forecasting the peat subsidence of drained organic soils ... · forecasting the peat subsidence of...

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

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



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


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).


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


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


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).


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


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).


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.


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


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


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


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.


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)


35

Figure 12: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003)- "Conformal Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 & LGB (a) 2012)


36



37



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


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.


40

Figure 15: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003)- "Sectorial Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964 &LGB (a) 2012)


41

Figure 16: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2012)- "Sectorial Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964, KLUGE 2008&LGB (a) 2012)


42

Figure 17: Peat thickness in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2060 (a))- "Sectorial Decrease" (Data: HU Berlin Moorarchiv 1964, KLUGE 2008& LGB (a) 2012)


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)


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).


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.


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


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 /


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).


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.


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.


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)


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,


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).


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).


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).


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).


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).


58

Figure 23:Surface heights (AMSL/m) in "Wendemark Area” (1913 - 2012) (Data LGB (b) 2012& KLUGE et al. 2008)


59

Figure 24:Surface heights in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (1993) (Data: LGB (a)/(b) 2012)


60

Figure 25:Surface heights in the Randow-Welse-Bruch (2003) (Data: LGB (a)/(b) 2012)


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).


62

Figure 26: Derived (annual) groundwater levels in the Randow-Bruch(2012) (Data: ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002 &LGB (a) 2012)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


93

Annex; Fig.12:Digital topographic cards (DTK): 1:25.000 - Basis for additional information (Data: LGB(a)2012)


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)


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)


96

Annex; Fig.15: Moisture classes in the Randow-Bruch (2002) (Data: Original data; ELLMANN & SCHULZE 2002 & LGB (a) 2012)


97

Annex; Fig.16: Land use and cover in the Randow-Bruch (1999) (Data: Original data; ELLMANN & SCHULZE2002 & LGB (a) 2012)


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


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


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. + +


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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).


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

forecasting the peat subsidence of drained organic soils ... · forecasting the peat subsidence of...

Documents