Greenhouse gas and energy fluxes in a boreal peatland forest after clear-cutting

The most common forest management method in Fennoscandia is rotation forestry, including clear-cutting and forest regeneration. In clear-cutting, stem wood is removed and the logging residues are either removed or left on site. Clear-cutting changes the microclimate and vegetation structure at the site, both of which affect the site's carbon balance. Peat soils with poor aeration and high carbon densities are especially prone to such changes, and significant changes in greenhouse gas exchange can be expected. We measured carbon dioxide (CO2) and energy fluxes with the eddy covariance method for 2 years (April 2016-March 2018) after clear-cutting a drained peatland forest. We observed a significant rise (23 cm) in the water table level and a large CO2 source (first year: 3086 +/- 148 g CO2 m(-2) yr(-1); second year: 2072 +/- 124 g CO2 m(-2) yr(-1)). These large CO2 emissions resulted from the very low gross primary production (GPP) following the removal of photosynthesizing trees and the decline of ground vegetation, unable to compensate for the decomposition of logging residues and peat. During the second summer (June-August) after the clear-cutting, GPP had already increased by 96% and total ecosystem respiration decreased by 14% from the previous summer. The mean daytime ratio of sensible to latent heat flux decreased after harvesting from 2.6 in May 2016 to 1.0 in August 2016, and in 2017 it varied mostly within 0.6-1.0. In April-September, the mean daytime sensible heat flux was 33% lower and latent heat flux 40% higher in 2017, probably due to the recovery of ground vegetation that increased evapotranspiration and albedo of the site. In addition to CO2 and energy fluxes, we measured methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes with manual chambers. After the clear-cutting, the site turned from a small CH4 sink into a small source and from N2O neutral to a significant N2O source. Compared to the large CO2 emissions, the 100-year global warming potential (GWP100) of the CH4 emissions was negligible. Also, the GWP100 due to increased N2O emissions was less than 10% of that of the CO2 emission change.Peer reviewe