View in EDS

Unraveling the factors influencing CO2 emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs in karst and non-karst regions: A comparative analysis.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Unraveling the factors influencing CO2 emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs in karst and non-karst regions: A comparative analysis.
Authors: Wang, Wanfa1,2 (AUTHOR), Li, Si-Liang1,3 (AUTHOR) siliang.li@tju.edu.cn, Zhong, Jun3 (AUTHOR), Yi, Yuanbi4 (AUTHOR), Yue, Fujun3 (AUTHOR), Han, Zenglei5 (AUTHOR), Wu, Qixin1,2 (AUTHOR), He, Ding4 (AUTHOR), Liu, Cong-Qiang3 (AUTHOR)
Source: Water Research. Jan2024, Vol. 248, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Subjects: Carbon emissions, Karst, Geologic hot spots, Carbonate minerals, Water chemistry, Cap rock, Partial pressure, Water salinization
Geographic Terms: China
Abstract: • Carbon transport and transformation varies in two reservoirs with different geological settings. • Karst reservoirs exhibit a higher Revelle factor (RF) and low CO 2 emissions. • Attention should be paid to the high CO 2 emission effect of non-karst reservoirs. • Consider geological settings when estimating the global budget for reservoir CO 2 emissions. Carbon migration, transformation, and emissions as CO 2 in reservoir and lake systems have been extensively studied. However, uncertainties persist regarding carbon cycling variations in both karst and non-karst regions within large thermal stratified river-reservoir systems. To address this knowledge gap, we combined measurements of water chemistry, isotopic compositions (δ13C), partial pressure of CO 2 (p CO 2), and CO 2 fluxes (F CO2) to elucidate the differences, control mechanisms, and environmental effects of various carbon biogeochemical processes in the Hongjiadu reservoir (HJD, karst reservoir) and Shangyoujiang reservoir (SYJ, non-karst reservoir), Yangtze River basin, China. Our results demonstrate that key biogeochemical processes are associated with CO 2 production and emissions. The stronger biological carbon pump (BCP) effect in the lentic area of the HJD reservoir limited CO 2 emission (0.9 ± 5.0 mmol m−2 d−1) compared to the SYJ reservoir (50.9 ± 33.4 mmol m−2 d−1), leading to low dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and high saturation state of carbonate minerals in the lentic epilimnion. Although the released water from both reservoirs acted as hotspots for CO 2 emissions, the results of higher Revelle factor (RF) in the HJD reservoir than SYJ reservoir suggest the greater buffer capacity and lower sensitivity of OC degradation changes in DIC. Despite the shorter hydraulic retention time (HRT) of SYJ reservoir (120 d) compared to HJD reservoir (368 d), F CO2 was 3.5 times higher than that of the HJD reservoir (652.9 mmol m−2 d−1). Moreover, upon analyzing selected reservoirs worldwide, it becomes apparent that karst reservoirs demonstrate a reduced potential for CO 2 emissions. Our results indicate that the impact of varying geologic settings should be considered to minimize errors in regional and global CO 2 emission estimates. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Water Research is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 173968809
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Unraveling the factors influencing CO2 emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs in karst and non-karst regions: A comparative analysis.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wang%2C+Wanfa%22">Wang, Wanfa</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li%2C+Si-Liang%22">Li, Si-Liang</searchLink><relatesTo>1,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> siliang.li@tju.edu.cn</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhong%2C+Jun%22">Zhong, Jun</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yi%2C+Yuanbi%22">Yi, Yuanbi</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yue%2C+Fujun%22">Yue, Fujun</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Han%2C+Zenglei%22">Han, Zenglei</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wu%2C+Qixin%22">Wu, Qixin</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22He%2C+Ding%22">He, Ding</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Liu%2C+Cong-Qiang%22">Liu, Cong-Qiang</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Water+Research%22">Water Research</searchLink>. Jan2024, Vol. 248, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Carbon+emissions%22">Carbon emissions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Karst%22">Karst</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geologic+hot+spots%22">Geologic hot spots</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Carbonate+minerals%22">Carbonate minerals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Water+chemistry%22">Water chemistry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cap+rock%22">Cap rock</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partial+pressure%22">Partial pressure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Water+salinization%22">Water salinization</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectGeographic
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: • Carbon transport and transformation varies in two reservoirs with different geological settings. • Karst reservoirs exhibit a higher Revelle factor (RF) and low CO 2 emissions. • Attention should be paid to the high CO 2 emission effect of non-karst reservoirs. • Consider geological settings when estimating the global budget for reservoir CO 2 emissions. Carbon migration, transformation, and emissions as CO 2 in reservoir and lake systems have been extensively studied. However, uncertainties persist regarding carbon cycling variations in both karst and non-karst regions within large thermal stratified river-reservoir systems. To address this knowledge gap, we combined measurements of water chemistry, isotopic compositions (δ13C), partial pressure of CO 2 (p CO 2), and CO 2 fluxes (F CO2) to elucidate the differences, control mechanisms, and environmental effects of various carbon biogeochemical processes in the Hongjiadu reservoir (HJD, karst reservoir) and Shangyoujiang reservoir (SYJ, non-karst reservoir), Yangtze River basin, China. Our results demonstrate that key biogeochemical processes are associated with CO 2 production and emissions. The stronger biological carbon pump (BCP) effect in the lentic area of the HJD reservoir limited CO 2 emission (0.9 ± 5.0 mmol m−2 d−1) compared to the SYJ reservoir (50.9 ± 33.4 mmol m−2 d−1), leading to low dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and high saturation state of carbonate minerals in the lentic epilimnion. Although the released water from both reservoirs acted as hotspots for CO 2 emissions, the results of higher Revelle factor (RF) in the HJD reservoir than SYJ reservoir suggest the greater buffer capacity and lower sensitivity of OC degradation changes in DIC. Despite the shorter hydraulic retention time (HRT) of SYJ reservoir (120 d) compared to HJD reservoir (368 d), F CO2 was 3.5 times higher than that of the HJD reservoir (652.9 mmol m−2 d−1). Moreover, upon analyzing selected reservoirs worldwide, it becomes apparent that karst reservoirs demonstrate a reduced potential for CO 2 emissions. Our results indicate that the impact of varying geologic settings should be considered to minimize errors in regional and global CO 2 emission estimates. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Water Research is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=173968809
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1016/j.watres.2023.120893
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 1
        StartPage: N.PAG
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Carbon emissions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Karst
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geologic hot spots
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Carbonate minerals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Water chemistry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cap rock
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Partial pressure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Water salinization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Unraveling the factors influencing CO2 emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs in karst and non-karst regions: A comparative analysis.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wang, Wanfa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Li, Si-Liang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhong, Jun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yi, Yuanbi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yue, Fujun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Han, Zenglei
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wu, Qixin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: He, Ding
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Liu, Cong-Qiang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Text: Jan2024
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00431354
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 248
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Water Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1