Printer Friendly

Influence of environmental variables on diffusive greenhouse gas fluxes at hydroelectric reservoirs in Brazil/Influencia de parametros ambientais em fluxos difusivos de gases de efeito estufa em reservatorios hidreletricos no Brasil.

Abstract

For almost two decades, studies have been under way in Brazil, showing how hydroelectric reservoirs produce biogenic gases, mainly methane (C[H.sub.4]) and carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]), through the organic decomposition of flooded biomass. This somewhat complex phenomenon is due to a set of variables with differing levels of interdependence that directly or indirectly affect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The purpose of this paper is to determine, through a statistical data analysis, the relation between C[O.sub.2], C[H.sub.4] diffusive fluxes and environmental variables at the Furnas, Itumbiara and Serra da Mesa hydroelectric reservoirs, located in the Cerrado biome on Brazil's high central plateau. The choice of this region was prompted by its importance in the national context, covering an area of some two million square kilometers, encompassing two major river basins (Parana and Tocantins-Araguaia), with the largest installed power generation capacity in Brazil, together accounting for around 23% of Brazilian territory. This study shows that CFI4 presented a moderate negative correlation between C[O.sub.2] and depth. Additionally, a moderate positive correlation was noted for pH, water temperature and wind. The C[O.sub.2] presented a moderate negative correlation for pH, wind speed, water temperature and air temperature. Additionally, a moderate positive correlation was noted for C[O.sub.2] and water temperature. The complexity of the emission phenomenon is unlikely to occur through a simultaneous understanding of all the factors, due to difficulties in accessing and analyzing all the variables that have real, direct effects on GHG production and emission.

Keywords: methane, carbon dioxide, environmental variables, reservoirs.

Resumo

Ha quase duas decadas, no Brasil, vem sendo realizados estudos que revelam que os reservatorios hidreletricos produzem gases biogenicos, principalmente o metano (C[H.sub.4]) e o dioxido de carbono (C[O.sub.2]), provenientes da decomposicao organica da biomassa alagada. Observa-se que esse fenomeno e bastante complexo devido a uma gama de variaveis que possuem diferentes graus de interdependencia e que influenciam diretamente ou indiretamente nas emissoes de gases de efeito estufa (GEE). O objetivo deste trabalho e determinar o grau de relacionamento entre os fluxos difusivos de C[O.sub.2], C[H.sub.4] e variaveis ambientais dos Reservatorios Hidreletricos de Fumas, Itumbiara e Serra da Mesa, atraves da analise estatistica dos dados. Os reservatorios hidreletricos estao situados no Bioma Cerrado, localizado no Planalto Central do Brasil. A escolha da regiao deu-se devido a sua importancia no contexto nacional, ja que corresponde a uma area de aproximadamente dois milhoes de quilometros quadrados, e, nela estao inseridas duas bacias (Bacia do Parana e Bacia do Tocantins-Araguaia), com a maior capacidade instalada de energia eletrica do pais. Esta duas bacias juntas abrangem 23% do territorio nacional. Neste estudo os resultados revelam que o C[H.sub.4] apresentou correlacao negativa, significativa e moderada com o C[O.sub.2] e com a profundidade. Observou-se ainda correlacao positiva e moderada com pH, temperatura da agua e velocidade do vento. O C[O.sub.2] apresentou correlacao negativa, significativa e moderada com pH, com a velocidade do vento, temperatura da agua e temperatura do ar. Observou-se tambem correlacao positiva e moderada do C[O.sub.2] com a temperatura da agua. A complexidade do fenomeno de emissao dificilmente ocorrera pelo entendimento simultaneo de todos os fatores, devido as dificuldades de acessar e analisar todas as variaveis que realmente tem implicacao direta nesta producao/emissao de GEE.

Palavras-chave: metano, dioxido de carbono, variaveis ambientais, reservatorios.

1. Introduction

Biogenic gases generated by the decomposition of biomass are a complex phenomenon, due to a range of variables with differing levels of interdependence, directly influencing greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs.

Factors contributing to GHG emissions include the succession of microbiological communities during reservoir lifetimes (Dumestre et al., 2001), water column depth, water level variability, air temperature, water temperature, wind speed, dissolved oxygen concentration, water transparency, altitude and rainfall, among others (Kemenes, 2006; Lampert and Sommer, 2007; Tundisi, et al., 2007; Esteves, 2011; Ribeiro et al., 2011).

For almost two decades, studies have been under way of greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs (Rudd et al., 1993; Rosa and Schaeffer, 1994a; Tremblay and Schetagne, 2006; Guerin et al., 2007; Weissenberger et al., 2010), presenting important observations on fluxes of C[O.sub.2], C[H.sub.4] and nitrous oxide (N2O) from hydroelectric reservoirs, including global estimates of emissions based on the flooded areas of different reservoirs (St. Louis et al, 2000).

The GHG emission rate per unit of electricity produced varies according to reservoir characteristics, including its size and the type of landscape flooded, as well as the power generation system used (Rudd et al., 1993). Especially in tropical regions, important knowledge has been built up that fosters a better understanding of the phenomenon of these gases released from Brazilian hydroelectric reservoirs, (Sikar et al., 2005), as well as GHG emission patterns (Rosa et al., 2004), comparisons of GHG fluxes from hydroelectric and thermoelectric power plants, and carbon circulation in reservoirs (Santos et al., 2006).

Extremely complex, the GHG emission phenomenon is unlikely to be understood through the simultaneous occurrence of all the factors involved, due to difficulties in accessing and analyzing all variables with direct effects on GHG production and emission.

In order to conduct this study, three hydroelectric power plants were selected in the Cerrado biome, located mainly on Brazil's high central plateau that covers some two million square kilometers, equivalent to 23% of Brazilian territory. Furthermore, these reservoirs are located within two the largest river basins in Brazil. The Parana basin has the largest installed power generation capacity in Brazil, together with the heaviest demands while the Tocantins-Araguaia basin ranks second for power generation in Brazil.

The purpose of this paper is to determine through statistical data analyses the relation levels between environmental variables and carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]) and methane (CH.,) fluxes at the following hydroelectric reservoirs: Furnas, Itumbiara and Serra da Mesa.

2. Causal Mechanisms of Diffusive Fluxes in Hydroelectric Reservoirs

2.1. Wind effect

The relation between high wind speeds and diffusive fluxes has been explored by several authors, with the pioneering studies conducted by Liss determining the relation between water-air gas transfers (Liss, 1973).

For carbon dioxide, Liss and Merlivat (1986) examined the empirical relations between water-air diffusive fluxes and wind speeds in oceans.

According MacInyre et al. (1995) gas fluxes at water-air interfaces depend mainly on two factors: concentration gradients between surface water and air, and physical transfers or turbulent energy at this interface.

The influence of wind speed variability on gas transfer velocities has been studied in aquatic bodies as ocean, lakes and riverine ecosystems (Wannikhof, 1992). Clark and colleagues suggested that wind is the primary source of surface turbulence at the water-air interface of the tidal Hudson River (Clark et al., 1995).

Some authors conclude that C[O.sub.2] exchange coefficients in air-water interfaces are largely independent of wind at low wind speeds (Cole & Caraco, 1998).

Ho et al. (2006) indicate that there is a quadratic relation between wind speed and gas transfer velocity in water-air interfaces over oceans.

Wind may have strong effects on thermal stratification and water column stability, strongly influencing the dynamics and vertical distribution of biogenic gases (Kemenes, 2006).

2.2. Temperature effect

In surface peat, Yavitt et al. (1987) found that temperature is the main variable controlling seasonal patterns in C[O.sub.2] production.

Neue et al. (1997) showed that variations are controlled largely by soil solution temperatures and partial methane pressures. Supplementing these studies, the work of Moore & Dalva (1993) revealed marked (p < 0.05) differences in carbon dioxide and methane emissions from peatland soils. Emissions of these gases were correlated with peat type, temperature and water table position. The proposed correlations of diffusive fluxes with temperatures showing C[O.sub.2] and C[H.sub.4] emissions at 23[degrees]C were 2.4 and 6.6 times higher on average respectively, than those at 10[degrees]C.

Lessard et al. (1994) found a positive correlation between soil surface C[O.sub.2] fluxes and soil temperatures for forests ([R.sup.2] = 0.74, s(y) = 1.77 g.[m.sup.-2].[d.sup.-1]) and croplands ([R.sup.2] = 0.48, s(y) = 1.10 g.[m.sup.-2].[d.sup.-1]).

Another study demonstrated that methane fluxes were directly correlated with water levels and temperatures at all measurement locations, except two in the central part of the fen, where fluxes were lower (Rask et al., 2002).

In northern peatlands, Macdonald et al. (1998) found positive linear correlations between C[H.sub.4] emission rates and rising temperatures from pool and lawn monoliths.

2.3. pH effect

When carbon dioxide dissolves in fresh water, it lowers the pH, making it more acid. According Rice and Claypool (1981), the most important methane generation mechanism in marine sediments is the reduction of C[O.sup.2] by hydrogen (electrons) produced through the anaerobic oxidation of organic matter.

Klinger et al. (1994) conclude that there are some indications that high C[H.sub.4] fluxes cluster around pH 4 and pH 7.

2.4. Depth

Previous studies have shown that C[H.sub.4] concentrations in tropical reservoirs increase significantly at greater depths (Galy-Lacaux et al., 1999).

The depth of hydroelectric reservoirs strongly influences the vertical distribution of biogenic gases. Studies have demonstrated daily variations in these gas concentrations, which depend on gas mixtures in water columns (Kemenes, 2006; Esteves, 2011).

2.5. Dissolved organic carbon

Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is produced by the decomposition of plants and animals and their excreta in water, with DOC decomposition caused by photochemical and microbial degradation (respiration), results in biogenic gases production (Lampert and Sommer, 2007; Esteves, 2011).

Dissolved organic carbon can decompose partially in the presence of dissolved oxygen, forming other organic or inorganic substances, such as C[O.sup.2] for example. In the absence of oxygen, organic carbon may generate methane through methanogenesis (Esteves, 2011). Lu et al. (1999) observed that the higher levels of organic carbon in sediment resulted in higher methane effluxes from water bodies.

3. Methodology

3.1. Characteristics of the reservoirs studied

Located along the mid-course of the Grande River in Minas Gerais State, the Furnas hydroelectric power complex has eight power generation plants, six of which are in operation. The Itumbiara hydroelectric power complex is located on the Rio Paranaiba river (Parana Hydrographic Region), on the boundary between Goias and Minas Gerais States. The Serra da Mesa hydroelectric power complex is the largest in Brazil by water volume, playing a major role in the nation's energy sector; located in the Alto Tocantins river basin (Tocantins-Araguaia Hydrographic Region) in Goias State, it has three power generation plants. Furnas reservoir is located at Grande river (Parana Hydrographic Region) at Minas Gerais state (Figure 1).

The technical characteristics of the three reservoirs studied are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Sampling methods

C[O.sub.2] and C[H.sub.4] emanation were quantified using diffusion chambers of 1 liter volume and 0.05 [m.sup.2] covered area. There are inverted containers that hold a trapped air volume over the water surface. Gases dissolved in water emanate into this volume.

Sampling the chamber at 0, 2, 4 and 8 minutes, the volume enrichment rate was determined according to (Santos et al., 2011) by gas chromatography (Construmaq Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector for CFLt analyses and thermal conductivity detector for C[O.sub.2], HayeSep D porous polymers packed columns), from which the emanation rate was calculated, dimensions were taken into account. The chambers were fitted with shields that prevent them from trapping bubbles as they rise.

The results of the gas chromatography analyses of samples taken from the floating chamber were matched to the four concentrations in order to measure the gas concentration increase (positive flux) or decrease (negative flux) in the chamber.

The following criteria were used to accept or reject the samples (UNESCO/IHA Greenhouse Gas, 2009):

1. Fluxes were accepted when the determination coefficient ([R.sup.2]) of the adjustment function was greater than 0.85 and p < 0.002;

2. Fluxes were rejected when due to sample contamination by C[H.sub.4] rich bubbles rising from the bottoming. If this does occur in the last measurement, that point was discarded and the only the first three points were used. Should contamination occur before the last sample, the measurement at this point was discarded;

3. If a problem detected during the chromatograph analysis resulted in the loss of the sample, it was discarded and the flux was calculated with the remaining three samples. After the samples passed through the filters and were accepted, the flux was calculated by the following equation:

Flux = Rate x P x F1 x F2 x V/ SP x R x T x A

where Rate: growth rate of gas concentration over time (ppm.[s.sup.-1]), given by the gradient; P: atmospheric pressure in the laboratory at the time of analysis (atm.); F1: molecular weight of the gas (44 for C[O.sub.2], 16 for C[H.sub.4]); F2: conversion factor from seconds to days (86,400 s); V: air volume in the chamber ([m.sup.3]); SP: standard pressure at mean sea level (101.33 kPa); R: universal gas constant (0.08207 L atm. [mol.sup.-1].[K.sup.-1]) A: chamber area in contact with water ([m.sup.2]); T: air temperature at time of laboratory analysis (K); the findings are presented in mg (gas) [m.sup.-2][d.suip.-1].

3.3. Location of sampling sites

The geographical location of the sampling sites in the studied reservoirs is shown in Figures 2 to 4. The sampling sites were distributed among the reservoirs taking into account two distinct parts of these water bodies: their main channels and their branches, whose hydrodynamic processes more closely resemble stagnant water (Table 2).

The diffusive gas fluxes were measured at three hydroelectric reservoirs owned by Furnas Centrais Eletricas S.A. Each reservoir was sampled at least three times a year, covering the dry, wet and transition seasons (wet-dry) as shown in Table 3.

3.4. Statistical analysis

For statistical treatment, the mean results of the diffusive C[H.sub.4] and C[O.sub.2] fluxes were used, at the hydroelectric reservoirs. These data were obtained through collecting samples.

In order to calculate the correlation coefficients in addition to physical and chemical variables such as: wind speed, air temperature, water temperature, pH and DOC. All these variables are possibly related to the production and emission of GHGs (Figure 5).

The normality of all the variables was checked through the Kolmogorov-Smimov D test (Wilks, 2006), with estimated dataset parameters, in order to determine whether the set is well modeled for normal distribution, thus selecting the best method for describing the data and the best way of conducting this study.

The Pearson correlation matrix was used to analyze the relations between the environmental variables and the C[H.sub.4] and C[O.sub.2] fluxes. This method was selected as it is useful for simultaneous analyses of correlations among many variables. In order to conduct this study, pair deletion was used, with a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05).

The Kruskal-Wallis test is a nonparametric test (Helsel, 1987) used here to compare the three reservoirs studied and provide comparisons between GHGs fluxes of three sampling campaigns in each reservoir and the environmental variables. It can be used to analyse several different samples and it tests the null hypothesis.

The Mann-Whitney test (Wilks, 2006) is used to analyze data from a two different groups of results. The null hypothesis assumes that the two distributions do not differ systematically from each other. The alternative hypothesis, on the other hand, states that the two distributions differ systematically.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Descriptive statistics of diffusive fluxes and environmental variables

The Boxplot presents the frequency distribution of the diffusive C[H.sub.4] and C[O.sub.2] fluxes by field trip at each reservoir (Figure 6). The frequency distribution all reservoirs has similar results for the C[H.sub.4] fluxes.

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test, at the 0.05 level, shows that the populations are not significantly different (Table 4). Results obtained for C[H.sub.4] and C[O.sub.2] fluxes, suggest that the observed differences between the three periods studied are significant (Table 5).

The Furnas reservoir presents a mean C[H.sub.4] flux for the transition period (wet-dry) that is higher than in the dry season (U = 468; Z = 2.381; Exact. Prob > [absolute value of U] = 0.016; Asymp. Prob > [absolute value of U] = 0.017) thus differing from the pattern found at the other reservoirs (Figure 6a). At the 0.05 level, the two distributions are significantly different.

The Mann-Whitney test shows whether the distributions between two groups are the same, with the alternative hypothesis that the populations are significantly different, or one larger than the other.

This difference might possibly be explained through the reduction recorded in wind speed (0.70 m.[s.sup.-1]) during the sampling period (Table 6), as thermal stratification might

have increased due to this reduction, resulting in a higher accumulation of C[H.sub.4] (Lampert and Sommer, 2007).

An examination of the gap between the mean (20.28 mg.[m.sup.-2].[day.sup.-1]) and median (4.50 mg.[m.sup.-2].[day.sup.-1]) shows the level of deviation in the measurements dispersion, which can be explained by the spatial variability of the samples (Table 2).

Comparing the C[O.sub.2] flux frequency distribution for the three reservoirs, the Serra da Mesa reservoir posts different results. During the dry season (first field trip), the average C[O.sub.2] flux (2,617.88 mg.[m.sup.-2].[day.sup.-1]) was similar to the rainy season values (Figure 6b), which may reflect more active aerobic bacteria due to higher oxygen availability in the water column.

Sampling in Serra da Mesa reservoir initially occurred when the reservoir had been filling for six years, with widespread decomposition of terrestrial vegetation was flooded, and huge decomposition rates, mainly anaerobic, was very intense.

During the rainy season (second field trip) the average flux (C[H.sub.4] = 7.12 and C[O.sub.2] = 1,281.68 mg.[m.sup.-2].[day.sup.-1]) was less than expected for this period, compared to the other reservoirs. The average for this period presented characteristic values usually found for dry season (Table 6).

The Serra da Mesa Reservoir presented a higher average concentration of DOC (10.62 mg.[L.sup.-1]) during the dry season (Table 6), which may be due to seasonal variations of autochthonous biomass production related to the nutrients inputs. The dissolved organic carbon load values are influenced by precipitation and water flows in these environments.

During the dry season, the reservoir level was five to ten meters below average, with the banks showing discoloration typical of soil appearing after flooding. It was possible to observe that during the sampling period there was heavy rainfall (157.2 mm) and an increase in the inflow (304 [m.sup.3]/s), which may give rise to a greater addition of organic matter and an increase in one of its main fractions, dissolved organic carbon. Studies on the DOC concentration in lakes show that it is considered indicative of partial carbon dioxide pressure (pC[O.sub.2]) and consequently C[O.sub.2] flux to the atmosphere. Lennon (2004) demonstrated experimentally in mesocosms the increase of C[O.sub.2] flow with additions of dissolved organic carbon. Other authors such as Prairie et al. (2002) and Jonsson et al. (2003) also demonstrated a linear relationship between DOC and C[O.sub.2] flux in boreal and temperate lakes, respectively.

4.2. Correlation analysis of diffusive fluxes and environmental variables

The correlation coefficients (n) between the average diffusive fluxes of C[H.sub.4] and C[O.sub.2], the DOC and the environmental variables at the reservoirs studied are shown in Tables 7 to 9.

The analysis shows a moderately positive correlation between wind speed and CF14 fluxes at the Itumbiara Reservoir (r = 0.322) and Serra da Mesa (r = 0.692). The wind speed may have marked effects on thermal stratification and water column stability, strongly influencing the dynamics and vertical distribution of biogenic gases, which might possibly explain the correlation between these two variables. Similar effects were observed by Kemenes (2006) in Balbina Reservoir, showing that wind may exert a strong influence on gas distribution in the water column.

At the Furnas Reservoir, the C[H.sub.4] flux showed a moderate negative correlation (r = -0.338) with C[O.sub.2], possibly explained by C[H.sub.4] oxidation resulting from the formation of C[O.sub.2] in the presence of oxygen or an increase in its concentration (Utsumi apud Esteves, 2011). Additionally, a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.508) was noted between the C[H.sub.4] flux and the pH.

A low positive correlation (r = 0.263) between the C[H.sub.4] flux and the DOC may be explained by C[H.sub.4] production at the sediment-water interface, with organic carbon used in the methanogenic process.

The C[H.sub.4] flux was correlated with depth at the Itumbiara Reservoir (r = -0.377). Earlier studies have shown that dissolved C[H.sub.4] concentrations increased significantly at lower depths in tropical reservoirs (Galy-Lacaux et al., 1999). The possible reason for the increased flux may be related to the observed growth of gramineous plants at the bottom of the reservoir, acting as a new source of decaying organic matter.

Moderate positive correlation between C[H.sub.4] flux and water temperature was noted at the Serra da Mesa reservoir (r = 0.397). The water temperature directly influences the solubility of gases and therefore the phenomenon of exchange of gases in the air-water interface.

The correlation analysis showed that two of the reservoirs studied presented moderate negative correlation between C[O.sub.2] and pH, suggesting that biological processes such as primary production and mineralization have a significant effect on these variations (Chagas & Suzuki, 2004). At the Furnas Reservoir, the correlation coefficient value was equal to -0.559, reaching -0.521 at Itumbiara. In water, C[O.sub.2] tends to form carbonic acid ([H.sub.2]C[O.sub.3]), which could explain the moderate negative correlation with pH. Earlier studies show that carbonic acid and free carbon dioxide predominates at pH levels less than 6.4 (Lampert and Sommer, 2007; Esteves, 2011).

Negative low correlation (r = -0.305) between C[O.sub.2] and DOC was noted for the Furnas reservoir, which can be explained by the different metabolic processes that follow the water column profile in this ecosystem. They include the DOC photodegradation process, which consists of the absorption of sunlight and its subsequent oxidation, resulting in C[O.sub.2], which is a form of dissolved organic carbon.

The correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between C[O.sub.2] and water temperature at the two reservoirs studied. Water temperature was correlated in a positive moderate manner (0.338) with C[O.sub.2] at the Furnas reservoir, but was extremely negative (-0.571) for the Serra da Mesa reservoir, possibly due to thermal stratification. At the Serra da Mesa reservoir, moderate negative correlation (-0.441) was noted between C[O.sub.2] and air temperature. The analysis presented a significant correlation between water temperature and C[O.sub.2] for the two reservoirs under study. Daily variations were observed in the temperatures between the surface and the bottom of the reservoir, isolating its layers and resulting in higher and/or lower C[O.sub.2] concentrations. For the Furnas reservoir, there is a moderately positive correlation between the water temperature and C[O.sub.2] (0.338). In this reservoir, a negative flux of C[O.sub.2] was observed in the dry season (-476.72 mg.[m.sup.-2].[d.sup.-1]) and in the transitional season (-729.70 mg.[m.sup.-2].[d.sup.-1]), and low values in water temperature. According to Esteves (2011), the lower the temperature, the greater the solubility of gases in water, and the greater the rise in temperature, the greater the system's metabolism will be. For the Serra da Mesa reservoir, a negative correlation was found (-0.571) between water temperature and C[O.sub.2], possibly due to thermal stratification. Also for Serra da Mesa, a moderately negative correlation (-0.441) was found between C[O.sub.2] and air temperature, possibly influenced by oxygen concentration, a factor that is directly related to the temperature (Kemenes, 2006; Esteves, 2011).

Other variables presented significant correlations with C[O.sub.2] fluxes in Itumbiara Reservoir. Wind speed showed a moderate negative correlation (r = -0.366) with C[O.sub.2], probably related to water mass circulation, which may have marked impacts on water column thermal structures, strongly influencing the vertical distribution of biogenic gases (Esteves, 2011), also causing water surface mixing with the underlying water (Lampert & Sommer, 2007). Wind is among the most important factors for gas transfer rates at water-air interfaces.

Comparing C[O.sub.2] flux frequency distributions at all three reservoirs, Serra da Mesa behaved differently from the others. During the dry season (first field trip), the average flux value increased (2,617.88 mg.[m.sup.-2].[day.sup.-1]), reaching a level similar to the rainy season values.

During the rainy season (second field trip), the average C[O.sub.2] flux (1,281.68 mg.m-2.day-1) was lower than expected for this period, compared to the other two reservoirs, with values more characteristic of the dry season.

5. Conclusions

The variability of the diffusive fluxes of C[H.sub.4] was positively influenced by the environmental variables, wind and dissolved organic carbon; and negatively influenced by C[O.sub.2], depth and water temperature.

The environmental variables that negatively influenced the variability of the diffusive fluxes of C[O.sub.2] were dissolved organic carbon, air temperature and wind. The water temperature influenced the C[O.sub.2] fluxes both positively and negatively.

Establishing the relationship between the diffusive fluxes of C[H.sub.4] and C[O.sub.2] and the environmental variables represents a contribution to greater understanding of the processes involved. Its importance is due above all to the fact that the study was carried out in a region of the cerrado biome, as most of the research done emphasizes the reservoirs in the Amazon region as great sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

DOI: 10.1590/S1519-698420130004000011

Acknowledgments

This study was financed by Furnas Centrais Eletricas S.A. through the Carbon Budgets in Flydroelectric Reservoirs research project.

We thank the Graduate Coordination Agency of the Ministry of Education (CAPES) for granting a doctoral study to the first author of this paper and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the research productivity grant awarded to the second author of this paper. We thank the National Science and Technology Institute (INCT)--Climate Change--Emissions from Lakes and Reservoirs Sub-Project.

References

CLARK, JF., SCHLOSSER, P., SIMPSON, HJ., STUTE, M., WANNINKHOF, R. and HO, DT., 1995. Relationship between gas transfer velocities and wind speeds in the tidal Hudson River determined by the dual tracer technique. In: Air-Water Gas Transfer, Proceedings of the third international symposium on air-water gas transfer, B. Jaehne and E.C. Monahan, editors, AEON Verlag & Studio, Hanau, Germany, p. 785-800.

CHAGAS, GG. and SUZUKI, MS., 2004. Seasonal Hydrochemical Variation in a Tropical Coastal Lagoon (Acu Lagoon, Brazil). Braz. J. Biol., vol. 65, no. 4, p. 597-607.

COLE, JJ. and CARACO, NF., 1998. Atmospheric exchange of carbon dioxide in a low-wind oligotrophic lake measured by the addition of SF6. Limnol. Oceanogr., vol. 43, no. 4, p. 647-656.

DUMESTRE, JF., CASAMAYOR, EO., MASSANA, R. and PEDROS-ALIO, C., 2001. Changes in bacterial and archaeal assemblages in an equatorial river induced by the water eutrophication of Petit Saut dam reservoir (French Guiana). Aquat. Microb. Ecol., vol. 26, p. 209-221.

ESTEVES, FA., 2011. Fundamentos de Limnologia. Editora Interciencia: Rio de Janeiro, 826p.

FENCHEL, T., KING, GM. and BLACKBURN, TH., 1998. Bacterial Biogeochemistry. 2nd ed. Academic Press: California and London, 307p.

GALY-LACAUX, C., DELMAS, R., KOUADIO, G., RICHARD, S. and GOSSE, P., 1999. Long-term Greenhouse gas emissions from hydroeletric reservoirs in tropical forest regions. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, vol. 13, p. 503-517.

GUERIN, F., ABRIL, G., SERCA, D., DELON, C., RICHARD, S., DELMAS, R., TREMBLAY, A. and VARFALVY, L., 2007. Gas Transfer Velocities of C[O.sub.2] and C[H.sub.4] in a Tropical Reservoir and its River Downstream. J. Mar. Syst., vol. 66, p. 161-172.

HELSEL, DR., 1987. Advantages of Nonparametric Procedures for Analysis of Water Quality Data. Hydrol. Sci. J., vol. 32, p. 179-190.

HO, DT., LAW, CS., SMITH, MJ., SCHLOSSER, P., HARVEY, M. and HILL, P., 2006. Measurements of air-sea gas exchange at high wind speeds in the Southern Ocean: Implications for global parameterizations. Geophys. Res. Left., vol. 33, p. L16611.

JONSSON, A., KARLSSON, J. and JANSSON, M., 2003. Sources of carbon dioxide Supersaturation in Clearwater and Humic Lakes in Northern Sweden. Ecosystems, vol. 6, p. 224-235.

KEMENES, A., 2006. Estimativa das Emissoes de Gases de Efeito Estufa (C[O.sub.2] e C[H.sub.4]) pela Hidreletrica de Balbina, Amazonia Central, Brasil. Manaus: Universidade Federal do Amazonas, 95p. Tese de Doutorado em Biologia Tropical e Recursos Naturais.

KLINGER, LF., ZIMMERMAN, PR., GREENBERG, JP., HEIDT LE. and GUENTHER, AB., 1994. Carbon trace gas fluxes along a successional gradient in the Hudson Bay lowland. J. Geophys. Res., vol. 99, no. Dl, p. 1469-1494.

LAMPERT, W. and SOMMER, U., 2007. Limnoecology: The Ecology of Lakes and Streams. 2nd ed. Oxford: University Press, New York, 324p.

LENNON, JT., 2004. Experimental Evidence that Terrestrial Carbon Subsidies Increase CO2 flux from Lake Ecosystems. Oecologia, yol. 138, p. 584-591.

LESSARD, R., ROCHETTE, P., TOPP, E., PATTEY, E., DESJARDINS, RL. and BEAUMONT, G., 1994. Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes from poorly drained adjacent cultivated and forest sites. Can. J. Soil Sci., vol. 74, no. 2, p. 139-146.

LISS, PS., 1973. Processes of gas exchange across an air-water interface. Deep Sea Res. Ocean. Abstracts, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 221-238.

LISS, PS. and MERLIVAT, L., 1986. Air-sea gas exchange rates: Introduction and synthesis. In: The Role of Air-Sea Exchange. Geochemical Cycling. P. Buat-Menard (ed), D. Reidel, Hingham, Mass., p. 113-129.

LU, Y., WASSMANN, R., NEUE H. and HUANG, C., 1999. Dynamics of Dissolved Organic Carbon and Methane Emissions in a Flooded Rice Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., vol. 64, no. 6, p. 2011-2017.

MACDONALD, JA., FOWLER, D., HARGREAVES, KJ., SKIBA, U., LEITH, ID. and MURRAY, MD., 1998. Methane emission rates from a northern wetland; response to temperature, water table and transport. Atmos. Environ., vol. 32, no. 19, p. 3219-3227.

MACINYRE, S., WANNINKHOF, R. and CHANTON, JP., 1995. Trace gas exchange across the air-water interface in freshwaters and coastal marine environments. In: Biogenic Trace Gases: Measuring Emissions from Soils and Waters, P.A. Mattson and R.C. Harris (eds), Blackwell, New York; p. 52-57.

MARINHO, CC., PALMA SILVA, C., ALBERTONI, EF., TRINDADE, CR. and ESTEVES, FA., 2009. Seasonal Dynamics of Methane in The Water Column of Two Subtropical Lakes Differing in Trophic Status. Braz. J. Biol., vol. 69, no. 2, p.281-287.

MOORE, TR. and DALVA, M., 1993. The influence of temperature and water table position on carbon dioxide and methane emissions from laboratory columns of peatland soils. J. Soil Sci., vol. 44, no. 4, p. 651-664.

NEUE, HU., WASSMANN, R., KLUDZE, HK., BUJUN, W and LANTIN, RS., 1997. Factors and processes controlling methane emissions from rice fields. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys., vol. 49, no. 1-3, p. 111-117.

PRAIRIE, YT., BIRD, DF. and COLE, JJ., 2002. The Summer Metabolic Balance in the Epilimnion of Southeastern Quebec Lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr., vol. 47, no. 1, p. 316-321.

RICE, DD. and CLAYPOOL, GE., 1981. Generation, Accumulation, and Resource Potential of Biogenic Gas. AAPG Bull., vol. 65, p. 5-25.

RASK, H., SCHOENAU, J. and ANDERSON, D., 2002. Factors influencing methane flux from a boreal forest wetland in Saskatchewan, Canada. Soil Biol. Biochem., vol. 34, no. 4, p. 435-443.

RIBEIRO FILHO, RA., PETRERE JUNIOR, M., BENASSI, SF. and PEREIRA, JMA., 2011. Itaipu Reservoir Limnology: Eutrophication Degree and the Horizontal Distribution of its Limnological Variables. Braz. J. Biol., vol. 71, no. 4, p. 889-902.

ROSA, LP. and SCHAEFFER, R., 1994a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydroelectric Reservoirs. Ambio, vol. 23, p. 164-165.

ROSA, LP., SANTOS, MA., MATVIENKO, B., SANTOS, EO. and SIKAR, E., 2004. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Tropical Regions. Climatic Change, vol. 66, p. 9-21.

RUDD, JWM., HARRI.S R., KELLY, CA. and HECKY, RE., 1993. Are hydroelectric reservoirs significant sources of greenhouse gas? Ambio, vol. 22, p. 246-248.

SANTOS, MA., ROSA, LP., MATVIENKO, B., SIKAR, E. and SANTOS, EO., 2006. Gross greenhouse gas fluxes from hydro-power reservoir compared to thermo-power plants. Energ. Policy, vol. 34, p. 481-488.

SANTOS, MA., ROSA, LP., MATVIENKO, B., MADDOCK, JEL., PATHINEELAM, SR., SANTOS, EO. et al., 2011. Monitoramento de Emissoes de Gases de Efeito Estufa em Reservatorios de Usinas Hidreletricas. Relatorio de Medicoes. Rio de Janeiro, 90p.

SIKAR, E., SANTOS, MA., MATVIENKO, B., SILVA, MB., ROCHA, CHED., SANTOS, EO., BENTES, AP. and ROSA, LP., 2005. Greenhouse gases and initial findings on the carbon circulation in two reservoirs and their watersheds. Verh. Intemat. Verein Limnol., vol. 29, p. 573-576.

ST LOUIS, VL., KELLY, CA., DUCHEMIN, E., RUDD, JWM. and ROSENBERG, DM., 2000. Reservoir Surfaces as Sources of Greenhouse Gases to the Atmosphere: A Global Estimate. Bioscience, vol. 50, p. 766-775.

TREMBLAY, A. and SCHETAGNE, R., 2006. The Relationship between Water Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Reservoirs? Int. J. Hydropower Dams, vol. 13, p. 103-107.

UNESCO/IHA GREENHOUSE GAS, 2009. The UNESCO/IHA Measurement specification guidance for evaluating the GHG status of man-made freshwater reservoirs, Document Track, Edition 1, 57p.

TUNDISI, JG., MATSUMURA-TUNDISI, T. and ABE, DS., 2007. Climate Monitoring Before and During Limnological Studies: A Needed Integration. Braz. J. Biol., vol. 67, no. 4, p.795-796.

WANNIKHOF, R., 1992. Relationship between Wind Speed and Gas Exchange over the Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., vol. 97, no. C5, p. 7373-7382.

WEISSENBERGER, S., LUCOTTE, M., HOUEL, S., SOUMIS, N., DUCHEMIN, E. and CANUEL, R., 2010. Modeling the carbon dynamics of the La Grande hydroelectric complex in northern Quebec. Ecol. Model., vol. 221, p. 610-620.

WILKS, DS., 2006. Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. 2nd ed. International Geophysics Series, vol. 91, Elsevier, Oxford, 627p.

YAVITT, JB., LANG, GE. and WIEDER, RK., 1987. Control of carbon mineralization to CH4 and C02 in anaerobic Sphagnum-derived peat from Big Run Bog, West Virginia, Biogeochemistry, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 141-157.

Rogerio, JP. (a), *, Santos, MA. (a) and Santos, EO. (b)

(a) Energy Planning Program, PPE/COPPE/UFRJ, Centro de Tecnologia, bloco C, sala 211--CEP 21949-972, Caixa Postal 68565, Cidade Universitaria, Ilha do Fundao, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

(b) Department of Environmental Sciences, Forestry Institute, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Seropedica, RJ, Brazil

* e-mail: josiclea@hotmail.com/clea@ppe.ufrj.br

Received August 9, 2012--Accepted November 29, 2012--Distributed November 29, 2013 (With 6 figures)

Table 1--Technical characteristics of the reservoirs studied.

                                Reservoir age at
Hydroelectric                   measurement date       Volume
reservoir        Dam filling         (years)        ([km.sup.3])

Furnas             November           1962               42
Itumbiara          November           1981               25
Serra da Mesa      October            1997               12

                                    Watershed
Hydroelectric    Reservoir area       area          Installed
reservoir         ([km.sup.2])     ([km.sup.2])   capacity (MW)

Furnas                 23             1,440          50,464
Itumbiara              17              778           95,000
Serra da Mesa          54             1,784          50,975

                    Density           Water
Hydroelectric       capacity        residence
reservoir        (W/[m.sup.2])    time (days) *

Furnas               1,216            0.84
Itumbiara            2,082            2.68
Serra da Mesa        1,275            0.71

* Average result of field trips.

Table 2--Spatial localization of sampling sites in the reservoir area.

Hydropower reservoir     Main channel of       Regions with poor
                          reservoir (%)        water circulation
                                              (reservoir arms) (%)

Furnas                          61                     39
Itumbiara                       58                     42
Serra da Mesa                   64                     36

Table 3--Sampling period at the studied reservoirs.

Hydroelectric    Field       Date         Season        Total sample
reservoir         trip

                  1st.      11/2005         Dry
Furnas            2nd.      04/2006         Wet       78 (C[H.sub.4])
                  3rd.    07-08/2006    Transition    66 (C[O.sub.2])
                                         (Wet-Dry)

Itumbiara         1st.      11/2004         Dry
                  2nd.      03/2005         Wet       78 (C[H.sub.4])
                  3rd.      08/2005     Transition    57 (C[O.sub.2])
                                         (Wet-Dry)

Serra da Mesa     1st.      11/2003         Dry
                  2nd.      03/2004         Wet       47 (C[H.sub.4])
                  3rd.      07/2004     Transition    47 (C[O.sub.2])
                                        (Wet-Dry)

Table 4--Kruskal-Wallis test statistics of the studied
reservoirs.

              Chi-Square    DF    Prob > Chi-Square

C[H.sub.4]       5.430       2          0.066
C[O.sub.2]       4.046       2          0.132

At the 0.05 level, the populations are not significantly
different.

Table 5--Statistical test to compare different periods.

                               Chi-Square    DF    Prob > Chi-Square

Furnas           C[H.sub.4]      11.114       2          0.003
                 C[O.sub.2]      20.801       2         3.040E-5

Itumbiara        C[H.sub.4]      10.734       2          0.004
                 C[O.sub.2]       8.229       2          0.016

Serra da Mesa    C[H.sub.4]      12.238       2          0.002
                 C[O.sub.2]       6.762       2          0.033

Table 6--Descriptive statistics of the hydroelectric reservoirs.

                                                Furnas

              Variables            N      Mean        Sd       Median

1st. field    C[H.sub.4] (a)      25     12.77       8.35      10.54
trip dry      C[O.sub.2] (a)      18    -476.72    2,028.05   -581.50
              DOC (b)             21      2.38       1.81       1.66
              Depth (c)           29      9.44      10.35       2.50
              pH                   4      7.09       0.24       7.09
              Wind (d)            25      2.39       0.87       2.70
              Air temperature     29     28.53       3.68      28.20
                (e)
              Water               29     25.99       0.81      26.20
                temperature (f)

2nd. field    C[H.sub.4]          26      6.38       4.37       4.69
trip wet      C[O.sub.2]          25    2,275.48   1,618.99   1,786.96
              DOC                 26      1,94       0.72       1.95
              Depth               27     17.24      19.83      11.00
              pH
              Wind                27      1.46       1.31       1.10
              Air temperature     27     26.26       1.82      26.30
              Water temperature   27     26.21       0.66      26.10

3rd. field    C[H.sub.4]          27     20.28      36.18       4.50
trip          C[O.sub.2]          23    -729.70    5,710.14    62.16
transition    DOC                 26      1,12       0.65       0.88
              Depth               27     25.30      30.46      23.00
              pH                  20      7.50       0.19       7.51
              Wind                27      0.86       0.70       1.10
              Air temperature     26     24.55       2.39      23.60
              Water temperature   24     22.05       0.69      21.90

                                               Itumbiara

              Variables            N      Mean        Sd       Median

1st. field    C[H.sub.4] (a)      25     21.74      16.41      15.60
trip dry      C[O.sub.2] (a)      25     453.96     937.94     148.00
              DOC (b)              7      1.79       0.38       1.73
              Depth (c)           25     13.56       9.94      10.00
              pH                  21      7.40       0.27       7.40
              Wind (d)            23      2.49       1.34       3.00
              Air temperature     25     31.10       3.94      32.00
                (e)
              Water               25     28.56       1.16      29.00
                temperature (f)

2nd. field    C[H.sub.4]          23      8.51       6.07       6.94
trip wet      C[O.sub.2]          16    2,763.62   3,962.04   1,506.55
              DOC                 10      5.43       3.37       5.19
              Depth               23     24.43      11.82      21.00
              pH
              Wind                22      1.35       0.85       1.30
              Air temperature     23     27.71       1.32      27.90
              Water temperature   23     28.10       1.05      28.10

3rd. field    C[H.sub.4]          30     12.73      11.63      10.16
trip          C[O.sub.2]          16     973.59    1,565.85    724.40
transition    DOC                 10      4.73       1.72       4.45
              Depth               30     29.52      22.82      24.60
              pH                   7      6.65       0.32       6.48
              Wind                25      1.35       1.28       1.10
              Air temperature     30     28.71       2.75      28.30
              Water temperature   30     24.50       1.28       24.1

                                            Serra da Mesa

              Variables           N      Mean        Sd       Median

1st. field    C[H.sub.4] (a)      17    20.08      23.10       7.54
trip dry      C[O.sub.2] (a)      17   2,617.88   2,771.09   2,834.00
              DOC (b)             6     10.62       3.41      11.17
              Depth (c)           17     7.44       4.42       9.00
              pH                  17     7.83       0.37       7.60
              Wind (d)            17     0.85       0.77       1.00
              Air temperature     17    29.38       3.12      30.00
                (e)
              Water               17    29.50       0.95      29.00
                temperature (f)

2nd. field    C[H.sub.4]          16     7.12       7.67       4.30
trip wet      C[O.sub.2]          16   1,281.68   2,929.29   -135.00
              DOC                 7      1.08       0.75       0.95
              Depth               16    23.02      19.50      15.00
              pH                  8      7.40       1.83       8.00
              Wind                8      0.38       0.69       0.00
              Air temperature     16    28.22       2.19      28.00
              Water temperature   16    29.66       1.00      30.00

3rd. field    C[H.sub.4]          13    15.16       6.87      15.31
trip          C[O.sub.2]          13   2,207.69   1,619.71   1,800.00
transition    DOC                 9      3.79       1.21       3.73
              Depth               12    22.55      16.63      17.00
              pH                  7      7.30       1.95       8.00
              Wind                7      0.21       0.57       0.00
              Air temperature     12    28.46       2.34      28.25
              Water temperature   12    29.88       0.88      30.00

(a) C[H.sub.4] and C[O.sub.2] flux: mg.[m.sup.-2].[d.sup.-1] (b) DOC:
mg.[L.sup.-1]; (c) Depth: m; (d) Wind: m.[s.sup.-1]; (e) Air
Temperature: [degrees]C; (f) Water Temperature: [degrees]; (g) pH
values are not presented in the second field trip because the probe
was broken.

Sd: Standard deviation.

Table 7--Correlation coefficients for the Furnas reservoir
(C[H.sub.4]: methane flux; C[O.sub.2]: carbon dioxide flux; DOC:
dissolved or-ganic carbon carbon; Depth: lake depth; pH: potential of
hydrogen; Wind: wind speed; Air Temp.: air temperature; Water Temp.:
water temperature).

                     C[H.sub.4]    C[O.sub.2]        DOC

C[H.sub.4]                1
C[O.sub.2]            -0.338 *          1
DOC                    0.263 *      -0.305 *          1
Depth                   0.072        -0.016        -0.071
PH                     0.508 *      -0.559 *       0.559 *
Wind                    0.017         0.115        -0.081
Air temperature         0.177        -0.011        -0.050
Water temperature      -0.180        0.338 *       -0.206

                        Depth          pH           Wind

C[H.sub.4]
C[O.sub.2]
DOC
Depth                     1
PH                     -0.047           1
Wind                    0.008        -0.232           1
Air temperature        -0.140         0.276        0.228 *
Water temperature     -0.326 *      -0.642 *       0.349 *

                      Air temp.    Water temp.

C[H.sub.4]
C[O.sub.2]
DOC
Depth
PH
Wind
Air temperature           1
Water temperature      0.554 *          1

* Marked correlations are significant for p < 0.05.

Table 8--Correlation coefficients for the Itumbiara reservoir (CH4:
methane flux; CO2: carbon dioxide flux; DOC: dissolved organic carbon
carbon; Depth: lake depth; pH: potential of hydrogen; Wind: wind
speed; Air Temp.: air temperature; Water Temp.: water temperature).

                     C[H.sub.4]    C[O.sub.2]        DOC

C[H.sub.4]                1
C[O.sub.2]             -0.003           1
DOC                    -0.301         0.199           1
Depth                 -0.377 *       -0.128        -0.016
pH                     -0.026       -0.521 *        0.260
Wind                   0.322 *      -0.366 *       -0.024
Air temperature         0.070        -0.088       -0.391 *
Water temperature       0.041        -0.182        -0.271

                        Depth          pH           Wind

C[H.sub.4]
C[O.sub.2]
DOC
Depth                     1
pH                     -0.293           1
Wind                   -0.162         0.290           1
Air temperature        -0.136         0.305       -0.337 *
Water temperature     -0.237 *       0.819 *        0.128

                      Air temp.       Water
                                      temp.
C[H.sub.4]
C[O.sub.2]
DOC
Depth
pH
Wind
Air temperature           1
Water temperature      0.390 *          1

* Marked correlations are significant for p < 0.05.

Table 9--Correlation coefficients for the Serra da Mesa reservoir
(CH4: methane flux; C02: carbon dioxide flux; DOC: dis-solved organic
carbon carbon; Depth: lake depth; pH: potential of hydrogen; Wind:
wind speed; Air Temp.: air temperature; Water Temp.: water
temperature).

                     C[H.sub.4]    C[O.sub.2]        DOC

C[H.sub.4]                1
C[O.sub.2]             -0.117           1
DOC                     0.256         0.024           1
Depth                  -0.159        -0.267        -0.347
pH                     -0.135        -0.286         0.193
Wind                   0.692 *       -0.181         0.369
Air temperature         0.172       -0.441 *       0.466 *
Water temperature      0.397 *      -0.571 *       -0.036

                        Depth          PH           Wind

C[H.sub.4]
C[O.sub.2]
DOC
Depth                     1
pH                      0.216           1
Wind                  -0.446 *       -0.312           1
Air temperature         0.251         0.249         0.181
Water temperature       0.008        -0.170        0.376 *

                      Air temp.       Water
                                      temp.
C[H.sub.4]
C[O.sub.2]
DOC
Depth
pH
Wind
Air temperature           1
Water temperature      0.418 *          1

* Marked correlations are significant forp < 0.05.
COPYRIGHT 2013 Association of the Brazilian Journal of Biology
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:ECOLOGY
Author:Rogerio, J.P.; Santos, M.A.; Santos, E.O.
Publication:Brazilian Journal of Biology
Date:Nov 1, 2013
Words:7574
Previous Article:Variation in body size of Phanocerus clavicornis Sharp, 1882 (Coleoptera: Elmidae: Larainae) in Atlantic Rainforest streams in response to hydraulic...
Next Article:Feeding activity and influence of intraspecific competition on zooplankton communities by jundia (Rhamdia quelen Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) in...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters