 km)
IV Results and Discussion
31
IV Results and Discussion
The following chapters will present some results for the scenarios of peat thickness, surface
heights, groundwater levels and CO2-C releases for the area of the Randow-Welse-Bruch.
4.1 Peat Thickness
The analysis of historical and geological data spanning over a century concluded physical
behaviours of peat soils, which allowed calculations of peat thicknesses with methods like
"Conformal-" and "Sectorial Decrease":
4.1.1 Peatlands Scenarios
"Conformal Decrease"
The following maps, based on two calculations, present the peat thickness in the
"Wendemark Area” and in the Randow-Welse-Bruch. The total peat thickness has changed
everywhere in the peatland´s areas from 1964 - 2003. The overall mean subsidence rate,
including all peat layers is approximately 0, 27 cm/yr (tab. 8).
Table 8: Data on groundwater table, land use and decrease of peat thickness from 1913 - 2060 (Data: KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1080)
No.
Tim
e p
eri
od
Nu
mb
er
of
ye
ars
GW
L [
cm
]
La
nd
us
e
Decrease of surface heights
Total
[dm]
Total
[cm]
Annual
subsidenc
e rate
[cm/yr.]
1 2003 - 2012 9 50 - 60 Extensive grassland
(since 1990)
0,24 2,43 0,27
2 2012 - 2060 48 50 - 60 1,30 12,9 0,27
Total 2003 - 2060 57 50 - 60 Extensive
grassland 1,53 15,33 0,27
IV Results and Discussion
32
Overview - "Conformal Decrease"
The results of the scenarios are summarized in the following for each time step (fig. 15 - 18).
The central focus will be placed on very shallow peat layers that have a peat thickness below
30 cm. Areas with very shallow peat layers on top of the surface (below a thickness of 30 cm
and classified as "No Fen") are called in this study "NFAs" ("No-Fen-Areas") (fig. 11 - 14).
1964
This map presents the peat subsidence from 1964 that has been created with the results of
the soil survey of the "Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964". It is
the basis for all following calculations and scenarios.
The peat thickness in Subarea II has got a divers stratigraphic structure. The northern part
has got very deep and extreme deep peat layers that reached to the South of the city
Lützow.
The river bed of the Randow was moved during the 1970s complex melioration to the West
into a river named "Mittelgraben". Parallel to the Randow River there is in the eastern part of
Subarea II, a ditch named "Torfgraben" that has been used for peat production. In the area
around the Torfgraben there were very thin peat layers, some of the layers are still classified
as "No Fen".
There were some very thin peat layers under 3 dm in the South of Subarea I that ran parallel
to the southern border. The whole of Subarea I has only thin - to medium deep peat layers of
about 16 dm maximum that are near the Upper Welse River. Especially areas near the cities
Stendell and Kummerow have a thickness of about 7 dm.
Subarea III has got a very divers stratigraphic structure of many extreme deep and deep peat
layers with a mean thickness above 20 dm. Very deep peat layers are found near the city of
Biesenbrow and northern from the railroad on the same level as the city Grünow.
2003
The 2003 scenario shows enlargement for NFAs. A huge continuous area, which is still
heavily degraded, increased along the eastern border of Subarea II in the North. On this
border several small NFAs arose punctual.
Smaller NFAs also arosenorth-east and south-west of the "Wendemark Area” and punctual
at the eastern and western borders of Subarea I. Very small NFAs occurred in Subarea III
IV Results and Discussion
33
between the cities Biesenbrow, Schönermark and Wilhelmshof. Huge areas spread in
Subarea I from the city Wendemark to Stendell in the South, and in Kummerow in the North.
NFAs grow in two large continuous areas separated from the Welse River. The NFAs still
exist in great extents. The southern area is parallel to the southern border of Subarea I and
spreads in one line parallel towards the Welse River. The northern NFAs grow at Biesenbrow
and almost reach the Welse River from the northern part of Subarea I. There are also small
NFAs at the north-western borders, south and north from the Upper Welse River.
2012
All NFAs described in the 2003 scenario, will further increase in their size. Additionally, some
smaller NFAs occur at the western boundary of Subarea II, too. Two NFAs near Stendell and
Kummerow unite themselves to one continuous NFA, only being separate by the Lower
Welse River. The whole area of very shallow peat layers increased there to a greater extent.
Near the course of the Lower Welse, more NFAs spread north and south in direction of the
railroad.
2060
The NFAs will grow, particularly in the western part of the "Wendemark Area”. Huge peatland
areas will get lost and turn into NFAs through strong effects of peat subsidence. NFAs south-
west and north-east from the “Wendemark Area” will increase in their size, too. These areas
are separated from the “Wendemark Area” and the Randow River. Huge areas with thick
peat layers will be left at Biesenbrow, in Subarea III and in the northern and eastern part of
Subarea II. Some continuous areas with medium thick peat layers will still exist in the middle
of the subareas. The peat subsidence will strongly affect Subarea II. Only small areas with
shallow and punctual medium thick peat layers will be left south of the Welse River.
IV Results and Discussion
34
Figure 11: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964)- Abstraction from the “Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung 1964” (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
35
Figure 12: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003)- "Conformal Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
36
Figure 13: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2012)- "Conformal Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
37
Figure 14: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2060)- "Conformal Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
38
"Sectorial Decrease"
The data and derived calculations for the scenarios that present the peat thickness for
"Sectorial Decrease" in the "Wendemark Area” and in the Randow-Welse-Bruch are also
based on the surveys from the “Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue
1964” and KLUGE et al. (2008) (tab. 9).
Table 9: Calculated decrease of surface heights in various peat classes with linear adjustments (*) in the Randow-Welse-Bruch from 1963 - 2060 (Data: KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1081)
Peat
thic
kn
es
s [
dm
]/
Years
Peat classes
(0) (1) (2) (3)
Linear adjustment: y = 0,168x + 0,414
(4)* (5)*
"NFA" Shallow Medium
deep Deep
Very
deep*
Extreme
deep*
(0 - 3) (> 3 - 8) (> 8 - 12) (> 12 - 20) (> 20 - 50) (> 50)
1963 - 1981 0 1,08 1,44 2,34 3,24 5,58
1981 - 2003 0 1,32 1,76 2,86 3,96 6,82
2003 - 2012 0 0,54 0,72 1,17 1,62 2,79
2012 - 2060 0 2,88 3,84 6,24 8,64 14,88
1963 - 2060
(GWL ~60 cm) 0 5,82 7,76 12,61 17,46 30,07
1963 - 2060 (GWL ~40 cm)
0 1,73 2,31 3,74 5,18 8,93
IV Results and Discussion
39
The main results of the scenarios are summarized in the following for each time step, starting
in 2003 (fig. 15 - 18).
Overview - "Sectorial Decrease"
2003
Similar to the scenario of the "Conformal Decrease" 2003, the proportion of NFAs increase at
the already heavily degraded area near the Torfgraben in the eastern part of Subarea II.
Several small NFAs also occur at the western and north-eastern part of Subarea II. In
Subarea I large, NFAs could occur near the cities Wendemark, Stendell and Biesenbrow like
in the 2003 "Conformal Decrease" scenario. Therefore, one can conclude that there are
hardly any differences between the 2003 "Conformal-" and "Sectorial Decrease" scenarios.
2012
The whole area of very shallow peat layers, including existent NFAs increase in the Randow-
Welse-Bruch comparing to the 2003 scenario.
2060 (a)
The total area of very shallow peat layers will increase through high subsidence rates. Only
some small areas in the remaining area of Subareas I & II will be left. Large peatland areas
of Subarea II will disappear. These areas will not longer classified as a peatland. Continuous
peatland areas with thick peat layers will be left near the Torfgraben in the western, and
above the Mittelgraben in the northern part of Subarea II. Thick peat layers in the northern
part of Subarea I and the whole Subarea II will largely not be affected from peat subsidence.
Many NFAs will remain near the Randow and Welse rivers.
2060 (b)
Applying higher groundwater levels (GWL = 40 cm below the surface) shows that the NFAs
will be smaller in comparison to the 2060 (a) scenario. Especially, areas in the western part
of Subarea II will have a thickness above 30cm. There will be more shallow peatland areas
remaining in Subarea I, too. Subarea III will not much affected from the peat subsidence. The
NFAs will be smaller and have smoother border compared to the 2060 (a) scenario.
IV Results and Discussion
40
Figure 15: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003)- "Sectorial Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 &LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
41
Figure 16: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2012)- "Sectorial Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964, KLUGE 2008&LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
42
Figure 17: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2060 (a))- "Sectorial Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964, KLUGE 2008& LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
43
Figure 18: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch with a raised groundwater level (2060 (b))- "Sectorial Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964, KLUGE 2008& LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
44
4.1.2 Overview over the Peatland´s Development
In the Randow-Welse-Bruch area both scenarios showed a noticeable change in peat
thickness everywhere from 1964 - 2012, especially in the areas south of the Lower Welse
River (Subarea II) and near the Torfgraben (Subarea I).
The effect of the 1970s complex draining lead to a switching thickness and loss of peatland
areas from upper peat layers more so in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, than in the "Wendemark
Area”. The majority of degraded areas are accrued in subareas I & II (tab. 10).
Table 10: Peat areas in the subareas of the Randow-Welse-Bruch
Subarea Year Area [ha] Year Area [ha] Difference
[ha]
I 1964 1586 2060 736 850
II 1964 3165 2060 2455 710
III 1964 1473 2060 1212 261
Total 1964 6224 2060 4403 1821
The peat subsidence in the Randow-Welse-Bruch is caused byman´s activity of draining
(with a groundwater draw-down), such as a deep ploughing of the aerated peat surface and
building of control works and many deep ditches. The loss of peat and surface heights in the
reclaimed areas are a result of subsidence processes like consolidation, shrinkage and
mineralization, as well as erosion.
The peat subsidence caused changes in the thicknesses of upper peat layers. Tables 24 &
25 present the different thicknesses of peat layers from 1964 - 1960 for the "Wendemark
Area” and the Randow-Welse-Bruch.
Table 11 & 12 show a strong shifting from medium deep - and deep peat layers to very
shallow - and shallow peat layers within 30 years after the 1970s melioration. In 1964 deep
peat layers (with a thickness between 13 - 20dm) take up about 25 % (19 sq.km) of the
Randow-Welse-Bruch. The amount of deep peat layers were reduced over 40 years later to
15 % ("Sectorial Decrease") (tab. 11 & 12). Areas below a peat thickness of 3 dm ("NFAs")
double themselves from 1964 - 2012 ("Conformal Decrease") (tab. 11). Nowadays, shallow
peat layers dominate with 25% (25 sq.km) and resultantly constitute the largest proportion in
the Randow-Welse-Bruch (tab. 12).
IV Results and Discussion
45
Comparing to table 25, the "Conformal-" and "Sectorial Decrease" scenarios in the
"Wendemark Area” is a reference area presenting the same tendencies (tab. 12). Extreme
deep peat layers (over a peat thickness of about 51 dm) have got such a thickness that
complex draining may not diminish these thick layers (tab. 12). On the contrary as shown in
table 11 and 12, deep peat layers, having a thickness from 21 to 50 dm are clearly affected
from the peat subsidence (tab. 11 & 12).
It was demonstrated that these estimations on a local scale can be applied using
simplification and re-classification of results from older soil surveys. During the data
processing, less data is getting lost, but no information is added. However, it is now possible
to make calculations for a whole area, in order to push effective peatland conservation
connected to an agricultural management.
IV Results and Discussion
46
Table 11: Peat loss at classified peat layers in the Randow-Welse-Bruch
No. Year Type of Decrease
Ranges towards the modified TGL-classification for drained peatlands
Very shallow/
"No Fen"
(0 – 3 dm)
Shallow
(4 – 8 dm)
Medium deep
(9 - 12 dm)
Deep
(13 - 20 dm)
Very deep
(21 - 50 dm)
Extreme deep
(> 51 dm)
Area [sq. km]
1 1964 Data base 7,63 15,06 11,60 18,79 13,78 3,18
2 2003 "Conformal -" 16,40 15,72 10,74 13,22 11,37 2,59
3 2003 "Sectorial -" 11,03 22,70 13,67 10,76 10,53 1,35
4 2012 "Conformal -" 17,29 15,61 10,66 12,72 11,21 2,54
5 2012 "Sectorial -" 12,04 24,55 13,58 8,80 10,06 1,01
6 2060 "Conformal -" 21,69 14,95 10,49 10,08 10,53 2,30
7 2060 "Sectorial -" 25,88 27,85 4,65 4,78 6,84 0,04
Total area [sq. km]: 70,04
IV Results and Discussion
47
Table 12:Peat loss in ranges in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, compared to the "Wendemark Area” (view of the prediction)
No Year Type of
Decrease
Ranges towards the modified TGL-classification for drained peatlands
No Fen
(0 – 3 dm)
Shallow
(4 – 8 dm)
Medium deep
(9 - 12 dm)
Deep
(13 - 20 dm)
Very deep
(21 - 50 dm)
Extreme deep
(> 51 dm)
Prediction [%]
RaWe We RaWe We RaWe We RaWe We RaWe We RaWe We
1 1964 Data base 11 1 22 25 17 51 27 23 20 / 5 /
2 2003 "Conformal -" 23 10
22 72
15 16
19 2
16 /
4 /
3 2003 "Sectorial -" 16 32 20 15 15 2
4 2012 "Conformal -" 24 10 22 77 15 12 18 1 16 / 4 /
5 2012 "Sectorial -" 17 12 35 77 19 10 13 1 14 / 1 /
6 2060 "Conformal -" 31 28 21 65 15 6 14 1 15 / 3 /
7 2060 "Sectorial -" 37 59 40 40 7 0 7 1 10 / 0 /
IV Results and Discussion
48
4.1.3 Evaluation
The consequent lowering of the groundwater table for optimal conditions for grassland
farming has lead to a continuous significant impact on the peat subsidence. The estimations
for the Randow-Welse-Bruch producing three resulting maps for each method, showed a
significantly increased peat subsidence, mainly because of intensification of agriculture over
the past 80 years.
The truth of the scenarios is evaluated with checkpoints for 2003 and 2012 (annex; tab. 14 -
17). Table 13 gives an overview of how far the scenarios of peat thickness were over- or
under estimated (tab. 13). A classification should evaluate the outliers in the positive and
negative range. The estimated values, in comparison to the checkpoints, are distributed from
– 50 dm up to + 50 dm (tab. 13).
Table 13: Over- and underestimation for the scenarios of peat thicknesses in the Randow-Welse-Bruch
Description
Method
"Conform
al
Decrease"
"Sectorial
Decrease"
"Conform
al
Decrease"
"Sectorial
Decrease"
Total
Year 2003 2003 2012 2012
Classes [dm] [pcs.] [%] [pcs.] [%] [pcs.] [%] [pcs.] [%] [pcs.] [%]
1 ‐ Large (neagtive) deviation
(‐50) ‐ (‐5,1) 1 2,5 2 5,0 2 33,3 2 33,3 7 7,6
2 ‐ Middle (negative) deviation
(‐5) ‐ (‐1,9) 2 5,0 4 10,0 0 0 0 0 6 6,5
3 ‐ No/minor deviation (‐2) ‐ (+) 2 22 55,0 18 45,0 2 33,3 4 66,7 46 50,0
4 ‐ Middle (positive) deviation
(+) 2,1 ‐ (+) 5 3 7,5 5 12,5 2 33,3 0 0 10 10,9
5 ‐ Large (positive) deviation
(+) 5,1 ‐ (+) 50 12 30,0 11 27,5 0 0 0 0 23 25,0
The evaluation included 26 checkpoints from ELLAMNN & SCHULZE that were located in
several blocks, having a size of 1.000 m x 1.000 m. These soil descriptions were integrated
into this study out of a lack of current soil samples (annex; tab. 14 - 17).
IV Results and Discussion
49
Evaluation for 2003 and 2012 Scenarios
The ELLMANN & SCHULZE (2002) - checkpoints evaluate the "Conformal Decrease" for
2003 better (12 pcs. with minor deviations) than the "Sectorial Decrease" scenario (8 pcs.
with minor deviations (2003)) (annex; tab. 15). Nevertheless, checkpoints with large
deviations predominate at the "Conformal Decrease" scenarios (> 30%) (tab. 13). The
checkpoints from LBGR (2004) and KLUGE (2003) show minor deviations (10 pcs.) for both
2003 scenarios (annex; tab 14 & 15).
Checkpoints from LBGR (2012) and WALLOR (2012) show for the 2012 scenarios good
results for the "Sectorial Decrease" (66%). Two checkpoints ("GP 2" & "SP 2", annex; tab.
16) evaluated some peat layers in the "Conformal Decrease" maps up to 4 dm high. Both
checkpoints from LBGR (2012) are up to 11 dm lower than both 2012 scenarios (annex; tab.
16). The evaluation of the checkpoints conclude that the scenarios for the "Sectorial
Decrease", without referring to the ELLMANN & SCHLZE (2002) checkpoints have got a
margin advance towards the "Conformal Decrease" scenarios. The majority of soil samples
were set in the diverse northern part (Subarea II) of the Randow-Welse Bruch. The northern
areas have got a lot of altering thick peat layers that were trenched from many ditches,
having many areas with different groundwater levels. These alternating structures may make
estimation on a small-scale difficult. Many checkpoints (for example ELLMANN & SCHULZE
(2002) and LBGR (2004) evaluate the 2003 scenarios with high positive deviations over 50
dm. There are numerous reason possible for such alterations, for example:
1) 100m grids for the 1960s soil samples were maybe taken from an inaccurate gird.
This can lead to inexact interpolations of the peat thickness (cf. annex 2).
2) Faults in acquiring the soil samples, for example underestimation of peat body depth,
Setting x-/y-coordinates and/or border lines of search sites.
3) Faults in digitalizing and projection, for example transforming from "Gauß-Krüger-
Coordinates" (with reference to the "42/83-System and "Krassowski Ellipsoid") to "UTM-
Coordinates" (with reference to the "ETRS 89-System" and "GRS 80 Ellipsoid)
(IHDE et al.2000, p. 1).
4) Deposits, like sand or peat cover, differently affected the peat subsidence in different
ways (NIEUWENHUIS & SCHOKKING 2012, p. 47). Current data from tillage measures
were not available for this study.
5) Faults in applying physical behaviours from the "Wendemark Area” to the remaining area
of the Randow-Welse-Bruch.
6) Faults in calculating the estimated peat layers.
7) External factors like climate, vegetation, land use, altering GWL or human influence can
cause a development of heterogeneous structures in a peat body.
IV Results and Discussion
50
4.1.4 Peatland´s Borders
The peat subsidence effected not only a vertical change in the peat body but also a
horizontal change, namely in the lines of the borders that have been suggested from
LEHRKAMP (1987). The estimations showed indirectly changed border lines in the Randow-
Welse-Bruch. The borders resulted from this studies calculations were based on the soil
sampling from 1964.
Figure 19 shows an interpolated map of peat thickness, provided by LUA (Brandenburg)
2002, with the boundaries from the "Sectorial Decrease" scenarios 2003, 2012 and 2060.
The peat thickness was abstracted from the soil survey of the "Institut für Grünland und
Moorbodenforschung 1964". LUA classified and re-interpolated the given peat thickness for
their own surveys (BAURIEGEL 2013, verbal message). The "LUA"-map was very close to
the suggested border lines from LEHRKAMP (1987), it just enlarged the area of Subarea III
upon the soil maps from the HU Berlin Moorarchiv (1964).
It is foreseeable that Subarea I, in the southern part by the city Stendell, almost parallel to
the old border line, and in the northern part near the city Kummerow, could lose large areas
with peat soils above 30 cm (fig. 19).
The boundaries changed only to a limited extent towards the Welse and Randow rivers in
2012. An exception is the very small areas at the eastern boundaries to the "Blumenberger
Wald" and a large area around the city Stendell (fig 19).
For 2060 one estimated peat area in Subarea I towards the Welse River could decrease
further. In Subarea I some small areas near the Welse in the North at the cities Blumhagen,
Kummerow and Jamikoware left. The large area near Stendell that still subsided under
30 cm in 2003 could further be reduced, too. Compared to our estimations and to LUA
(2002), there could still be some deep pleat layers in that remaining area (fig. 19).
Large areas at the cities Passow, Wilhemshof, Biesenbrow (Subarea III), Wöllin and
Wendemark (Subarea II) could subside by 2060 (fig. 19).
Areas with very shallow peat layers could disappear or be reduced to their minimum below
30 cm. A lot of areas could lose their classification as a Histosol (WRB 2008, p. 86, cf.
chapter 1.2). Therefore, areas with a high peat thickness are less affected by the peat
subsidence in a century than thin peat layers below with a thickness below 120 dm.
IV Results and Discussion
51
Figure 19: Horizontal decrease of peat thicknesses in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1997) - View on borders: "Sectorial Decrease" from 2003 - 2060 (Data: LGB(a)2012 & LUGV 2002)
IV Results and Discussion
52
The following chapters give possible descriptions for post-drainage effects, referring to the
loss of surface heights.
4.2 Surface heights
An abstraction from the small-scale "Wendemark Area” to the Randow-Welse-Bruch is
suitable, because the equal substrate composition with their typical physical behaviours are
comparable to surrounding peatlands of the region (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 52 & 39).
The following chapter represents physical consequences through draining in the peat body of
the Randow-Welse-Bruch. These aspects were explained by means of the "Wendemark
Area”, using detailed data from several soil studies based on the description of physical
processes (cf. chapter 3.1.1). The findings are based on the calculated scenarios and can be
applied to the whole Randow-Welse-Bruch.
Drainage in "Wendemark Area” - Physical Consequences
The peat surface of the "Wendemark Area” was first disturbed by SCHREYER (GOLATZ
1939, p. 5). The area around the "Wendemark Area” was ploughed several times and
covered, from 1897 - 1912,with loamy sand with a thickness of 13 cm (SCHREYER 1939,
cited from LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 39). He mentioned that the area was not completely covered
with (heterogonous)deposits (SCHREYER 1939, cited by LEHRKAMP 1987, 41). Through
lowering the groundwater table in different places in the 1910s, an initial compaction
connected with shrinkage, occurred. The sand coverage protected the below lying peat
layers from drying out through water losses like evaporation and evapotranspiration
(SCHOTHORST b 1977, p. 145 & 153, DRAJAD et al. 2003, p. 33). Slightly different
thicknesses of the sand-loam deposits and/or "hurting" of the peat body’s coverage (within
non aerated peat layers), through intensive deep harrowing may lead to an uneven
distributed topsoil surface. Several barriers like trees and bushes were removed, too
(STORNOSKI 2012, p. 13). Further soil materials have been added on the top peat layers
through lane/road construction and river engineering (STORNOSKI 2012, p. 14).
The groundwater levels were lowered permanently (GWLs: 50 - 60 cm) for the first moor
cultures (fig. 21, annex; tab. 2) (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 49). The groundwater table draw-down
affected, in the peatland´s hydrology, several physical changes that lead to a vicious circle
(fig. 20). Accordingly, pore volume, (saturated & unsaturated) hydraulic conductivity and
porosity could decrease, while bulk density in the upper peat (aerated) layers could increase
(SCHINDLER & MÜLLER 1999, p. 648, SCHOTHORST 1977, p. 156, SINGH et al. 2000,
IV Results and Discussion
53
p. 291, PRICE & SCHLOTZHAUER 1999, p. 2596, PRICE & WADDINGTON 2000, p.
1583)(fig. 20).
Figure 20: Conceptual diagram of water table draw-down and subsequent volume change (in chronological order); Water table drawn-down occurs Specific yield; Hydraulic conductivity; Effective stress increase Solid arrow lines = direct relationships, dashed arrow lines = inferred/indirect associations; solid dashed boxes = processes/actions (WHITTINGTON & PRICE 2006, p. 3598)
The primary consolidation, shrinkage and compaction began. Meanwhile, there has been an
increased mechanization and an intensifying management of dairy farms. The effects of
drainage were even amplified with the second drainage in the 1970s.
The groundwater level was lowered up to 120 cm below the surface in the "Wendemark
Area” (fig. 21). Water in the upper peat layers lost their buoyant forces. Therefore, the peat
layers below the phreatic zone had to bear an increased weight. The weight of the overlying
material was transferred from liquid to peat fibres (SAUERBREY & ZEITZ 1999, cited by
GEBHARDT et al. 2010, p. 485). The primary consolidation began and caused long-term
effects through extreme drainage (fig. 20).
IV Results and Discussion
54
Figure 21:Groundwater levels after land reclamations in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (Data: LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 49)
The loss of surface heights in the 1970s is very high, because deep groundwater levels lead
to high subsidence rates (BEHRENDT et al. 2004, p. 243). Upper peat layers were at first
compressed. Higher desiccation intensities, due to lower groundwater levels in summer and
less capillary rises, occurred and lead to shrinkage processes (OLESZCZUK et al. 2003,
p. 220). Secondary consolidation, compaction and shrinkage intertwined and caused
medium-term irreparable effects in the peat. The entry of air into the peat caused oxidation of
the organic body matter (SCHWÄRZEL et al. 2002, p. 481). The "Wendemark Area” lost,
through the first melioration between 1963 and 1981, about 30 cm of surface heights
(fig. 23). Nowadays, the peat body is mainly degraded by the (peat) mineralization
(LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 91).
A soil profile from KLUGE (2008) in Subarea II showed that degradation was intense in the
top peat layers and less intensive for deeper (saturated) soil layers, corresponding largely to
the degree of ventilation and/or aeration (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1080). Several studies also
confirmed the observation made by KLUGE (2008) that no significant changes in deep peat
layers were found (SCHMIDT et al. 1981, BAMBALOV 2000, cited by KLUGE et al. 2008,
p. 1081). The total decrease of peat thickness from 1964 - 2003 was 45 cm (fig. 26).
IV Results and Discussion
55
Figure 22: Stratigraphical changes of a soil profile over 40 yrs. from KLUGE 2008 (nHv: earthified horizon; nHm: strongly earthified horizon; nHa: aggregate horizon; nHt: shrinkage horizon; nHr: preserved peat horizon; Fo: muddy horizon; Fr: subhydric muddy horizon; Gr: gleyic horizon) (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1081)
Moreover, intensified areas within compacted, particularly unstable peat zones were further
frequented with agricultural machinery. This has lead to negative implications on soil
hydraulic properties with resulting water logging and less capillary rise. The hydrological
functions were impacted in a negative way through an increase bulk density, as well as an
alteration in the pore structure of the peat soils (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 91, SCHINDLER et al.
2003, p. 366).
Several studies have found that height loss is significantly higher near ditches (EWING &
VEPRASKAS 2006, p. 127, HAAPALETHO et al. 2010, p. 592). This assumption could also
apply for the "Wendemark Area”. Especially peat layers in the north-eastern part of the
search site lost about 60 cm from 1913 - 2012. Therefore, deep parallel ditches or rivers like
the Randow River could produce better drainage, because deeper water tends to move
faster. That contributes to greater groundwater variability and to higher amounts of total
height loss (SINGH et al. 1996, p. 289, EWING & VEPRASKAS 2006, p. 127,
WHITTINGTON & PRICE 2006, p. 3594). This effect is compounded as the water flows
down slopes like the Randow River (BALLARD et al. 2011, p. 2307) (fig. 27).
IV Results and Discussion
56
As from 1981 the peat subsidence that lowers the surface heights gradually slows down,
especially in the southern and western parts of the search site. The "Wendemark Area” is
drained and subsided more slowly, too. Hence, the peat soils could stay saturated for longer
periods. The two ditches themselves (fig. 24 & 25), and the rivers Mittelgraben and Randow
have not been deepened since 1981 (STORNOWSKI 2013, verbal message). Therefore,
strong drainage effects from deep ditch and river networks are over time reduced step by
step through erosions from the sediment load (LAPPALANINEN et al. 2010, p. 607). The
height and peat loss is near the curves of the Randow River higher than in the remaining
area (cf. ROTHWELL et al. 2008 a, cited by ROTHWELL et al. 2008 b, p. 623) (fig. 23).
Besides, the continued height loss in the north-eastern part of the "Wendemark Area” may be
caused through run-offs (hydrodynamic fluvial erosions) in the river curves from the fast
flowing Randow River. Well decomposed peat is like fine sand very sensitive to erosions, so
that the risk of erosion and substance outputs is increased (LAPPALAINEN et al. 2010,
p. 595).
The groundwater table was raised in the 1980s to levels that were set before the 1970s
drainage (GWL: 60 - 80cm) (STORNOSKI 2012, p. 13).
The "Wendemark Area” was again re-used for extensive farming. The time between the land
use may influence some physical processes in the upper peat surface (LEHRKAMP 1987,
p. 49&65). Dry loose (aerated) peats without a sand-loam coverage and/or temporary
opened yields that were not vegetated in "Wendemark Area”, for example after ploughing or
re-seeding, could be affected from wind-erosions, too. Especially open areas without or with
less vegetation and edges near ditches are instable surfaces that could be affected by wind-
erosions, such as the case in the north-eastern part of the "Wendemark Area” (cf.
CAMPBELL et al. 2001, p. 85).
After 1990, the intensive agricultural land use was superseded by an environmental
grassland management. Despite that, the height loss continued in some yields (1981 - 2003:
0,27cm/yr.) out of self-reinforcing effects in the water balance (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 49,
STORNOSKI 2012, p. 16) (cf. fig. 8). Nevertheless, the loss of peat and surface heights is
less intense in the current time, when using the Randow-Welse-Bruch with an extensive
grassland management with high groundwater levels, as compared to the decreases under
intensive agricultural use (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1080) (cf. tab. 11/tab. 22 - 24).
IV Results and Discussion
57
Comparison of Surface Heights
A comparison of exemplary search sites like Biesenbrow and Stendell shows that the above
described physical behaviours can be transferred out of the equal substrate composition of
the "Wendemark Area” to surrounding yields in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (fig. 24& 25).
Nevertheless, the DGM models show little visual differences at the border lines of some
height classifications (fig. 24& 25). This occurs, because of a better accuracy of the satellite-
based data from DGM "Laserscan", which was created in a higher resolution (cf. Biesenbrow,
fig. 25).
The representations of the entire Randow-Welse-Bruch, through the DGM "Classic" (1993)
and "Laserscan" (2012) from the LGB (Brandenburg) 2012, are only presented out of
purposes for illustration and a geographical classification of Biesenbrow, Stendell and the
"Wendemark Area” (fig. 24& 25).
The peat and height loss is expected to continue slowly for a number of decades, but less
strongly so (STORNOSKI 2013, oral communication).
IV Results and Discussion
58
Figure 23:Surface heights (AMSL/m) in "Wendemark Area” (1913 - 2012) (Data LGB (b) 2012& KLUGE et al. 2008)
IV Results and Discussion
59
Figure 24:Surface heights in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1993) (Data: LGB (a)/(b) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
60
Figure 25:Surface heights in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003) (Data: LGB (a)/(b) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
61
4.3 Groundwater Tables
Estimating the water levels from the moisture stages in 2002 and land use in 1999 lead to
the conclusion that a lot of areas have got a current groundwater level between 50cm and
60cm (below the surface) in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (fig. 26 & 27).
Therefore, the most important aim for the whole area is to stabilize and raise the water-
storage of the peat body (STORNOWSKI 2013, verbal message). A creation of suitable
hydrologic conditions is required to find a compromise between practicality and peatland
conservation (cf. tab. 26 & 27). Summer groundwater levels are assumed to be optimal for
dairy farming with a depth (below the surface) of up to 55cm (VOS et al. 2010, p. 1891),
<15cm cannot be used for agricultural use (VERRY 1984, SCHOUWENAARS 1995, cited by
LaROSE et al. 1997, p. 417, VOS et al. 2010, p. 1892).
The raising-groundwater-scenario suggests 30 % more areas can be used for extensive land
use. This can be seen as an approach for peatland restoration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch.
The groundwater table draw-down under changed climatic conditions, has been researched
in various models (POTTER et al. 1997, ROULET et al. 1992, WALTER et al. 2001, cited by
WHITTINGTON & PRICE 2006, p. 3590). Climate change did not directly influence the
groundwater tables in comparison to anthropogenic drainage, but it can increase stress and
lead to groundwater table fluctuations; it may influence the net effect. The peat surface could
increase through subsidence, caused by climatic changes. For this instance, the water table
would not sink as far down below the (new) surface level, as it otherwise would have done
(WHITTINGTON & PRICE 2006, p. 3597).
IV Results and Discussion
62
Figure 26: Derived (annual) groundwater levels in the Randow-Bruch(2012) (Data: ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002 &LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
63
Figure 27: Derived (annual) groundwater levels in the Randow-Bruch(2060) - Rededication to more extensive land use (30%) (Data: ELLMANN & SCHULZE2002 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
64
4.4 CO2-C Release
Carbon stored and released by peat soils, both natural and human-altered, plays a significant
role in the global terrestrial carbon cycle (GORHAM 1991, p. 182). The concentration of
inorganic and organic carbon within peat pore water is also assumed as a function of
seasonal patterns of production and decomposition (WADDINGTON & ROULET 1997,
p. 134). Lower groundwater tables lead to (peat) subsidence and C loss as CO2
(GRONLUND et al. 2008, p. 157). This loss significantly changes the GHG balances
between the ecosystem and the atmosphere (MINKKINEN et al. 2002, p. 796).
CO2-C release is much bigger in the topsoil than in the subsoil (KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1082).
CO2-C Scenarios
The study determines the effect of peat thickness and groundwater tables on potential
carbon emissions (fig. 28-31). For this purpose, based on calculated peat thickness (from
"Sectorial Decrease") for 2012 and 2060, first a current groundwater table and second, a
raised groundwater table for a more environmental use were applied to Subarea II.
Table 14: CO2-C release in Subarea II depending on peat thickness and groundwater table
Year
Types of
derived GWLs
[cm]
Peat thickness [cm] in classes/
C-CO2-release [t ha-1 a-1] Total/
(Average)
C-CO2-
release
[t ha-1 a-1] 0 - 30
(1)
> 30 - 50
(2)
> 50 - 80
(3)
> 80
(4)
2012
Current table 0 1086 2336 12.364 15.786 (4,9)
Raised table 0 1225 2514 13.512 17.251 (5,3)
2060
Current table 0 2456 4038 7003 13.497 (4,0)
Raised table 0 2867 4281 7368 14.516 (4,1)
IV Results and Discussion
65
Figure 28: CO2-C release in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on current groundwater level (2012) and peat thickness (2012) (Data: ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002, HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
66
Figure 29: CO2-C release in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on current groundwater level (2012) and peat thickness (2060) (Data: ELLMANN & SCHULZE2002, HU Berlin Moorarchiv1964 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
67
Figure 30: CO2-C release in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on raised groundwater level (rehabilitation) and peat thickness (2012) (Data: ELLMANN &SCHULZE 2002, HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
68
Figure 31: CO2-C release in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, based on raised groundwater level (rehabilitation) and peat thickness (2060) (Data: ELLMANN &SCHULZE2002, HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB (a) 2012)
IV Results and Discussion
69
The total carbon dioxide release of all peat layers is found to be about 26.000 t CO2 ha-1 a-1
(Average: 5,3 t CO2 ha-1 a-1) at a groundwater table of approximately 50cm below the surface
of the Randow-Welse-Bruch (tab. 14, fig. 28 - 31). This value is higher than the estimation
(21.098 t CO2 ha-1 a-1) from a 2003 survey by the TU-Berlin Department of Soil Protection
(KLUGE 2003, 64), who use data from 1963. The estimations were upgraded in this study by
using the peat thickness of a 2012 scenario ("Sectorial Decrease").
The average values for 2012 and 2060 peat thickness of the Randow-Welse-Bruch ,with
derived groundwater tables (with/without raised GWLs), are ranging from 4,0 to 5,3 CO2 ha-1
a-1 potential releases (tab. 29). These values are underestimated compared to a literature
study from STRACK 2008 (STRACK 2008, p. 78). Besides these findings, confirm the
hypothesis that the annual CO2-C emissions are going to increase within the next 40 years.
This can be done by applying a current GWL of 15,85% and a raised GWL of 14,5% (tab.
14).
However, the findings lead to the conclusion that (potential) carbon emissions are much
more influenced from the peat thickness than from the groundwater table or landuse. This
fact is confirmed by studies from MOORE & KNOWLES (1989) or JUNGKUNST et al. (2008)
(MOORE & KNOWLES 1989, p. 35, JUNGKUNST et al. 2008, p. 2052). The derivations for
groundwater in this study were underestimated. A probably cause could be inaccurate
estimations of current groundwater levels.
Subareas I& III, which have not been completely represented in the calculations, have got
higher degradations at lower groundwater tables (LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 65) and could have
higher amount of carbon loss. The increase in the peat carbon stores is higher at a raised
groundwater table, because it is related to slower subsidence rates (MINKKINEN & LAINE
1998, p. 1272, KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1081, GROVER & BALDROCK 2010, p. 226).
Nevertheless, carbon emissions and peat subsidence are an inevitable consequence
whenever peatlands are drained (HOOIJER et al. 2012, p. 1071).
V Conclusion
70
V Conclusion
Peatlands have got an unusual strength to modify their physical settings, increasing peat
subsidence and decreasing horizontal-hydraulic gradients. The long-term intensive
agricultural use of the Randow-Welse-Bruch led to high surface height losses and to strong
degradations of the peat body. The management´s transition in the 1990s, to a more
environmental land use, was almost too late. The groundwater level of 50 - 70 cm is
maintained so that the peat subsidence slows down slightly.
A lot of negative effects can be reduced through consequent efforts of the local association:
"Wasser-Boden Verband Welse". Therefore, it should be a high priority to rehabilitate the
peatlands area of the Randow-Welse-Bruch(cf. annex 7.3). An involvement of farmers in
nature protection is indispensable.
The assignments that were formulated for this study, should give a closer view to the
problematic situation in the Randow-Welse-Bruch.
1) Subsidence
The peat subsidence will further degrade upper peat layers and lead to a loss of
surface heights all over the Randow-Welse-Bruch. Especially shallow layers are
affected most from the 1970s groundwater draw-down. It is to be expected that the
subsidence becomes slower and steady. The groundwater level has to be kept as
close as possible to the peat surface.
2) Borders
Peat soils, in areas with a lower thickness of 30 cm, are threatened from a slow
continued subsidence. These soils can lose their classification as a Histosol. As a
result, the peatland area of the Randow-Welse-Bruch is getting smaller.
3) CO2-C Release
The annual CO2-C emissions can increase up to over 15% within the next 40 years
depending on the peat subsidence and land use.
For the first time an overall picture, showing a comparison and the magnitude of peat
subsidence distributed over a century in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, has been presented. This
study reveals the importance for a restoration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch. May the created
maps form the basic knowledge for further studies into the forecasting of peat subsidence on
a regional scale.
VI References: Literature
71
VI References
Literature
ACREMANN, M.C. & M. FELICITY (2005): Hydrological impact assessment of wetlands. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, International symposium on groundwater sustainability (ISGWAS), pp. pp. 225 - 255.
AG-BODEN (1994): Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung, 4th Edition, E. Schweizerbart´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, p. p. 438.
AKKER, J.J.H., KUIKMAN, P.J., HOVING, I., PLEIJTER, M., HENDRIKS, R.F.A., WOLLESWINKEL, R.J., SIMOES, R.T.L. & C. KWAKERNAAK (2008): In. FARRELL, C. & J. FEEHAN (eds.), 2008. Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress After Wise Use - The Future of Peatlands, Volume 1, Oral Presentations, Tullamore, Ireland, 8 - 13 June 2008, International Peat Society, Jyväskylä, Finland, ISBN 0951489046, pp. 645-648.
ANDERSON, S. (2000): An surface heights of spatial interpolation methods and air temperature in Phoenix: BEGUER, A.Z. & S.M. VIENETE-SERRANO: Mapping the hazard of extreme rainfall by peaks over threshold extreme value analysis and spatial regression techniques, Journal. Appl. Meteorol., 45, pp. 108 - 124.
BAIRD, A.J. &S.W. GAFFNEY(2000): Solute movement in drained fen peat: A field tracer study in a Somerset (UK) wetland. Hydrological Processes, 14, pp. 2489 – 2503.
BALLARD, C.E., McINTYRE, N. & H.S. WHAETER (2012): Effects of peatland drainage management on peak flows, Hydrological Earth System Science 16, pp. 2299 - 2310.
BAMBALOV, N. (2000): Regularities of peat soils anthropic evolution, Acta Agrophysica 26, pp. 179 - 203.
BERHORN, F. (2012): Natura 2000 Management im Randow-Welse-Bruch - Notizen zum Beginn der Erarbeitung von Managementplänen in der Verantwortung der Stiftung NaturSchutzFonds Brandenburg, Frühjahr 2010. Homepage der Landschaftswerkstatt Wasser Uckermark-Barnim (Publisher) based on MUGV Brandenburg und PIC Potsdam. In the internet: http://www.wasserundlandschaft.de/welsenatur03.html. Accessed on 21.08.2012.
BEHRENDT, A., SCHALITZ, G., MUELLER, L. & U. SCHINDLER (2004): Effects of different drain depths on nutrient leaching of lowland soils in Northeast Germany. ZALF Paulinenaue, pp. 241-245.
BLANKENBURG, J. & W. SCHÄFER (1992): Hydrological reaction of raised bogs to peat cutting, In; BRAGG, O.M., HULME, P.D., INGRAM, P. & R.A. ROBERTSON (Editors): Peatland Ecosystems and Man: Impact Assessment, British Ecological Society and the International Peat Society (Publishers), Department of Biological Sciences, University of Dundee, UK, pp. 118 - 124.
VI References: Literature
72
BRADSHAW, A.D. (1990): The reclamation of derelict land and the ecology of ecosystems, In; JORDAN III, W.R., GILPIN, M.E. & J.D. ABER (Editors): Restoration Ecology; A synthetic approach to Ecological Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 53 - 74.
BRÜNE, F. (1952): Die niedersächsischen Moore und ihre landwirtschaftliche Nutzung. Niedersächsisches Amt für Landesplanung und Statistik (Publisher), Walter Dorn Verlag (Bremen, Horn), Reihe A1 - Band 38, p. 56.
BRUNNING, R. (2001): Archaeology and peat wastage on the Somerset Moors. Report to the Environment Agency. Somerset County Council, Taunton.
BURMEISTER, E.G., GÖTTLICH, K.H., ROSPIETSCH, T.H.& G.KAULE (1990): Begriffsbestimmung anhand der Moortypen Mitteleuropas/Sonderstellung der Moore in Volksglauben und Kunst. In: Moor und Torfkunde, 3. überarbeitete. Auflage von Karlhans Göttlich (Publisher), E. Schweizerbart´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nägele u. Obermiller) Stuttgart, p. 124.
BYRNE, K.A., CHOJNICKI, B., CHRISTENSEN, T.R., DROSLER, M., FREIBAUER, A., FROLKING, S., LINDROTH, A., MAILHAMMER, J., MALMER, N., SELIN, P., TURUNEN, J., VALENTINI, R. & ZETTERBERG, L. (2004): EU peatlands: current carbon stocks and trace gas fluxes. CarboEurope-GHG, concerted action synthesis of the European greenhouse gas budget. Department of Forest Science and Environment, Viterbo, Italy, p. 58.
CAMPBELL, D., LAVOIE, C. & L. ROCHEFORT (2001): Wind erosion and surface stability in abandoned milled peatlands, Canadian Journal Soil Science 82, pp. 85 - 95.
CHANG, K.-T. (2010): Introduction to geographic Information Systems (5th ed.). New York. Thomas D. Timp., pp. 327 - 340.
CUENCA, M.C. & R. HANSSEN (2006): Subsidence due to peat decomposition in the Netherlands, Kinematic observation from Radar interferometer, Delf. Institute of Earth Observation and Space System., Delf.University of Technology, p. 6.
COUWENBERG, J, AUGUSTIN, J., MICHAELIS, D., WICHTMANN; W. & H. JOOSTEN (2008): Entwicklung von Grundsätzen für eine Bewertung von Niedermooren hinsichtlich ihrer Klimarelevanz. Study in authority of LUGV Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Greifswald, p. 33.
CZAPLAK, I.& W. DEMBEK (2000): Polish peatlands as a source of emission of greenhouse gases, Zeszyty Edukacjne wyd.IMUZ, 6, 61-71, In: Peatlands and Climate change, edit by M. Starck (2008), International Peat Society (Publisher), ISBN 978-952-99401-1-0, Finland, p. 224.
DAWSON, Q., KECHAVARZI, C., LEEDS-HARRISON, P.B. & R.G.O. BURTON (2010): Subsidence and degradation of agricultural peatlands in the Fenlands of Norfolk, UK. Geoderma 154, pp. 181 - 187.
DOBSON, A.P., BRADSHAW. A.D. & A.L. BAKER (1997): Hopes for the future: Restoration ecology and conservation biology, Science 277, pp. 515 - 522.
DRIESSEN, P., DECKERS, J., SPAARGAREN, O. & F. NACHTERGAELE (2001): Lecture notes on the major soils of the world, World Soil Resources Reports, Number 94, FAO, Rome, p. 344.
VI References: Literature
73
DWD 2012: Deutscher Wetterdienst; G. ADRIAN (President), P.BECKER (Vice President), A. HERBER (Promotion),Climate data from German weather stations (mean values), Offenbach. In the internet: http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/appmanager/bvbw/dwdwwwDesktop? _nfpb=true&_pageLabel=dwdwww_result_page&portletMasterPortlet_i1gsbDocumentPath=Navigation%2FOeffentlichkeit%2FKlima__Umwelt%2FKlimadaten%2Fkldaten__kostenfrei%2Fkldat__D__mittelwerte__node.html%3F__nnn%3Dtrue. Accessed on 28.08.2012.
EGGELSMANN, R. (1976): Peat consumption under influence of climate, soil condition and utilization. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Peat Congress, Volume 1,International Peat Society, Poland, pp. 223 - 247.
EGGELSMANN, R. (1976): Rewetting for protection and renaturation/regeneration of peatlands after or without peat winning, In: 8th International Peat Congress, Leningrad, Russia, pp. 251 - 260.
EGGELSMANN, R. & R. BARTELS (1975): Oxidativer Torfverzehr im Niedermoor in Abhängigkeit von Entwässerung, Nutzung und Düngung, Notification of the German Soil Society 22, pp. 215-221.
EPPNER, K. (1935): Die Moore um Rosenheim - Das bayerische Oberland 20. Rosenheim, pp. 60 - 69.
EWING, J.M., VEPRAKAS, M.J. (2006): Estimating primary and secondary subsidence in an organic soil 15, 20, and 30 years after drainage, Wetlands 26 (1), March 2006, pp. 119-130.
FAO (2006): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Guidelines for soil description, Fourth edition, ISBN; 92-5-105521, Rome, p. 109.
FREEMANN, C: FENNER, N., OSTLE, N.J., Kang, H., DOWARICK, D.J., REYNOLDS, B. LOCK, M.A., SLEEP, D. HUGHES, S. & J. HUDSON (2004): Export of dissolved organic carbon from peatlands under elevated carbon dioxide levels. Nature. Volume 430,pp. 195-198.
GÖTTLICH, KH. (1990): Moor und Torfkunde. 3. üb. Aufl. von Karl Hans Göttlich (Publisher),E. Schweizerbart´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nägele und Obermiller) Stuttgart, p. 529.
GAMBOLATI, G. & P. TEATINI (2002): GIS simulations of the inundation risk in the coastal lowlands of the Northern Adriatic Sea, Mathematic Computer Model 35, pp. 963 - 972.
GAMBOLATI, G., PUTTI, M., TEATINI, P. & G.G.STORI (2003): Subsidence due to peat oxidation and its impact on drainage infrastructures in a farmland catchment south of the Venice Lagoon, RMZ - Materials and Geoenvironment, Volume 50, Number 1, pp. 125-128.
GEBHARDT, S., FLEIGE, H. & R. HORN (2010): Shrinkage processes of a drained riparian peatland with subsidence morphology. Journal of Soils Sediments 10, pp. 484 - 493.
GORHAM, E. (1991): Northern peatlands: Role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecological Applications 1, pp. 182-195.
GORHAM, E. & L. ROCHEFORT (2003): Peatland restoration. A brief assessment with special reference to Sphagnum bogs. Wetland Ecology Management 11, pp. 109 - 119.
GRONLUND, A., HAUGE, A., HOVDE, A. & D. RASSE (2008): Carbon loss estimates from cultivated peat soils in Norway: A comparison of three methods, NutrientCycle Agroecosyst 81, pp. 157-167.
VI References: Literature
74
GROOTLANS, A.P., BAKKER, J.P., JANSEN, A.J.M. & R.H. KEMMERS (2002): Restoration of brook valley meadows in the Netherlands, Hydrobiologia 478, pp. 149 - 170.
GROVER, S.P.P. & J.A. BALDOCK (2010): Carbon decomposition processes in a peat from the Australian Alps, European Journal of Soil Science 61, pp. 217 - 230.
GLASER, P.H., CHANTGON, J.P., MORIN, P., ROSENBERRY, D.O., SIGEL, D.I., RUUD, O. CHASAR, L.I. & A.S: REEVE (2004): Surface deformations as indicators of ebullition fluxes in large northern peatland, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Volume 18, GB 1003, pp. 1 - 15.
GLOATZ, J. (1931): Die Bodenverbesserung im Randow-Bruch; Dissertation an der landwirtschaftlichen Hochschule zu Berlin, p. 115.
GLOPPER, R.J. (1984): Subsidence in the recently reclaimed IJSSELMEERPOLDER "Flevoland". Ijsselmeerpolders Development Authority, Scientific Department Lelystad, pp. 487-496.
HAAPALETHO. T.O.,VASANDER. H., JAUHIANINIEN, S., TAHVANAINEN, T. & KOTIAHO, J.S. (2010): The effects of peatland restoration on water-table depth, elemental concentrations and vegetation: 10 years of change. Restoration Ecology Volume 19, pp. 587 - 598.
HOGG, E.H., LIEFFERS, V.J. & R.W. WEIN (1992): Potential carbon losses from peat profiles: Effects of temperature, drought cycles, and fire, Ecological Applications 2, pp. 298 - 306.
HOOIJER, A., PAGE, S., JAUHIAINEN, J., LEE, W.A., LU, X.X., IDRIS, A. & G. ANSHARI (2012): Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands, Biogeosciences 9, pp. 1053 -1071.
HOLDEN,J. and T.P. BURT (2002): Laboratory experiments on drought and runoff in blanket peat, European Journal of Soil Science 53, pp. 675 - 689.
HOOGLAND, T., VAN DEN AKKER, J.J.H., & D.J. BRUS (2011): Modelling the subsidence of peat soils in the Dutch coastal area, Geoderma 92-97, pp. 171-122.
HU, B., ZHOUH, J., WANG. J. & Z. CHEN (2009): Risk assessment of land subsidence at Tianjin coastal area in China, Environment Earth Science 59, pp. 269 - 276.
HÖPER, H. (2002): Carbon and nitrogen mineralization rates in German agriculturally used fenlands, In; Wetlands in Central Europe - Soil organisms, Soil Ecological Processes, and Trace Emissions, BROLL, G., MERBACH, W. & E.-M. PFEIFER (Editors), Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 149 - 164.
HUTTER, C.P, KAPFER, A. & P. POSCHOLD (1997): Sümpfe und Moore - Biotope erkennen, bestimmen, schützen, Stuttgart-Wien-Bern; Weitbrecht Verlag, ISBN 9783522720601, p. 134.
IHDE, J., BOUCHER, C., DUNKLEY, P., FARRELL, B., GUBLER, E., LUTHARDT, J. & J. TORRES (2000): European Spatial Reference System - Frames for Geoinforamtion, CERCO and EUREF to the European National Mapping Agencies (Publischer), pp. 1 - 7.
Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue (1965): Assessment from the Randow Welse-Bruch (1964), Humboldt-University of Berlin, p. 11.
INOUE, T., UMEDA, Y. & T. NAGASWA (1992): Some experiments restoring hydrologic conditions of peatland in Hokkaido, Japan, In: YOUNOS, T., DIPLAS, P. & S.
VI References: Literature
75
MOSTAGHIMKI (Editors): Land reclamation: Advances in research and technology; Proceedings of the International Symposium, Nashville, TN, USA, pp. 196 - 203.
ILLNICKI, P. (2002): Restoration of carbon sequestrating capacity and biodiversity in abandoned grassland on peatland in Poland. Global Peatland Initiative Project WGP 1, 19 GPI-9a, Agricultural University of Poznan, Poland.
JASSEY, E.J.V., CHIAPUSIO, G. GILBERT, D.,TOUSSAINT, M. L. & P. BINET (2012): Phenoloxidase and peroxidase activities in Sphagnum-dominated peatland in a warming climate, Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement, UMR CNRS 6249. UFR Sciences: Techniques et gestion de l’industrie, Université de Franche-Comté. France.
JOHNSTON, K., VER HOEF, J. M., KRIVOURUCHKO, K. & N. LUCAS (2001): Using Arc GIS Geostatistical Analyst, Environ. Syst. Res. Inst., Redlands, California, p. 306.
JOOSTEN, H.& D. CLARKE (2002): Wise use of mires and peatlands – Background and principles including a framework for decision-making, International Mire Conservation Group & International Peat Society (Publisher), ISBN 951-97744-8-3, p. 304.
JUNGKUNST, H.F., FLESSA, H., SCHERBER, C. & S. FIEDLER (2008): Groundwater level controls CO2, N2O and CH4 fluxes of three different hydromorphic soil types of a temperate ecosystem, Soil Biology & Biochemistry 49, pp. 2047 – 2054.
JURCZUK, S. (2000): The influence of groundwater table management on subsidence and mineralization rate of organic soil, Biblioteczka Wiadomosci IMUZ, 96; In: Peatlands and Climate Chang, STRACK 2008 (Editor), International Peat Society (Publisher), ISBN 978-952-99401-1-0, Finland, p. 120.
KANTER, L. & H. HENNIG (2005): Increasing of water retention by renaturation of flow through fens at the Peene and in the Randow Bruch, ICID 21st European Regional Conference 2005 - 15-19 May 2005, Frankfurt (Oder) and Slubice, pp. 1 - 5.
KASIMIR-KLEMEDTSSON,L. & L. KLEMEDTSSON (a) (1997): Methane uptake in Swedish forest in relation to liming and extra N-deposition, Biology Fertilisation of Soils 25, pp. 296-301.
KASIMIR-KLEMEDTSSON, A., KLEMEDTSSON, L., BERGLUND, K., MARTIKAINEN, P., SILVOLA, J. & O. OENEMA (b) (1997): Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: a review, Soil Use and Management, 13, pp. 245-250.
KECHAVARZI, C., DAWSON, Q. & LEEDS-HARRISON (2010): Physical properties of low-lying agricultural peat soil in England, Geoderma 154, pp. 196 - 202.
KHEIRANDISH, S., IIAGHAT, M., MOHD AZAHAR, T. & A. GOHARI (2012): Comparison of interpolation methods in prediction the pattern of basal stem rot disease in palm oil plantation, Geoinformatica - An international journal (GIIJ), Volume 2, Issue (1), pp. 12 - 16.
KLIEWE, H. & W. JANKE (1982): Der holozäne Wasserspiegelanstieg der Ostsee im nordöstlichen Küstengebiet der DDR, Petermann; Geographie Mitteleuropas, pp. 65-74.
KLUGE, B. (2003): Moorschwund und C-Verlust von entwässerten Niedermoorböden, dargestellt am Bespiel Randow-Welse-Bruch. TU Berlin, Diplomarbeit, Fachgebiet Standortkunde und Bodenschutz, Nov. 2003, p. 105.
KLUGE, B. (2008): Long term carbon loss and CO2 C release of drained peatland soils in northeast Germany, European Journal of Soil Science, December 2008, 59, pp. 1076–1086.
VI References: Literature
76
KLUGE, B., WESSOLEK, G., FACKLAM, M., LORENZ, M. & K. SCHWARZEL (2008): Long-term carbon loss and CO2-C release of drained peatland soils in northeast Germany. European Journal of Soil Science59, pp. 1076–1086.
KUNTZE, H. (1984): Bewirtschaftung und Düngung von Moorböden. Sonderheft a. d. Niedersächsischem Landesamt für Bodenforschung, Bodentechnologisches Institut Bremen. In: LEHRKAMP, H. (1987): Die Auswirkung der Melioration auf die Bodenentwicklung im Randow-Welse-Bruch. Dissertation in "Agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultät" Humboldt University of Berlin, Sig. 87 HB 3204, p. 169.
KOSKA, I. (2001): Standortliche Kennzeichnung und Bioindikation. In: Succow, M. & H. Joosten (2001) (Editors); Landschaftsökologische Moorkunde, 2nd Edition, Schweizerbart´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nägele u. Obermiller) Stuttgart, pp. 143-181.
LAPPALAINEN, M., KOIVUSALO, H., KARVONEN, T. & A. LAUREN (2010): Sediment transport from a peatland forest after ditch network maintenance: A modelling approach, ISSN 1239-6095, Boreal Environment Research 15, pp. 595 - 612.
LaROSE, S., PRICE, J. & L. ROCHEFORT (1997): Rewetting of a cutover peatland: Hydrologic assessment, Wetlands Volume 17, pp. 416 - 423.
LEHRKAMP, H. (1987): Die Auswirkung der Melioration auf die Bodenentwicklung im Randow-Welse-Bruch. Dissertation in the "Agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultät" of Humboldt-University Berlin. Sig. 87 HB 3204, p. 169.
LEHRKAMP, H. (1989): Durch landwirtschaftliche Nutzung verursachte Veränderungen im Niedermoor, dargestellt am Beispiel des Randow-Welse-Bruchs. Wissenschaftliches Zentrum. HU Berlin, agrarwissenschaftliche. Reihe 38, 12-15. In: SUCCOW, M. & H. JOOSTEN (2001); Landschaftsökolgische Moorkunde; 2nd Edition. Schweizerbart´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nägele u. Obermiller) Stuttgart, p. 622.
LEIHFELD, J., MÜLLER, M. & J. FUHRER (2011): Peatland subsidence and carbon loss from drained temperate fens. Soil Use and Management 27, pp. 170-176.
LIEDTKE, H. & J. MARCINEK (2002): Physische Geographie Deutschlands. 3. Revision. Klett Perthes. ISBN 978-3623008608, Gotha und Stuttgart, p. 768.
LORENZ, W.-D. & J. WIELAND (1983): Tiefpflug-Sanddeckkultur - Ein Verfahren zur Melioration flachgründig sandunterlagerter Niedermoore, In: Wissenschaftliche technische Information zum Meliorationswesen, Bad Freienwalde.
LORENZ, W.-D., SAUERBREY, R. ESCHNER, D., LEHRKAMP, H. & J. ZEITZ (1992): Zustand der landwirtschaftlich genutzten Niedermoore in den ehemailgen DDR. Wasser und Boden. Magazine of the amount water economy, pp. 58 - 61.
MAWBY, F.J. (1995): Effects of damming peat cuttings on Glasson Moss Welholme Flow, two lowland raised bogs in Northwest England, In: WHEELER, B.D., SHAW, S.C., FOJT, W. & R.A. ROBERTSON (Editors): Restoration of temperate Wetlands, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 349 - 357.
MEADE, R. (1992): Some early changes following the rewetting of a vegetated cutover peatland surface at Danes, Moss, Cheshire, UK and their relevance to conservation management, Biological Conservation 61, pp. 31 - 40.
MEYER, M. (2002): Modellierung der Entwicklung von Küstenlinien der Ostsee im Holozän - Wechselspiel zwischen Isostasie und Eustasie. Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, p. 63.
VI References: Literature
77
MEYER, K. & H. HÖPER 1998: C-Spurengehalt bei vollständigem Überstau eines flachen Niedermoores in Niedersachsen (Beitrag einzelner Niedermoorhorizonte zu Methan- und Kohlenstoffdioxidfreisetzung), Notification of the German Soil Society 88, pp. 31-34.
MEYER, K. (1999): Die Flüsse der klimarelevanten Gase CO2, CH4 und N2O eines nordwestdeutschen Niedermoores unter dem Einfluss der Wiedervernässung, Göttinger Bodenkundliche Berichte, 111 - 134,In: Peatlands and Climate change, edit by M. Starck (2008), International Peat Society (Publisher), ISBN 978-952-99401-1-0, Finnland, p. 224.
MINKKINEN, K. & J. LAINE (1998): Long-term effect of forest drainage on the peat carbon stores on pine mires in Finland, Department of Forest Ecology, Canadian Journal for Forest Research 28, pp. 1267 - 1275.
MINKKINEN, K., KORHONEN, R., SAVOLAINEN, I. & J. LAINE (2002): Carbon balance and radiative forcing of Finnish peatlands 1900-2100 - The impact of forestry drainage, Global Change Biology 8, pp. 785 - 799.
MONTANARELLA, L., JONES, R.J.A. & R. HIEDERER (2006): The distribution of peatland in Europe, Mires and Peatland, Volume 1. Article 01, pp. 1 - 11.
MONTEITH, J.L: (1988): Does transpiration limit the growth of vegetation or vice versa?, Journal of Hydrology 100, pp. 57 - 68.
MOORE, T.R. & R. KNOWLES (1989): The influence of water tables levels on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from peatland soils, Canadian Journal of Soil Science 69, pp. 33 - 38.
MOORE, T.R., ROULET, N.T. & J.M. WADDINGTON (1998): Uncertainty in predicting the effect of climatic change on the carbon cycling of Canadian peatlands, Climatic Change 40, pp. 229 - 245.
MUNDEL, G. (1976): Untersuchungen zur Torfmineralisation in Niedermooren: Archive: Acker und Pflanzenbau und Bodenkunde20 (Berlin), pp. 669-679.
NADELHOFFER, K.J., GIBLIN, A.E., SHAVER, G.R. & J.A. LAUNDRE (1991): Effects of temperature and substrate quality on element mineralization in six arctic soils, Ecology 72, pp. 242 - 253.
NEZAMI, M.T. & Z.T. ALIPOUR (2012): Preparing of the soil salinity map using geostatistical method in the Quazvin Plain, Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management Volume 3 (2), ISSN 2141-2391, pp. 36-41.
OKRUSZKO, H. (1989): Wirkung der Bodennutzung auf die Niedermoorentwicklung. Ergebnisse eines langjährigen Feldversuches. Centrum for culture techniques and landscape environment, 30, 167-176, In: Peatlands and Climate change, edit by M. Starck (2008), International Peat Society (Publisher), ISBN 978-952-99401-1-0, Finland, p. 224.
OLESZCZUK, R, BOHNE, K., SZATYLOWICZ, J., BRANDYK, T. & T. GNATOWSKI (2003): Influence of load on shrinkage behaviour of peat soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition Science 166 (2), pp. 220 - 224.
OLESZCZUK, R., REGINA, L. SZAJDAK, H. HÖPER, V. MARYGANOVA (2008): Impacts of agricultural utilization of peat soils on the greenhouse gas balance, In: Peatlands and Climate change, edit by M. Starck, International Peat Society (Publisher), ISBN 978-952-99401-1-0, Finland, p. 224.
VI References: Literature
78
OVERBECK, F. (1950): Geologie und Lagerstätten Niedersachsens - Dritter Band; Das Känozoikum in Niedersachsen, 2.Auflage, Niedersächsisches Amt für Landesplanung und Statistik (Publischer), Walter Dorn Verlag (Bremen-Horn), Reihe A 1, Band 3, 4.Abteilung, p. 112.
PARISH, F., SIRIN, A., CHARMAN, D., JOOSTEN, H. MINAYEVA, T., SILVIUS, M. &L. STRINGER (2008): Assessment on peatlands, biodiversity and climate change: Main report. Global Environment Center, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen, p. 215.
PETERSEN, A. (1952): Die neue Rostocker Grünlandeinschätzung. Abh. d. DAW, Kl. d. Gesellschaftswiss. In: LEHRKAMP, H. (1987): Die Auswirkung der Melioration auf die Bodenentwicklung im Randow-Welse-Bruch. Dissertation at the "Agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultät" Humboldt-University of Berlin, Sig. 87, HB 3204, p. 169.
PENMAN, H.L. (1948): Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 193, pp .120 - 145.
POTTER, C.S. (1997): An ecosystem simulation model for methane production and emission from wetlands, Global Biogeochemical Cycles 11, pp. 495 - 506.
PRICE, J.S. & S.M. SCHLOTZHAUER (1999): Importance of shrinkage and compression in determining water storage changes in peat: The case of a mined peatland, Hydrological Processes 13, pp. 2591 - 2601.
PRICE, J.S. & J.M. WADDINGTON (2000): Advances in Canadian wetland hydrology and biogeochemistry. Hydrological Processes 14, pp. 1579 - 1589.
QINGZHI, Z.&M. XIOUJUN (1980): Analysis of the cause of land subsidence in the Tianjin, China. Tianjin Municipal Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Tianjin, China, pp. 435-444.
RICHARDSON, S.J. & J. SMITH (1977): Peat wastage in the East Anglian Fens, Journal of Soil Science 28, pp. 485-489.
ROTHWELL, J.J., EVANS, M.G., DANIELS, S.M. & T.E.H. ALLOT (2008 a): Peat soils as a source of lead contamination to upland fluvial systems, Environment Pollution 153, pp. 582 - 589.
ROTHWELL, J.J., EVANS, M.G., DANIELS, S.M. & T.E.H. ALLOT (2008 b): Modelling suspended sediment lead concentration in contaminated peatland catchments using digital terrain analysis, Ecological Engineering 36, pp. 623 - 630.
ROULET, N.T., MOORE, T.R., BUBIER, J. & P. LAFLEUR (1992): Northern fens: Methane flux and climatic change, Tellus 44B, pp. 100 - 105.
ROULET, N.T. (2000): Peatlands, carbon storage, greenhouse gases, and the Kyoto protocol: prospects and significance for Canada, Wetlands, 20, pp. 605–615.
SAUERBREY, R- & H. LEHRKAMP (1994): Der Einfluss von Melioration und Nutzung auf die Bodenentwicklung einer Niedermoorfläche im Randow-Welse-Bruch. 1. Wissenschaftliche Jahrestagung des Schwerpunktes Ökologie der Agrarlandschaften. Tagungsbericht HU Berlin. Ökologische Hefte der Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen Fakultät Berlin, Heft 1: 25-30. In: SUCCOW, M. & H. JOOSTEN (2001): Landschaftsökolgische Moorkunde. 2nd Edition. Schweizerbart´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nägele u. Obermiller) Stuttgart, p. 622.
SCHINDLER, U. & O. DIETRICH (1989): Quantifizierung des Wasserspeichers einer wiedervernässten Niedermoorfläche, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, Volume 43, pp. 1 - 16.
VI References: Literature
79
SCHINDLER, U., QUAST, J., SCHÄFER, W., ROGASIK, H. & R. DANNOWSKI (1994): Hydraulic properties of peaty soils in the North-East Germany and possibilities of a site rehabilitation of depredated shallow peaty soils, In: Proc. International Symposium on Conservation and Management of Fens, 6 - 10 June, Warsawa, Poland, pp. 223 - 233.
SCHINDLER, U. & L. MÜLLER (2001): Rehabilitation of the soil quality of a degraded peat site. In: STOTT, D.E., MOHTAR, R.H. & G.C. STEINHARDT (Editors), Sustaining the Global Farm, pp. 648-654.
SCHINDLER, U., MÜLLER, L. & A. BEHRENDT (2003): Field investigations of soil hydrological properties of fen soils in North-East-Germany. Journal of Plant Nutrition Soil Science 166 (3), pp. 364 - 369.
SCHINDLER, U. BEHRENDT, A. & L. MÜLLER (2003): Change of soil hydrological properties of fens as a result of soil development, Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 166, pp. 375 - 363.
SCHREYER, P. (1939): Ortschronik von "Wendemark Area“, unpublished, In LEHRKAMP, H. (1987): Die Auswirkung der Melioration auf die Bodenentwicklung im Randow-Welse-Bruch. Dissertation in the "Agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultät" of Humboldt-University of Berlin. Sig. 87 HB 3204, p. 169.
SCHOTHORST, C.J. (1977) (a): Subsidence of low moor peat soils in the western Netherlands, Geoderma 17, pp. 265-291.
SCHOTHORST, C.J. (1977) (b): Drainage and behaviour of peatsoils. Institute for Land and Water Management Research (ICW), Wageningen, pp. 130-168.
SCHOTHORST, C.J. (1979): Land subsidence result of surface water lowering in the Western Peat Meadow area,Waterschapshehingen, p. 64.
SCHOUWENAARS, J.M. (1988): The impact of water management upon groundwater fluctuations in a disturbed bog relict, Agricultural Water Management 14, pp. 439 - 449.
SCHOUWENAARS, J.M. (1995): The selection of internal and external water management options for bog restoration, pp. 331 - 346, In: WHEELER, B.D., SHAW, S.C., FOJR, W. & R.A. ROBERTSON (Editors): Restoration of Temperate Wetlands, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
SCHROEDER, J.H. (1994): Führer zur Geologie von Berlin und Brandenburg. Nr. 2: Bad Freienwalde - Parsteiner See. Geowissenschaften in Berlin und Brandenburg e.V., Selbstverlag 1994.
SCHUCH, M. (1977): Das Donaumoos und einige seiner gegenwärtigen Hauptprobleme, Telma, 7, 167-173. In: Peatlands and Climate change, edit by M. Starck (2008), International Peat Society (Publisher), ISBN 978-952-99401-1-0, Finland, p. 224.
SCHWÄRZEL, K., RENGER, M., SAUERBREY, R. & G. WESSOLEK (2002): Soil physical characteristics of peat soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition Soil Science 165 (4), pp. 479 - 486.
SERVA, L. & F. BRUNAMONTE (2006): Subsidence in the Pontina, Italy, Bull Eng. Geological Environment (2007) 66. Springer-Verlag, pp. 125-134.
SINGH, M.P., CHAUHAN, H.S. & S. RAM (1996): Unsteady state of drainage in a vertically heterogeneous soil, Agricultural Water Management 31, pp. 285 - 293.
SNOWDEN, J.O. (1980): Drainage-induced land subsidence in metropolitan New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., University of New Orleans, pp. 507 - 527.
VI References: Literature
80
STRACK, M. (2008): Peatlands and Climate Change, International Peat Society (Publisher), ISBN 978-952-99401-1-0, Finland, p. 277.
STREMME, H. (1948): Die Böden der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Deutscher Zentralverlag Berlin. In: LEHRKAMP, H. (1987): Die Auswirkung der Melioration auf die Bodenentwicklung im Randow-Welse-Bruch. Dissertation in the "Agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultät" Humboldt-University of Berlin. Sig. 87 HB 3204, p. 169.
STORNOWSKI (2013): Directory of the "Wasser-Boden Verband Welse", Passow.
SUCCOW, M. & H. JOOSTEN (2001): Landschaftsökolgische Moorkunde, Second Edition, Schweizerbart´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nägele &Obermiller) Stuttgart, p. 622.
SUCCOW, M. (2011): Mensch und Moor im Nordosten Deutschlands - Eine Einführung, Kolloqium zum Schutz der Moore in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Salem, 04. - 05.10.2011, p. 59.
TGL 24399/04 (1978): Technical standards, quality regulations and order conditions of the GDR, Academy of Agricultural Sciences DDR, Berlin, p. 3.
TREPEL, M. (2008): Zur Bedeutung von Mooren in der Klimadebatte, Jahresberichte des Landesamtes für Natur und Umwelt des Landes Schleswig-Holstein 2007/08 1, pp. 61-74.
VAN DIGGELEN, R., GROOTJANS, A.P., KEMMERS, R.,H., KOOIJMAN, A.M., SUCCOW, M., DE VRIES, N.P.J. & G. VAN WIRDUM (1991): Hydro-ecological analysis of the fen system Lieper Posse, eastern Germany, Journal of Vegetation Science 2, pp. 465-476.
VANHA-MAJAMAA, L.S., LILJA, R., RYÖMÄ., R., J.S. KOTIAHO, J.S., LAAKA-LINDBERG, S., LINDBERG, H., PUITTON, P., TAMMINEN, P., TOIVANEN, T. & T. KUULUVANINEN (2007): Rehabilitating boreal forest structure and species composition in Finland through logging, dead wood creation and fire: The Evo experiment, Forest Ecology and Management 250, pp. 77 - 88.
VASANDER, H.A., LEIVO, A. & T. TANNINEN (1992): Rehabilitation of a drained peatland area in the Seiseminen National Park in Southern Finland, In: BRAAG, O.M., HULME, H., INGRAM, A.P. & R.A. ROBERTSON (Editors): Peatland Ecosystems and Man; Impact Assessment, British Ecological Society and The International Peat Society, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Dundee, UK, pp. 381 - 387.
VERRY, E.S. (1984): Microtopography and water-table fluctuations in a Sphagnum mire, 11 -31, In: Proceedings: 7th International Peat Congress, The Irish National Peat Committee and The International Peat Society, Dublin, Ireland.
VOS, J.A. de, BAKEL. P:J.T. van, HOVING, I.E. & R.A: SMIDT (2010): Raising surface water levels in peat area with dairy farming: Upscaling hydrological, agronomical and economic effects from farm-scale to local scale, Agricultural Water Management 97, pp. 1887 - 1987.
WALTHAM, T. (2000): Peat subsidence at the Holme Pos, Landmark of Geology in the East Midlands, Mercian Geologist 15 (1), pp. 49-51.
WADDINGTON, J.M. & N.T. ROULET (1997): Groundwater flow and dissolved carbon movement in a boreal peatland. Journal of Hydrology 191, pp. 122 - 138.
WALKER, L.R., WALKER, J., HOBBY, J.R., ANDERSON, B.N. & R.W. HOWARTH (2007): Linking Restoration and Ecological Succession, Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-0387-35302-9, p. 200.
VI References: Literature
81
WALTER, B.P., HEIMANN, M. & E. MATTHEWS (2001): Modelling modern methane emissions from natural wetlands – 1, Model description and results, Journal of Geophysical Research 106, pp. 34189 - 34206.
WEINZIERL, W. (1997): Niedermoore in Baden-Württemberg - Bilanzierung der CO2-Emissionen am Beispiel des Donaurieds. Notification of the German Soil Society 85, pp. 1059 - 1062.
WHITTINGTON, P.N. & S. PRICE (2006): The effects of water table draw-down (as a surrogate for climate change) on the hydrology of fen peatland, Canada, Hydrological Process 20, pp. 3589 - 3600.
WOJAHN, E. (1960): Über die Standortverbesserung flachgründiger sandunterlagerter Niedermoore durch Anlage von Pflugsanddeckkulturen, Z. Landeskultur. 1, pp. 31 - 71.
WRB (2008): World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006 - Ein Rahmen für internationale Klassifikation, Korrelation und Kommunikation; Erstes Update 2007, Deutsche Ausgabe, Published by arrangement with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations by the Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Hannover, p. 148.
VI References: Other Data
82
Other Data
HUB Moorarchiv (1946/2012): Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (publisher); Digital site data from the Randow-Welse-Bruch from the "HU Berlin Moorarchiv"(Checkpoints; Point data), based on data points from "Mittelmaßstäbliche Kartierung" (MMK) 1962 - 1964 (Soil Profiles; polygon and point data). Provider: Mrs. Evelyn Wallor (Okt. 2012).
ELMANN & SCHULZE/IFOEN (1999): Institut für Ökologie und Naturschutz (Greifswald University): Vorbereitung zur Renaturierung Randow Bruch, unpublished report and GIS data from LUA Brandenburg (1999), Potsdam. Editor: S. Haack in collaboration with; M. Rösler, C. Unselt & J. Baumgardt. Provider: J. Thormann (LUGV Brandenburg) (July 2012), p. 69.
LGB (a) (2012): Land survey and geographic information for Brandenburg; Digital topographic data (DTK 1: 25.000) from Uckermark (Projection: UTRM, Ellipsoid: Geodetic reference system from 1980 [GRS80], Creation: 01.01.2003, Updating: 2011). Provided from the "Geobroker" (Oct 2012) by an official order (DVDs). Heinrich-Mann-Allee 103 14473 Potsdam.
LGB (b) (2012): Land survey and geographic information for Brandenburg; Digital terrain model (DTM) from Brandenburg: (1) Classic DTM (Projection: UTRM, Spatial resolution: 10 m, Ellipsoid: Geodetic reference system from 1980 [GRS80], Creation: 01.01.1993, Updating: 15.04.2011), (2) Laser DTM (Projection: UTRM, Spatial resolution: 2 m, Ellipsoid: Geodetic reference system from 1980 [GRS80], Creation: 01.01.2004, Updating: 25.09.2012). Provided from the "Geobroker" (October 2012) by an official order (Download). Heinrich-Mann-Allee 103 14473 Potsdam.
LBGR Brandenburg (2012): State Office for Mining, Geology and Raw Materials for Brandenburg. Department "S 5" for public service (environmental information). Provider: Mr. Dr. Bauriegel (July 2012). Seeburger Chaussee 2, 14476 Potsdam.
LUGV Brandenburg (2002): Schutzkonzeptkarte für Niedermoore Land Brandenburg. Landesamt für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz - Referat Altlasten. Fachinformation Bodenschutz Brandenburg (FIS BOS); Ms Dr. Sabine Hahn (Publisher). Data based on HUBerlin Moorarchiv (1964), MMK (1961 - 64), CIR (biotope types/land use) and SBK (brown moos fens).
MIL Brandenburg (2012): Ministry of infrastructure and agriculture for Brandenburg. Current field block cadastre. Data for own Geographic Informationsystem (GIS). Department 32 - Division: Farming, Gardening, Plant Protection, ecological farming. B. Lantzsch. In the internet: http://www.mil.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.223513.de. Accessed on 01.01.2012.
MUGV Brandenburg (2012): Ministry of health and consumer protection for Brandenburg. Department "S 5" for public service (environmental information). Provided by "FIS BOS" - GIS-data management (Mrs. Beate Lukas) management (Jan 2012). Heinrich-Mann-Allee 103 14473 Potsdam. In the internet: http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.280662.de. Accessed on 01.01.2012.
VII Appendix: Figures
83
VII Appendix
Appendix: Figures
Annex, Fig. 1: Substrate types (and landfill) in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1985) - Pedogenic alteration (SUCCOW et al. 2002: "Fen", "Erdfen" & "Mulm") .........................85
Annex, Fig. 2: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the “Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964” ................................86
Annex, Fig. 3: Regional substrate types in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the „Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964“ ................................87
Annex, Fig. 4: Large sized drainage with plastic pipes at a degraded peatland in the area of Rhinluch (1978) ................................................................................................................88
Annex, Fig. 5: Deep Ploughing of peatland´s areas as a basis for re-seeding in the Recklitzniederung Bad Sülze (1967) ................................................................................88
Annex, Fig. 6: Effect of the complex melioration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1): Deeperoded river banks (from the Welse River) (1972) ..................................................89
Annex, Fig. 7: Effect of the complex melioration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2): Destruction of the shore vegetation in the Subarea III (1972) .......................................................................83
Annex, Fig. 8: Effect of the complex melioration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (3): Ditch at Schönermark (Subarea III) with nutrient-rich water, absorbed from surrounding peat areas (1975) ......91
Annex, Fig. 9: Effect of the complex melioration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (4): Blown-over ditch, caused by the removal of the wind protection plants and trees at the Friedländer Wiesen (1989) ...............................................................................................91
Annex, Fig. 10: Example of control works: A weir in Schönermark (1994) ................................................92
Annex, Fig. 11: Proof for surface heights loss: Exposed fundament of an transformer house (Subarea I) near the Kummerow Sea (1978) ...................................................................96
Annex, Fig. 12: Digital topographic cards (DTK): 1: 25.000 - Basis for additional information ..................97
Annex, Fig. 13: Thickness of peaty soils in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the „Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964“ ................................94
Annex, Fig. 14: Mud thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the „Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964“ ................................95
Annex, Fig. 15: Moisture classes in the Randow-Bruch (2002) .................................................................96
Annex, Fig. 16: Land use and cover in the Randow-Bruch (1999) ............................................................97
Annex, Fig. 17: Management concept for the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1997) ............................................98
VII Appendix: Figures
84
Appendix: Tables
Annex; Tab. 1: Literature study of decreasing peat thicknesses in various search sites ..........................99
Annex; Tab. 2: Historical stages of land use and management strategies in the Randow-Welse-Bruch .........................................................................................................................................100
Annex; Tab. 3: Available data for map presentation: Mapping of topographic, hydrological, herbal and physical peatlands parameters .......................................................................................101
Annex; Tab. 4: Used map numbers for representing the search areas ..................................................102
Annex; Tab. 5: Used sources for setting the borders in the Subarea of the Randow-Welse-Bruch .......102
Annex; Tab. 6: Moisture classes and their abiotic range towards PETERSEN 1952 …………………....102
Annex; Tab. 7: Checkpoints for the evaluation of the peat thickness in 2003 and 2012 ………………...103
Annex; Tab. 8: Derived (annual) groundwater levels for the Randow –Bruch …………………………....104
Annex; Tab. 9: Derived (annual) groundwater levels for the Randow -Welse-Bruch: Rededication to extensive land use ………………………………………………………………………….....104
Annex; Tab. 10: Classified colour ramp for peat thickness ………………………………………………......105
Annex; Tab. 11: Classified colour ramp for surface heights ……………………………………………….....105
Annex; Tab. 12: Classified colour ramp for CO2-Creleases ………………………………………………....106
Annex; Tab. 13: Available data (D) and "Conformal- (C)-/Sectorial - Decreases" (S) data for calculating the peat thickness [dm] in the "Wendemark Area" …………..………………………….....107
Annex; Tab. 14: Peat thickness in comparison to "Checkpoints": "Conformal Decreases" 2003 ……......108
Annex; Tab. 15: Peat thickness in comparison to "Checkpoints": "Sectorial Decreases" 2003 ……….....109
Annex; Tab. 16: Peat thickness in comparison to the checkpoint: "Conformal Decreases" 2012 …….....110
Annex; Tab. 17: Peat thickness in comparison to the checkpoint: "Sectorial Decreases" 2012 ………....110
Annex; Tab. 18: CO2 -C releases of drained peatlands in the temperate climate zone ………………......111
VII Appendix: Figures
85
7.1 Figures
Annex; Fig. 1: Substrate types (and landfill) in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1985) - Pedogenic alteration (SUCCOW et al. 2002: "Fen", "Erdfen" & "Mulm") (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964, LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 161 (reconstruction)& LGB (a)2012)
VII Appendix: Figures
86
Annex; Fig. 2: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the “Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964” (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB(a)2012)
VII Appendix: Figures
87
Annex; Fig.3:Regional substrate types in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the “Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964” (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB(a)2012)
VII Appendix: Figures
88
Annex; Fig.4: Large sized drainage with plastic pipes at a degraded peatland in the area of Rhinluch (1978) (SUCCOW 2001, p. 41)
Annex; Fig.5:Deep ploughing of peatland’s areas as a basis for re-seeding in the Recklitzniederung Bad Sülze (1967) (SUCCOW 2001, p. 31)
VII Appendix: Figures
89
Annex; Fig.6:Effect of the complex melioration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1): Deep eroded river banks (from the Welse River) (1972) (SUCCOW 2011, p. 20)
Annex; Fig.7:Effect of the complex melioration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2): Destruction of the shore vegetation in the Subarea III (1972) (SUCCOW 2011, p. 21)
VII Appendix: Figures
90
Annex; Fig.8:Effect of the complex melioration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (3): Ditch at Schönermark (Subarea III) with nutrient-rich water, absorbed from surrounding peat areas (1975) (SUCCOW 2011, p. 27)
VII Appendix: Figures
91
Annex; Fig.9:Effect of the complex melioration in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (4): Blown-over ditch, caused by the removal of the wind protection plants and trees at the Friedländer Wiesen (1989) (SUCCOW 2011, p. 34)
VII Appendix: Figures
92
Annex; Fig.10:Example of control works: A weir in Schönermark (1994) (SUCCOW 2011, p. 50)
Annex; Fig.11:Proof for surface heights loss: Exposed fundament of a transformer house (Subarea I) near the Kummerow Sea (1978) (SUCCOW 2011, p. 42)
VII Appendix: Figures
93
Annex; Fig.12:Digital topographic cards (DTK): 1:25.000 - Basis for additional information (Data: LGB(a)2012)
VII Appendix: Figures
94
Annex; Fig.13: Thickness of peaty soils in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the „Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964“ (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964; LGB(a) 2012 & KLUGE et al. 2008)
VII Appendix: Figures
95
Annex; Fig.14: Mud thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1964) - Abstraction from the “Institut für Grünland und Moorbodenforschung Paulinenaue 1964” (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964; LGB (a)2012 & KLUGE et al. 2008)
VII Appendix: Figures
96
Annex; Fig.15: Moisture classes in the Randow-Bruch (2002) (Data: Original data; ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002 & LGB (a) 2012)
VII Appendix: Figures
97
Annex; Fig.16: Land use and cover in the Randow-Bruch (1999) (Data: Original data; ELLMANN & SCHULZE2002 & LGB (a) 2012)
VII Appendix: Figures
98
Annex; Fig. 17: Management concept for the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1997) (Data: LGB(a) 2012 & LUGV 2002)
VII Appendix: Tables
99
7.2 Tables
Annex; Tab.1:Literature study of decreasing peat thicknesses in various search sites
No.
Surface heights
loss [cm/year]
Land use GWL [cm] Periods Location Author(s)
1
5,8 Meadow
n.a. 1978 - 1983 Netherlands
(Flevoland, part II) GLOPPER
(1988, p. 495) 3,3 n.a. 1973 - 1977 9,6 n.a. 1969 - 1972
2
6,8
Arable land
600 1976 - 1980
China (Tianjin, No. 433) QINGZHI et al.
(1980, p. 7) 9,6 1000 1967 - 1975 4.4 600 1959 - 1966 0,9 n.a. 1923 - 1958
3
0,9
Arable land
100 1983 - 2004
West Norway (Smola Island)
GRONLUD et al. (2008, p. 162)
4,4 100 1977 - 1982 1,1 100 1965 - 1976 3,9 100 1958 - 1964 4,8 100 1951 - 1957
4
0,5
Meadow
120 1960 - 2000
Great Britain (Holme Post)
WALTHAM (2001, p. 3)
/DAWSON et al. (2009, p. 182)
2,8 140 1930 - 1959 0,8 120 1880 - 1929 8,6 20 - 120 1850 - 1879 0 20 1800 - 1849
5
2,1
Arable land
500 - 600 1981 - 1994
Italy (Pontina Plain)
SERVA et al. (2007, p. 133)
3,2 n.a. 1959 - 1980 5,3 n.a. 1929 - 1958 4,3 n.a. 1901 - 1928 2,4 n.a. 1847 - 1900 2,3 n.a. 1811 - 1846
6
0
Arable land
n.a. 1994 - 2000
Poland JURCZUK 2000, cited by STRACK
(2008, p. 72)
0,3 n.a. 1990 - 1993 1,0 n.a. 1986 - 1989 2,4 n.a. 1983 - 1985 5,0 n.a. 1980 - 1982
7
2,0 Arable land
150 - 200 1980 - 2000 Italy
(Venice Lagoon) GAMBOLATI et al.
(2003,p. 127) 2,3 n.a. 1962 - 1979 3,4 n.a. 1930 - 1961
8
2,5
Lysimeter
120
1968 - 1990 North-east Germany
(Paulinenaue) BEHRENDT et al.
(2004, p. 243)
2,2 100 1,8 - 2,0 90
1,2 70 0,5 50 0,2 30
9
0,8
Meadow
70 - 80 1974 - 1978
Netherlands (Zegvelderbroek)
SCHOTHORST (1977, p. 267)
1,7 60 - 70 1971 - 1973 2,5 20 - 30 1969 - 1970 1,2 10-20 1943 - 1968 0,5 10 -20 1877 - 1942
10
0,5
Arable land
40 - 60 1994 - 1998 Germany
(Upper Rhinluch) SCHINDLER et al.
(2001, p. 652) 0,5 100 1992 - 1993 1,2 n.a. 1991 2,5 n.a. 1989 - 1990
11
0,7
Arable land
110 1977- 2004 Switzerland
(Grosses Moss) LEIFELD
(2011, p. 174) 0,7 n.a. 1963 - 1976 1,7 n.a. 1920 - 1962 1,3 110 - 250 1863 - 1919
12
0,8 Arable land 50 - 100
1970 - 1980 Israel
(Hula Valley) SHOHAM
(1980, p. 4) 1,4 1965 - 1969 1,4 1958 - 1964
12
0,2
Meadow
300 1966 - 1979
U.S.A. (Lake Pontcharatrain)
SNOWDEN (1980, p. 16)
1,1 200 1957 - 1965 1,0 100 1948 - 1657 0,2 30 - 60 1935 - 1947 0,8 30 1924 - 1934
14
0,3
Meadow
50 - 70 2003 - 2010
North-east Germany ("Wendemark Area”)
KLUGE et al. (2008, p. 1080)
0,3 50 - 70 1981 - 2002 1,5 80 - 120 1964 - 1980 0,7 60 - 80 1913 - 1963 0,4 60 - 80 1870 - 1912 0,2 40 - 60 1720 - 1869
VII Appendix: Tables
100
Annex; Tab.2: Historical stages of land use and management strategies in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (Data: GLOATZ 1931, pp. 25, LEHRKAMP1987, pp. 34 & KLUGE et al. 2008, p. 1078)
Peri
od
s
Stages of land use GWL
[cm]
Main
moisture
classes
Usage intensity
Until
1720
Typical forest of alnus glutinosa; at the edges of higher
surfaces land use. 10 - 20
5+
4+
One-cut meadow
1720
- 1730
Randow ditch was build up as a boundary between Prussia
and Swedish Vorpommern. 20- 30
1731
- 1737
First reclamation of the area; expansion of rivers
(for example Randow River) and building of ditches. 20- 30
1745 Further improvements; continue of widening the Randow
River; building of control works. 30
1777
- 1819 Gradual dissolution of the Randow River. n.a.
1864
Foundation of two melioration associations: Many
improvements; creation of two parallel ditches, planting of
moor cultures and river training measures.
30 -40
Two-cut meadow From
1870
Regional improvements; legislative regulation of draining,
building of further control works and ditches. 50 - 60
3+
1903
- 1913 Forming of a regional association; ploughing of the grassland. 50 - 80
1914
- 1929
Simple conservation and enhancement of existing moor
cultures and grassland areas. 50 -60
Two-cut dry
meadow 1945
Flooding of the Randow-Welse-Bruch by the armed forces;
"Area under the state of emergency" (STREMME 1949). 50 - 60
1962
- 1964 Peatland soil mapping for improvement project engineering. 50 - 80
1971
- 1975
Complex improvements; diversion of the rivers Randow and
Welse; dredging of ditches; drainage installed on 5500 ha;
accelerating peat subsidence; no earning increases.
100 -
200
2+/-
Three-cut dry
meadow
1976
- 1989
Declining in earnings; rising the groundwater level; occasional
irrigation. 70 - 120
1990
- 2010
Transition to more environmental grassland use; no
permanent ploughing. 50 - 60 One-cut meadow
VII Appendix: Tables
101
Annex; Tab.3: Available data for map presentation: Mapping of topographic, hydrological, herbal and physical peatlands parameters
N
o.
Data
so
urc
e
Tim
e ±
5 y
r.
Lo
cati
on
Su
rface
heig
hts
Thickness
Wate
r sta
ge
s
Dep
osit
s
Lan
d
use/c
over
Bio
top
e
Peatl
an
d
(Mu
d+
Pe
at)
Peat
Mu
d
(1)
ELLMANN &
SCHULZE
(2002)
2003 RaWe + + n.a. n.a. + n.a. + +
(2)
HUB
Moorarchiv
(1964)
1964 RaWe + + + + + + n.a. n.a.
(3) IFOEN
(1999)
1964 RaWe
+ n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
2003 + + n.a. n.a. + n.a. + +
(4) KLUGE
(2003/2008)
1913
We
+ n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1964 + + + + n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1981 + n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
2003 + + + + n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(5) LBGR
(2003/2012)
2003 RaWe
+ + + + n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
2012 + + + n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(6) LGB (a/b)
(2012)
1993 RaWe
+ n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
2012 + n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. + n.a.
(7) LUGV (2002) 2003 RaWe n.a. + n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. + +
(8) MIL (2012) 2012 RaWe n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. + n.a.
(9) MUGV
(2012)
2003 RaWe
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. + +
2012 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. + +
VII Appendix: Tables
102
Annex; Tab. 4: Used map numbers for representing the search areas
(Data: LGB (a) 2012)
Map numbers
2649 - 2650
2749 - 2751
2849 - 2851
2949 - 2951
Annex; Tab. 5: Used sources for setting the borders in the subareas of the Randow-Welse- Bruch
Subarea LEHRKAMP
(1987)
HU Berlin
Moorarchiv
(1964)
LUGV
Brandenburg
(2002)
MUGV
Brandenburg
(2012)
1 + - + -
2 + + - +
3 + + - -
Annex; Tab. 6:Moisture classes and their abiotic range towards PETERSEN 1952 (Data: KOSKA 2001, p. 143/COUWENBERG et al. 2008, p. 8)
No. Water
stage Characterisation
Range of annual
median of GWL
(0 = soil surface)
[cm]
Annual water
supply deficiency
[l/sq. m]
Min. Max. Min. Max.
(1) 6+ Lower eulittoral + 21 + 140 / /
(2) 5+ Wet/upper eulittoral 0 + 20 / /
(3) 4+ Semi-wet - 20 0 / /
(4) 3+ Humid -45 - 21 / /
(5) 2+ Sub-humid - 80 - 46 / /
(6) 2- Sub-arid / / <60
(7) 3- Arid / / 61 100
(8) 4- Very dry / / 101 140
(9) 5- Droughty / / > 140
VII Appendix: Tables
103
Annex; Tab. 7: Checkpoints for the evaluation of peat thickness in 2003 and 2012 N
o.
X-C
ord
.
Y-C
ord
.
No
tati
on
Pe
at
thic
kn
ess
[dm
]
Th
ick
ness
of
up
per
peat
layer
[dm
]
Yr.
Lan
d u
se
GW
L [
cm
]
So
urc
e
1 3380810,0 5896904,0 628-2011 45,0 23,0 2011 EG 23,0 WALLOR
2012
2 3438638,0 5894532,0 GP 2 13,0 3,7 2011 IG 100,0 WALLOR
2012
3 3439268,0 5894737,0 GP 5 6,0 2,0 2010 GL 106,0 WALLOR
2012
4 3438843,0 5901419,0 S 1 17,5 12,0 2011 GL 55,0 WALLOR
2012
5 3439152,0 5901412,0 S-P2 36,0 17,0 2010 GL 35,0 WALLOR
2012 6 3438749,2 5898243,8 2410161 20,0 3,6 2001 EG n.a. LBGR 2004
7 3438746,2 5894201,4 2410198 16,0 5,5 2001 GL 40,0 LBGR 2004
8 3439617,3 5899774,7 2410199 0,0 0,0 2001 GL 120,0 LBGR 2004
9 3439123,0 5896206,7 2410200 15,0 3,0 2001 GL 60,0 LBGR 2004
10 3440470,5 5888864,6 2410380 8,0 3,0 2004 EG 70,0 LBGR 2004
11 3444269,9 5889404,3 2420254 9,5 2,5 2001 EG 50,0 LBGR 2004
12 3443728,7 5889288,3 2420255 20,0 5,5 2001 EG 50,0 LBGR 2004
13 3439506,0 5899136,0 2420562 16,0 9,5 2003 EG 35,0 LBGR 2004
14 3440085,6 5890755,7 2430135 7,5 3,0 2004 IG 70,0 LBGR 2004
15 3440191,5 5891362,6 2430136 7,5 4,0 2004 IG 70,0 LBGR 2004
16 3449936,0 5886377,0 2410675 20,0 9,0 2011 GL 110 LBGR 2012
17 3444269,9 5889404,3 2410673 20,0 6,0 2001 EG 90 LBGR 2012
18 3440653,61 5892100,46 69 9,3 3,6 2003 EG 55 KLUGE 2012
19 3440793,61 5891085,46 57 4,0 3,8 2003 EG n.a. KLUGE 2012
20 3440139,61 5892742,46 168 18,8 3,4 2003 EG n.a. KLUGE 2012
21 3439112,61 5893005,46 216 12,5 5,9 2003 EG n.a. KLUGE 2012
VII Appendix: Tables
104
Annex; Tab. 8: Derived (annual) groundwater levels for the Randow-Bruch
(Data: ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002 & LGB (a)2012)
Adaption from "Land use and cover in the Randow-Bruch (2002)"
[ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002/LBG 2011]
Rededication to
more
environmental
use
No. Layer Classification
Own groundwater classification
[2013] Number of soil
samples
in 100m grid
Number of soil
samples
in 100m grid GWL [cm]
GWL for
classification in
derivations [cm]
1 Arable land/Forest > 90 - 120 100
884 971
2 Dry slope 87
3 Intensive grassland
> 60 - 90
70 1544
2083
4 Intensive/extensive grassland
5 Intensive grassland (?)
6 W 1/W2/W3
(Water retention measures) 70 539
7 Extensive grassland
> 40 - 60 50 832
2357
8 Extensive/intensive grassland
9 Extensive grassland
(with extension areas)
10 Extensive grassland (?)
11
Groundwater points (HUB/LBGR/LUGV & KLUGE
2010 - 2012 > 30 - 130 22
12 Remaining soil samples > 40 - 50 40 1503 1503
Total (pcs.) 5411
Annex; Tab. 9: Derived (annual) groundwater levels for the Randow-Welse-Bruch: Rededication to extensive land use (Data: ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002 & LGB (a)2012)
Adaption from "Land use and cover in the Randow-Bruch (2002)"
[ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002/LBG 2011]
Rededication to more environmental
use (30 % more extensive land use)
Land use GWL [cm] Total number of soil samples in 100m grid Change of land
use
Extensive grassland > 30 - 60 2357 3169 Extensive
grassland
(55 cm = 1420
points) Intensive grassland > 60 - 90 2083 1562
Arable land > 90 971 680
Intensive
grassland
(75 cm = 291
points)
Total 5411
VII Appendix: Tables
105
Annex; Tab. 10:Classified colour ramp for peat thickness
Classes/Values [dm] Colour Names (from ESRIs Colours Palette)
with CMKY values
0 3 Medium Coral Light
0-50-50-0
4 6 Indicolite Green
25-0-9-0
Medium Sand 4-21-52-0
7 17 Medium Sand
4-21-52-0
Fir Green 85-55-100-0
18 22 Fir Green
85-55-100-0
Electron Gold 0-33-100-0
23 27 Electron Gold
0-33-100-0
Dark Umber 55-100-100-0
28 33 Dark Umber
55-100-100-0
Cherrywood Brown 55-85-100-0
34 42 Cherrywood Brown
55-85-100-0
Grey 30 % 0-0-0-30
43 51 Grey 30 % 0-0-0-30
Arctic White
0-0-0-0
Annex; Tab. 11:Classified colour ramp for surface heights
Values [AMSL/m] Colour Names (from ESRIs Colours Palette)
with CMKY values
1 3 Poinsettia Red 10-100-100-0
Fire Red
0-67-100-0
3 6,5 Fire Red
0-67-100-0
Citroen Yellow 10-10-100-0
6,5 7,5 Citroen Yellow 10-10-100-0
Citroen Yellow 10-10-100-0
7,5 8,25 Citroen Yellow 10-10-100-0
Lemongrass
18-0-55-0
8,25 8 Lemongrass
18-0-55-0
Macaw Green 10-10-100-0
8 8,75 Macaw Green 10-10-100-0
Olivenite Green
34-34-100-0
8,75 9,75 Olivenite Green
34-34-100-0
Leaf Green 78-34-100-0
9,75 10 Leaf Green 78-34-100-0
Peacock Green
100-55-70-0
10 11 Peacock Green
100-55-70-0
Big Sky Blue 100-23-0-0
11 12,25 Big Sky Blue 100-23-0-0
Dark Navy
100-85-55-0
12,25 12,75 Dark Navy
100-85-55-0
Fushia Pink 0-55-13-0
12,75 15 Fushia Pink 0-55-13-0
Purple Heart 55-100-70-0
15 25 Purple Heart 55-100-70-0
Grey 50% 0-0-0-39
25 > 50 Grey 50% 0-0-0-39
Black
0-0-0-100
VII Appendix: Tables
106
Annex; Tab. 12:Classified colour ramp for CO2-Creleases
CO2-C release [kg C ha
-1 yr.
-1]
Colour Names (from ESRIs Colours Palette) with CMKY values
> 2000 Poinsettia Red 10-100-100-0
2000 2500 Solar Yellow
0-0-100-0
2600 3000 Electron Gold
0-33-100-0
3100 3500 Tzavorite Green
17-0-25-0
3600 4000 Lemongrass
18-0-55-0
4100 4500 Leaf Green 78-34-100-0
4600 5000 Sodalite Blue
25-9-0-0
5100 5500 Big Sky Blue 100-23-0-0
5600 6000 Lapis Lazuli 100-64-10-0
6100 6500 Ginger Pink 0-100-23-0
6600 7000 Dark Amethyst
48-100-34-0
7100 7500 Dark Umber
55-100-100-0
VII Appendix: Tables
107
Annex; Tab. 13:Available data (D) and "Conformal- (C)-/Sectorial - Decrease" (S) data for calculating the peat thickness [dm] in the "Wendemark Area”
No. X-Value Y-Value 1964 (D)
2003 (D)
2012 (C)
2012 (S)
2060 (C)
2060 (S)
1 3440438,61 5890938 5,0 3,6 3,3 3,0 1,9 0,0 2 3440529,61 5890970 3,0 4,7 4,4 4,1 3,0 1,2 3 3440623,61 5891004 18,0 12,2 11,9 10,9 10,5 7,0 4 3440714,61 5891040 13,0 8,6 8,3 7,8 6,9 4,9 5 3440682,61 5891127 9,0 2,7 2,4 2,1 1,0 0,0 6 3440580,61 5891099 10,0 6,2 5,9 5,6 4,5 2,7 7 3440490,61 5891069 23,0 20,9 20,6 19,6 19,2 15,6 8 3440395,61 5891027 6,0 4,6 4,3 4,0 2,9 1,1 9 3440352,61 5891123 5,0 2,8 2,5 2,2 1,1 0,0 10 3440445,61 5891161 7,0 4,9 4,6 4,3 3,2 1,4 11 3440541,61 5891190 19,0 10,1 9,8 9,3 8,4 5,4 12 3440646,61 5891222 6,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 13 3440592,61 5891312 9,0 4,3 4,0 3,7 2,6 0,0 14 3440496,61 5891284 12,0 11,0 10,7 10,2 9,3 6,3 15 3440404,61 5891245 7,0 6,2 5,9 5,6 4,5 2,7 16 3440307,61 5891219 7,0 4,5 4,2 3,9 2,8 0,0 17 3440256,61 5891333 8,0 3,8 3,5 3,2 2,1 0,0 18 3440371,61 5891347 9,0 5,2 4,9 4,6 3,5 1,7 19 3440469,61 5891381 8,0 5,8 5,5 5,2 4,1 2,3 20 3440558,61 5891412 8,0 7,2 6,9 6,6 5,5 3,7 21 3440203,61 5891389 9,0 7,0 6,7 6,4 5,3 3,5 22 3440289,61 5891423 10,0 3,9 3,6 3,3 2,2 0,0 23 3440380,61 5891462 10,0 5,8 5,5 5,2 4,1 2,3 24 3440465,61 5891489 8,0 5,8 5,5 5,2 4,1 2,3 25 3440563,61 5891522 10,0 7,0 6,7 6,4 5,3 3,5 26 3440533,61 5891622 9,0 7,5 7,2 6,9 5,8 4,0 27 3440438,61 5891583 10,0 8,8 8,5 8,0 7,1 4,1 28 3440343,61 5891551 9,0 6,9 6,6 6,3 5,2 3,4 29 3440256,61 5891470 10,0 7,3 7,0 6,7 5,6 3,8 30 3440159,61 5891475 10,0 7,3 7,0 6,7 5,6 3,8 31 3440133,61 5891566 12,0 9,8 9,5 9,0 8,1 5,1 32 3440212,61 5891606 10,0 6,4 6,1 5,8 4,7 2,9 33 3440314,61 5891646 10,0 6,9 6,6 6,3 5,2 3,4 34 3440403,61 5891681 13,0 9,2 8,9 8,4 7,5 4,5 35 3440526,61 5891717 18,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 36 3440449,61 5891798 10,0 7,9 7,6 7,3 6,2 4,4 37 3440359,61 5891762 18,0 13,0 12,7 11,7 11,3 7,8 38 3440264,61 5891728 12,0 7,3 7,0 6,7 5,6 3,8 39 3440172,61 5891694 12,0 9,7 9,4 8,9 8,0 5,0 40 3440075,61 5891662 9,0 6,6 6,3 6,0 4,9 3,1 41 3440053,61 5891752 10,0 7,6 7,3 7,0 5,9 4,1 42 3440138,61 5891787 12,0 7,6 7,3 7,0 5,9 4,1 43 3440237,61 5891825 11,5 9,1 8,8 8,3 7,4 4,4 44 3440328,61 5891856 11,0 9,2 8,9 8,4 7,5 4,5 45 3440420,61 5891893 15,0 8,6 8,3 7,8 6,9 4,9 46 3440398,61 5891967 15,0 8,1 7,8 7,3 6,4 4,4 47 3440479,61 5892025 14,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 48 3440516,61 5891928 11,0 9,7 9,4 8,9 8,0 5,0 49 3440548,61 5891832 12,0 7,8 7,5 7,2 6,1 4,3 50 3440581,61 5891737 9,0 7,8 7,5 7,2 6,1 4,3 51 3440618,61 5891647 9,0 5,3 5,0 4,7 3,6 1,8 52 3440646,61 5891544 9,0 6,4 6,1 5,8 4,7 2,9 53 3440684,61 5891453 9,0 6,1 5,8 5,5 4,4 2,6 54 3440719,61 5891360 8,0 5,3 5,0 4,7 3,6 1,8 55 3440752,61 5891266 9,0 4,8 4,5 4,2 3,1 1,3 56 3440787,61 5891174 8,0 4,6 4,3 4,0 2,9 1,1 57 3440815,61 5891075 8,0 8,0 7,7 7,2 6,3 4,3 58 3440915,61 5891104 6,0 4,7 4,4 4,1 3,0 1,2 59 3440889,61 5891207 8,0 6,8 6,5 6,2 5,1 3,3 60 3440846,61 5891297 10,0 5,1 4,8 4,5 3,4 1,6 61 3440821,61 5891392 8,0 6,6 6,3 6,0 4,9 3,1 62 3440784,61 5891483 10,0 7,6 7,3 7,0 5,9 4,1 63 3440752,61 5891580 9,0 6,8 6,5 6,2 5,1 3,3 64 3440716,61 5891674 9,0 6,5 6,2 5,9 4,8 3,0 65 3440682,61 5891766 9,0 7,2 6,9 6,6 5,5 3,7 66 3440649,61 5891863 15,0 12,2 11,9 10,9 10,5 7,0 67 3440617,61 5891953 14,0 8,8 8,5 8,0 7,1 4,1 68 3440578,61 5892060 16,0 9,9 9,6 9,1 8,2 5,2 69 3440675,61 5892090 14,0 9,1 8,8 8,3 7,4 4,4 70 3440701,61 5891990 15,0 10,9 10,6 10,1 9,2 6,2 71 3440739,61 5891901 14,0 8,5 8,2 7,7 6,8 4,8 72 3440770,61 5891805 15,0 7,0 6,7 6,4 5,3 3,5 73 3440806,61 5891717 13,0 8,7 8,4 7,9 7,0 5,0 74 3440836,61 5891623 10,0 8,0 7,7 7,2 6,3 4,3 75 3440877,61 5891522 10,0 7,6 7,3 7,0 5,9 4,1 76 3440907,61 5891430 13,0 8,5 8,2 7,7 6,8 4,8 77 3440947,61 5891328 12,0 5,9 5,6 5,3 4,2 2,4 78 3440980,61 5891238 8,0 5,4 5,1 4,8 3,7 1,9 79 3441007,61 5891139 8,0 5,0 4,7 4,4 3,3 1,5 80 3441091,61 5891165 9,0 8,1 7,8 7,3 6,4 4,4 81 3441078,61 5891262 5,0 8,2 7,9 7,4 6,5 4,5 82 3441037,61 5891356 8,0 6,5 6,2 5,9 4,8 3,0 83 3440989,61 5891442 9,0 5,2 4,9 4,6 3,5 1,7
VII Appendix: Tables
108
Annex; Tab.14:Peat thickness in comparison to checkpoints: "Conformal Decrease" 2003
No. Profile Year of
scenario
Peat thickness
[dm] Difference [dm] Standard
deviation
Source of
checkpointMap Checkpoint
1 19
2003
4 8 4 2,83
ELLMANN &
SCHULZE 2002
2 48 7,5 29 21,5 15,20
3 69 2,5 3 0,5 0,35
4 77 5 7 2 1,41
5 83 20 20 0 0,00
6 84 7,5 6 -1,5 1,06
7 113 15 31 16 11,31
8 123 15 15 0 0,00
9 146 20 20 0 0,00
10 184 5,5 8 2,5 1,77
11 187 15 42 27 19,09
12 192 5,5 4 -1,5 1,06
13 220 20 28 8 5,66
14 239 15 50 35 24,75
15 248 19 34 15 10,61
16 252 9 9 0 0,00
17 286 10 18 8 5,66
18 327 20 50 30 21,21
19 396 5,5 5 -0,5 0,35
20 453 5,5 1 -4,5 3,18
21 544 20 7 -13 9,19
22 547 10 10 0 0,00
23 583 15 10 -5 3,54
24 623 20 20 0 0,00
25 654 10 37 27 19,09
26 666 5,5 15 9,5 6,72
27 69 9,3 10 0,7 0,49 KLUGE
2003 (TUB)
28 57 4 4 0 0,00
29 168 18,8 14 -4,8 3,39
30 216 12,5 15 2,5 1,77
31 2410161 20 20 0 0,00
LBGR 2004
32 2410198 16 17 1 0,71
33 2410199 0 30 30 21,21
33 2410200 15 15 0 0,00
35 2410380 8 8 0 0,00
36 2420254 9 9 0 0,00
37 2420255 20 18 -2 1,41
38 2420562 16 31 15 10,61
39 2430135 7,5 8 0,5 0,35
40 2430136 7,5 7 -0,5 0,35
Mean: 5,56 5,11
VII Appendix: Tables
109
Annex; Tab. 15:Peat thickness in comparison to checkpoints: "Sectorial Decrease" 2003
No. Profile Year of
scenario
Peat thickness
[dm] Difference [dm] Standard
deviation
Source of
checkpointMap Checkpoint
1 19
2003
4 7 3 2,12
ELLMANN &
SCHULZE 2002
2 48 7,5 33 25,5 18,03
3 69 2,5 3 0,5 0,35
4 77 5 7 2 1,41
5 83 20 18 -2 1,41
6 84 7,5 7 -0,5 0,35
7 113 15 22 7 4,95
8 123 15 14 -1 0,71
9 146 20 20 0 0,00
10 184 5,5 7 1,5 1,06
11 187 15 38 23 16,26
12 192 5,5 3 -2,5 1,77
13 220 20 24 4 2,83
14 239 15 50 35 24,75
15 248 19 30 11 7,78
16 252 9 9 0 0,00
17 286 10 13 3 2,12
18 327 20 50 30 21,21
19 396 5,5 10 4,5 3,18
20 453 5,5 3 -2,5 1,77
21 544 20 7 -13 9,19
22 547 10 18 8 5,66
23 583 15 11 -4 2,83
24 623 20 20 0 0,00
25 654 10 31 21 14,85
26 666 5,5 13 7,5 5,30
27 69 9,3 9 -0,3 0,21 KLUGE
2003 (TUB)
28 57 4 5 1 0,71
29 168 18,8 14 -4,8 3,39
30 216 12,5 13 0,5 0,35
31 2410161 20 20 0 0,00
LBGR 2004
32 2410198 16 15 -1 0,71
33 2410199 0 30 30 21,21
33 2410200 15 15 0 0,00
35 2410380 8 8 0 0,00
36 2420254 9 7 -2 1,41
37 2420255 20 14 -6 4,24
38 2420562 16 28 12 8,49
39 2430135 7,5 8 0,5 0,35
40 2430136 7,5 7 -0,5 0,35
Mean: 4,76 4,78
VII Appendix: Tables
110
Annex; Tab. 16:Peat thickness in comparison to checkpoints: "Conformal Decrease" 2012
No. Profile Year of
scenario
Peat thickness [dm] Difference [dm] Standard Source of checkpointMap Checkpoint deviation
1 GP 2
2012
13 17 4 2,83 WALLOR
2012 (HUB)
2 GP 5 6 5 -1 0,71
3 S 1 17,5 18 0,5 0,35
4 S-P2 36 39 3 2,12
5 2410675 20 13 -7 4,95 LBGR 2012 6 2410673 20 10 -10 7,07
Mean: -1,75 3,01
Annex; Tab. 17:Peat thickness in comparison to checkpoints: "Sectorial Decrease" 2012
No. Profile Year of
scenario
Peat thickness [dm] Difference [dm] Standard Source of checkpointMap Checkpoint deviation
1 GP 2
2012
13 13 0 0,00 WALLOR
2012 (HUB)
2 GP 5 6 5 -1 0,71
3 S 1 17,5 17 -0,5 0,35
4 S-P2 36 37 1 0,71
5 2410675 20 9 -11 7,78 LBGR 2012 6 2410673 20 9 -11 7,78
Mean: -3,75 2,89
VII Appendix: Tables
111
Annex; Tab.18:CO2-C releases of drained peatlands in the temperate climate zone (STRACK 2008, p. 78)
Situation Intensity Groundwater level
[cm]
CO2-Release [t C ha-1
a-1
] Typical height loss [cm a
-1]
Authors Total value
Min. Max.
Arable area
Poland Fertilized 70 - 90 11,2 n.a. n.a. 1,7 OKRUSZKO (1989), HÖPER (2002)
Northern Germany Chalk meadow, fertilized 80 - 100 13,5 10,6 16,5 1,6 - 2,5 EGGELSMANN & BARTELS (1975), HÖPER (2002)
Southern Germany Fertilized Drained 8,25 6,6 9,9 1,0 - 1,5 SCHUCH (1977), HÖPER (2002)
Southern Sweden Grain Drained 9,9 6,6 13,2 1,0 - 2,0 KLASIMIR-KLEDTSSON (1907) (a)/(b)
Southern Sweden Root crops Drained 16,5 13,2 19,8 2,0 - 3,0 KLASIMIR-KLEDTSSON (1907) (a)/(b)
Median 11,2 (9,9 - 13,2)
Grassland
Northern Germany Lysimeter (unfertilized) 90 - 120 5,2 3,7 6,7 n.a. MUNDEL (1976)
Poland Fertilized 50 - 70 8,6 n.a. n.a. 1,3 OKRUSZKO (1989), HÖPER (2002)
Poland n.a. n.a. 3,8 2,7 4,9 0,4 - 0,7 CZAPLAK & DEMBREK (2000)
Northern Germany n.a. Drained 6,6 n.a. n.a. 1,0 LORENZ et al. (1992)
Southern Germany Fertilized 100 - 200 4,6 n.a. n.a. 0,7 WEINZIERL (1997), HÖPER (2002)
Netherlands Fertilized 70 - 100 4,2 3,8 4,6 0,6 - 0,7 SCHOTHORST (1976), HÖPER (2002)
Netherlands n.a. Drained 8,25 n.a. n.a. 0,5 - 2,0 KLASIMIR-KLEDTSSON (1907) (a)/(b)
Southern Sweden Greenfield Drained 6,6 n.a. n.a. 1,0 KLASIMIR-KLEDTSSON (1907) (a)/(b)
Median 4,600 (3,7 - 6,6)
Extensive grassland
Northern Germany Lysimeter (unfertilized) 30 3,4 2,9 3,9 n.a. MUNDEL (1976)
Northern Germany Lysimeter (unfertilized) 60 4,8 4,0 5,6 n.a. MUNDEL (1976)
Northern Germany Unfertilized, rehydrated 30 4,3 3,8 4,8 n.a. MEYER (1998)
Northern Germany Unfertilized 50 4,1 n.a. n.a. n.a. MEYER (1998)
Median 4,0 (3,85 - 4,45)
VII Rehabilitation Measures
117
7.3 Rehabilitation Measures
This chapter gives additional information about some possibilities for rehabilitation and
restoration in peatlands. The aims of rehabilitation and restoration are to reverse the trend of
degradation by a partial and selective rehabilitation and/or a complete restoration of the
original structure and function of the peatland (BRADSHAW 1990, DOBSON et al. 1997,
VANHA-MAJAMAA et al. 2007, cited by HAAPALETHO et al. 2011, p. 588).
Some rehabilitation and restoration measures were in the past applied for small peatland
areas in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (for example the "Peene" area with 1.900 ha), but further
research and ideas are need for successfully reducing the peat loss (cf. KANTER & HENNIG
2005, p. 3).
The rehabilitation and restoration measures should include the following sustainable
development objectives (HUTTER et al. 1997, p. 111):
1) Protection of all still existing natural and semi-natural habitats,
2) Protection of the remaining peat soils against degradation and decomposition,
3) Involvement of the local peatland’s animal and plant populations,
4) Regeneration of changed and/or disturbed peat areas,
5) Integration of human and peatland.
Rewetting
Some researchers showed that peatlands can be rewetted by blocking existing drainage
ditches to increase the groundwater level. This results in minimized water-fluctuations and
increases the water-storage capacity by immediately raising the water-table (HAAPALEHTO
et al. 2011, p. 592). Besides this, open-water-reservoirs are a further option that will improve
the hydrological regime of adjacent peat soils (EGGELSMANN 1988, BLANKENBURG &
SCHÄFER 1992, INOUE et al. 1992, MEADE 1992, SOUWENAARS 1992, VASANDER et
al. 1992, MAWBY 1995, cited from LaROSE et al. 1997, p. 417).
Open-water-reservoirs can be applied in outer edge areas with very shallow peat layers or
peaty soils below 30cm, classified as "No Fen" (cf. fig. 20 & 21). Conflicts with local farmers
have to be expected, because their areas are converted for conservation purposes and they
are as a result losing some yields.
One solution would be a re-using of the open-water-reservoirs for carp and duck farming.
Many carp and duck farms closed as a result from lower groundwater tables through the
1970s complex melioration (STORNOWSKI 2012, p. 16).
VII Rehabilitation Measures
118
Open-water-reservoirs should be applied in combination with other ecological measures like
damming, revitalisation of original river charts, setting low wires and filling ditches with peat
at selected locations (GROOTJANS et al. 2002, HOLDEN & BURT 2002, cited by
HAAPALETHO et al. 2011, p. 592).
Annex; Fig. 18: Example for rewetting: Over flooded former grassland in the area of Großer Landgraben (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) 2009 (SUCCOW 2011, p. 58)
After improving the hydrological conditions in the Randow-Welse-Bruch, a next step could be
an initial functional restoration for shallow peat layers. A key is the re-establishing of
Sphagnum mosses to slowly restore degraded peat layers (LaROSE et al. 1997, p. 421).
Due to the growth of Sphagnum peat, can slowly be accumulated. The colonization of
Sphagnum is facilitated by covering the peat surface with native Sphagnum species. But in
most cases, the generalist mosses can survive the drainage phase. However, a restored
peatland should still have a composition of plant species out of mosses and vascular
vegetation (HAAPALETHO et al. 2011, p. 595).
Farmers have to weigh up between peatland conservation/rehabilitation and
practicality/provability. A study from VOS et al. (2010) quantified the costs of raising the
groundwater level. The raising could cause a decrease in gross grass yields and a reduction
in grass quality. This may lead to higher costs, referring to a freeboard (summer-GWL) of
60cm below the surface. Raising the freeboard increases the mean coasts of 89Euro/ha/yr.
for a freeboard of 50cm to, 170Euro/ha/yr. for a freeboard of 40cm and 239Euro/ha/yr, for a
VII Rehabilitation Measures
119
freeboard of 30cm (VOS et al. 2010, p. 1895). Further research here is needed, because one
continuous area of 40ha was generalized with only four classes on a regional-scale without
looking for the soil physics.
Deep-Plow-Sand-Covering
A completely different principle of a peatland restoration is the Deep-Plow-Sand-Covering
(DPSC). That is a possibility for a long-term soil fertility stabilisation of degraded shallow peat
layers with underlying sand layers (WOJANH 1960, LORENZ & WIELAND 1983,
SCHINDLER et al. 1989, cited by SCHINDLER & MÜLLER 2001, p. 648). A Shallow sand-
underlying peat site in the Upper Rhinluch (Brandenburg) was ploughed to a maximum of
2 m in a way that the soil layers sand, peat and mud were shifted between 130° and 150°.
25 - 30 cm sand layers were ploughed as deposits from the underground to the surface (fig.
41 & 42) (SCHINDLER & MÜLLER 2001, 648).
Annex; Fig. 19: Soil conditions before and after Deep-Plow-Sand-Covering (SCHINDLER & MÜLLER 2001, 649)
The area was compared to a reference area that had not been ploughed. The surface
heights decreased about 10 cm after 10 years (cf. tab. 22, No. 10). This difference could be a
result of subsidence processes with slowly increasing mineralization rates. Nevertheless,
hydrological properties of the DPSC-area were improved, such as an increase of the
(saturated) hydraulic conductivity and the capillary rise. The capillary water transport
occurred mainly in the sand (SCHINDLER et al. 1994, cited from SCHINDLER & MÜLLER
2001, p. 650).
VII Rehabilitation Measures
120
In addition, the covering sand can be combined with a thin clay layer for minimizing the peat
subsidence in a most effective way (AKKER et al. 2008, p. 4, BRÜNE 1952, p. 30).
The ploughed site has today, a constant hydrological regime over the whole year. There are
no restrictions for intensive land use (GWL: 70 - 100 cm). SCHINDLER & MÜLLER (2001)
suggest handling immediately with the DPSC-method to prevent further irreparable peat
decreases (SCHINDLER & MÜLLER 2001, p. 450). The DPSC-method can also be applied
to the Randow-Welse-Bruch, because huge sand layers cover non-aerated peat layers, too
(LEHRKAMP 1987, p. 23).
Conservation versus Economy
The advantage of the DPSC-method for farmers would be a possible fertilization of their
shallow peat-areas, but the peat thickness has to be sampled at least in 100m grids before
ploughing.
The DPSC-method presents a strong impacting principle that may damage the peat body
irreversibly and cause a complete area loss, if applied at the wrong sites in the Randow-
Welse-Bruch (for example underestimated shallow peat layers).
Farmers and local institutions have to weigh up, if the peat subsidence should on the one
hand, minimize indirectly with raising up the groundwater level, or on the other hand directly
with ploughing and mixing up peat- and sand layers.
Completely new strategies have to be found. Gentle, sustainable tourism and education for
visitors (for example moor cultures) in the Randow-Welse-Bruch can compensate the
financial costs for applying some of the mentioned rehabilitation measures.
Nevertheless, an investigation should precede before applying any measures to avoid land
use conflicts (cf. chapter 4 from JOOSTEN & CLARKE 2002, p. 101). Regional
environmental institutions should help local farmers with technical and financial support.
Therefore, further research, like that of LUGV (2002) on a detailed large-scale, is needed (cf.
annex 15).
VIII Declaration
117
VIII Declaration
I hereby confirm that I have written the present thesis independently and without illicit
assistance from third parties and using solely the aids mentioned.
Place/Date/Signature