The peatland map of Europe

Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 1 The peatland map of Europe F. Tanneberger1, C. Tegetmeyer1, S. Busse1, A. Barthelmes1, S. Shumka2, A. Moles Mariné3, K. Jenderedjian4, G.M. Steiner5, F. Essl5, J. Etzold1, C. Mendes6, A. Kozulin7, P. Frankard8, Đ. Milanović9, A. Ganeva10, I. Apostolova10, A. Alegro11, P. Delipetrou12, J. Navrátilová13, M. Risager14, A. Leivits15, A.M. Fosaa16, S. Tuominen17, F. Muller18, T. Bakuradze19, M. Sommer20, K. Christanis21, E. Szurdoki22, H. Oskarsson23, S.H. Brink23, J. Connolly24, L. Bragazza25, G. Martinelli26, O. Aleksāns27, A. Priede28, D. Sungaila29, L. Melovski30, T. Belous31, D. Saveljić32, F. de Vries33, A. Moen34, W. Dembek35, J. Mateus36, J. Hanganu37, A. Sirin38, A. Markina38, M. Napreenko39, P. Lazarević40, V. Šefferová Stanová41, P. Skoberne42, P. Heras Pérez43, X. Pontevedra-Pombal44, J. Lonnstad45, M. Küchler46, C. Wüst-Galley47, S. Kirca48, O. Mykytiuk49, R. Lindsay50 and H. Joosten1 1 Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Greifswald University, partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, Germany 2–50 For other author affiliations, see Appendix 2 _______________________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY Based on the ‘European Mires Book’ of the International Mire Conservation Group (IMCG), this article provides a composite map of national datasets as the first comprehensive peatland map for the whole of Europe. We also present estimates of the extent of peatlands and mires in each European country individually and for the entire continent. A minimum peat thickness criterion has not been strictly applied, to allow for (often historically determined) country-specific definitions. Our ‘peatland’ concept includes all ‘mires’, which are peatlands where peat is being formed. The map was constructed by merging national datasets in GIS while maintaining the mapping scales of the original input data. This ‘bottom-up’ approach indicates that the overall area of peatland in Europe is 593,727 km². Mires were found to cover more than 320,000 km² (around 54 % of the total peatland area). If shallow-peat lands (< 30 cm peat) in European Russia are also taken into account, the total peatland area in Europe is more than 1,000,000 km2, which is almost 10 % of the total surface area. Composite inventories of national peatland information, as presented here for Europe, may serve to identify gaps and priority areas for field survey, and help to cross-check and calibrate remote sensing based mapping approaches. KEY WORDS: drained peatland, GIS, Histosol, mire, organic soil, peat _______________________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION Peatlands increasingly play a role in policy relating to climate change, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Spatially explicit information on peatland distribution is needed to raise awareness of peatlands, to assess their ecosystem values, functions and losses, and to develop and implement strategies for peatland protection and wise use (FAO 2017). Surprisingly, no detailed and complete peatland map yet exists for the continent with the longest history of peatland study and exploitation - Europe. During the last half-century or so, maps of Europe have been produced showing mire regions (e.g., Kats 1971) or the general occurrence of peatlands (e.g., Lappalainen 1996). Jones et al. (2004, 2005) presented the first map of organic carbon in topsoil (OCTOP, 1 km × 1 km raster) but this did not include many east European countries or European Russia. A map of the European Soil Database (European Soil Bureau 2004, 1:1,000,000) covered the entire continent, but left out peat soils in various peatlandrich areas (Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania) and almost all south European countries. Montanarella et al. (2006) produced a peatland map by combining the OCTOP dataset and the European Soil Database, again excluding a large part of Europe (e.g., Belarus, Iceland, Moldova, Russian Federation, Svalbard and Ukraine). In 2009, in response to the scarcity of harmonised up-to-date organic carbon data, the LUCAS (Land Use/Cover Area frame statistical Survey) topsoil survey was implemented at European Union (EU) level and was based on 20,000 soil samples analysed centrally (Montanarella et al. 2011). De Brogniez et al. (2015) used the LUCAS topsoil carbon data to create a map of predicted F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 2 topsoil organic carbon content, an approach which Yigini & Panagos (2016) extended to predict present and future soil organic carbon stocks in the EU using climate and land cover change scenarios. Some of the earlier pioneering work towards a peatland map of Europe was severely hampered by scarcity and heterogeneity of digital data. Until recently, geographic information systems (GIS) were not widely used across Europe, and much of the national soil and vegetation inventory information was stored in formats that were almost impossible to combine and harmonise between countries, and seldom fully accessible. Harmonisation has improved considerably in the last decade, but only at EU level. Therefore, until now there has been no peatland map for the entire geographical extent of Europe. In recent years, information on peatland distribution within the countries of Europe has been compiled by the Greifswald Mire Centre (GMC) in the process of producing the book Mires and Peatlands of Europe (Joosten et al. 2017a) for the International Mire Conservation Group (IMCG). The history of this ‘European Mires Book’ dates back to 1990, when IMCG decided to compile a comprehensive report on the mires of Europe. Earlier less complete attempts include the 1980 Council of Europe review covering 17 ‘west’ European countries (Goodwillie 1980) and the 1988 review of peat resources in the European part of the Soviet Union and 26 other European countries (Olenin 1988). The changing political situation in central and eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s provided the interest and opportunity to examine the whole of Europe. Several major regional overviews were produced (e.g., Minayeva et al. 2009; see Joosten et al. 2017b for an overview) and eventually, in 2017, the European Mires Book itself was finished. During compilation of this book it became clear that most countries nowadays possess either GIS data on the distribution of peatlands or proxy data that give a fair impression of national peatland distribution. Thus, it is now possible to provide a composite map of national datasets as the first comprehensive peatland map for the whole of Europe. Along with the map, this article presents best current estimates of the extent of mires and peatlands in each European country individually and for the entire continent. METHODS Europe as a continent is a historical and cultural construct, defined only by convention. According to the modern geographical definition the border between Europe and Asia stretches along the Ural Mountains, the Ural River and the Caspian Sea in the east, and the Greater Caucasus range and the Black Sea with its Bosporus and Dardanelles outlets in the south-east. Fifty internationally recognised states (i.e. United Nations member states and the Holy See/Vatican City) have their territories within this geographical definition of Europe and/or are members of pan-European organisations (e.g., Council of Europe). Of these 50 countries, five (Kazakhstan, Malta, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City) are omitted because no peatlands are known to exist within (in the case of Kazakhstan, the European part of) their territories. Three archipelagos (Azores, Faroe Islands and Svalbard) are reported separately because of their geographical positions and distinct biogeographical features. To obtain peatland distribution data we approached mire scientists, geologists, botanists, pedologists and other persons involved in mire science and peatland management from the IMCG network and beyond (usually 1–2 persons per country) in 2014–2016. We requested data on the distribution of ‘peatland’ as defined for the IMCG European Mires Book: “A peatland is an area with a naturally accumulated layer of peat at the surface” (Joosten et al. 2017c, 2017d). Peat is defined as sedentarily accumulated material of which at least 30 % (dry mass basis) is dead organic matter. The presence or absence of vegetation is irrelevant to the definition of peatland. No strict criterion for minimum thickness of the peat layer has been adopted, in line with the 2006 (Eggleston et al. 2006) and 2014 (Hiraishi et al. 2014) IPCC definitions of ‘organic soil’, which follow the FAO (2006) definition of Histosol but refrain from defining a minimum thickness for the organic layer (cf. FAO 2006 and FAO 2015 for Histosols) to allow for variety amongst country-specific definitions, which are often historically determined. This ‘peatland’ concept includes all ‘mires’, i.e. peatlands where peat is being formed (Joosten et al. 2017c, 2017d). For each country, the available datasets and their correspondence to the definition of peatland adopted for our mapping purposes, as well as their uncertainties, were discussed individually before single or combined datasets were selected for inclusion in the composite map. We had to use data on soil or ecosystem types that may not exactly comply with our ‘peatland’ concept, but in absence of better data give a fair impression of the peatland (= organic soil) distribution, for a few countries, namely: Austria (“Moor”), Denmark (“mose”, “eng”, and “strandeng” protected under §3 Danish Protection Act), Finland (“suo”), Hungary (“láp”), Iceland (“votlendi”), Norway (“myr”), Russian Federation F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 3 (“zabolochennye melkootorfovannye zemli” and “boloto”), Sweden (“myr”), and Switzerland (“Moor”). For eight countries, information on the occurrence of peatlands was deduced from the distribution of potentially peat-forming vegetation types or peatland-associated habitat types only (Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Republic of Moldova) or from vegetation/habitat information in combination with peatland data (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy). All of the national datasets used in the map are described in Appendix 1. The map was constructed in ArcGIS 10.3 by merging national datasets (‘bottom-up approach’) while maintaining the mapping scale of the original input data. Polygon data for peatland borders (and rarely for larger areas containing several smaller peatlands) were used if available. For countries with point data, all points were transformed into polygons representing 50 ha and those for peatlands of size > 50 ha identified by name in the national dataset were enlarged to approximate the real shape and size of the peatland based on comparison with satellite imagery (Google Earth, cf. Connolly & Holden 2011). The map layout was also produced in ArcGIS 10.3 (A3 format). For all countries except Russia, the data were displayed in greyscale 60 %. For Russia we distinguished areas with peat layers ≥ 30 cm thick (greyscale 50 %) from paludified shallow-peat lands (greyscale 30 %) (see Appendix 1). To improve visibility of the biogeographically important small peatlands in (mostly) southern Europe, polygons were symbolised in ArcGIS with solid (width 0.4 point) outlines for the following countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France (dataset 2 only; for dataset 1 the outline width is 0.2 point; see Appendix 1), Georgia, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Svalbard, Turkey and Ukraine (dataset 2 only, see Appendix 1). All other country data were depicted with dotted polygon outlines (dashes of width 0.01 point and length 1 point, separated by 9-point gaps). Very accurately mapped small peatlands (e.g., in Andorra) could not be depicted. For the purposes of this article, the map was exported from ArcGIS into a tif raster format (300 dpi, 8-bit grey scale, LZW compression; provided in Supplementary Material). Our estimates of the total peatland area per country rely either on the national GIS data or stem from published inventories, soil maps, or detailed lists of current peatland areas which were often personally visited by the respective national authors. Estimates of the total current mire area per country, i.e. of the area of peatland where peat is currently being formed (Joosten et al. 2017c, 2017d), are provisional for most countries. Whereas there are indicators for peatland degradation that can easily be identified by remote sensing (e.g., low water levels, ditches, specific vegetation and land uses), it is much more difficult to reliably assess current peat formation (Joosten et al. 2017c). Therefore, often only a range of ‘educated guesses’ could be derived from existing data. The approach to estimating mire area varied substantially between countries. In many cases expert judgement was applied to roughly estimate the peat-forming fractions of areas assigned to relevant vegetation or habitat types, perhaps for EU Natura 2000 reporting purposes - for example, 100 % for active raised bog (EU Habitat 7110) and 10 % for alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (EU Habitat 91E0). Estimates for mire areas not covered by Natura 2000 habitat types (e.g., certain fens) were based on the expert knowledge of national authors. Another approach was to subtract the area of drained peatland from the total area of peatland and take the remainder as the estimate of mire area. This may have resulted in either over-estimation (if types of degradation other than drainage were present) or under-estimation (if areas reported as ‘drained peatland’ had been abandoned and undergone spontaneous or planned rewetting). For a very few countries with low peatland cover, in the absence of better data the total peatland area had to be used as the estimate of total mire area. RESULTS The distribution of peatland in Europe is strongly imbalanced, with much more peatland occurring in the north than in the south (Figure 1, Table 1). The occurrence of peatland roughly reflects the influence of rainfall and temperature, with less peatland occurring where summer temperatures are higher and rainfall is lower (Moen et al. 2017). The effect of different definitions of peatland is visible, e.g., along the Azov Sea coast, where “paludified shallow-peat lands” are shown for the Russian Federation but not for Ukraine. The diversity in mapping accuracy among countries is visible, e.g., along the Finnish- Russian border (peatlands being under-represented in the Russian Federation because maps with different scale were used - the discontinuity would disappear when using regional peatland maps for Russian provinces neighbouring Finland, e.g., Republic of Karelia and Leningrad Oblast) and along the Polish- Belarusian-Ukrainian borders (with peatlands being over-represented in Ukraine). F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 4 Figure 1. The composite peatland map of Europe, showing the distribution of peatland/organic soils derived from best-available national datasets. Note that small and sparsely distributed peatlands in (mostly) southern European countries are slightly enlarged for better visibility, and that the paler shading in European Russia represents peat < 30 cm thick. See text for further details. F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 5 Table 1. Estimated peatland and mire areas per country (in km²), as in Joosten et al. (2017a); also expressed as fractions (%) of, respectively, the country’s surface and total peatland areas. Unless otherwise indicated, the data refer to areas with a minimum peat thickness of 30 cm. The country areas are total surface areas, including land and inland water bodies but excluding polar regions and uninhabited islands, from UNSD (2012) except for European Russia. Superscripted numbers refer to notes located below the Table. Country country area (km²) peatland area mire area min (km²) max (km²) estimate (km²) % of country area min (km²) max (km²) estimate (km²) % of peatland area Albania 28,748 44 0.15 3 4 3.5 7.95 Andorra 468 5 5 1.07 5 5 100 Armenia 29,743 42 52 47 0.16 37 78.72 Austria 83,871 1,200 1.43 150 200 175 14.58 Azerbaijan 86,600 0.5 2.7 2.7 < 0.1 2.7 2.7 100 Azores 2,333 160 6.86 80 50.00 Belarus 207,600 25,605 12.33 8,630 33.70 Belgium 30,528 247.8 0.81 60 24.21 Bosnia and Herzegovina 51,209 170 190 180 0.35 162.5 90.00 Bulgaria 110,900 66.5 350 208 0.19 54 25.96 Croatia 56,594 15 51.2 33.1 0.06 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.76 Cyprus 9,251 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 100 Czech Republic 78,866 285.4 0.36 150 52.56 Denmark 43,094 2,029 2,029 4.71 137 137 6.75 Estonia 45,227 9,150 20.23 3,100 3,400 3,250 35.52 Faroe Islands 1,393 17.6 1.26 17.6 17.6 100 F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 6 Country country area (km²) peatland area mire area min (km²) max (km²) estimate (km²) % of country area min (km²) max (km²) estimate (km²) % of peatland area Finland 337,010 90,0001 26.71 35,0001 38.89 France 551,500 2,750 3,000 2,875 0.52 750 1,000 875 30.43 Georgia 69,700 170 0.24 165 97.06 Germany 357,137 12,800 3.58 250 1.95 Greece 131,957 103 0.08 45 13.70 Hungary 93,026 300 0.32 751 25.00 Iceland 103,000 5,7772 5.61 2,1122 36.56 Ireland 69,825 14,664.73 21.00 2,692.73 18.36 Italy 301,339 300 1,200 750 0.25 120 120 16.00 Latvia 64,562 5,991.9 9,036 7,514 11.64 3,165 42.12 Liechtenstein 160 2.6 1.63 1 38.46 Lithuania 65,300 6,4604 9.89 1,781 27.57 Luxembourg 2,586 3 4 3.5 0.14 0.1 2.86 Republic of Macedonia 25,713 281 281 1.09 13 4.63 Republic of Moldova 33,846 10 < 0.1 1 10.00 Montenegro 13,812 75 0.54 50 66.67 Netherlands 37,354 2,733.4 7.32 150 5.49 Norway 323,787 44,7001 13.81 37,7001 84.34 Poland 311,888 14,950 4.79 2,390 15.99 F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 7 Country country area (km²) peatland area mire area min (km²) max (km²) estimate (km²) % of country area min (km²) max (km²) estimate (km²) % of peatland area Portugal 89,879 271 0.29 10 3.69 Romania 238,391 7,6905 3.23 1,427.7 18.57 Russian Federation (European part) ~ 4,000,000 ~ 235,000/ ~ 680,0008 ~ 6.0/ ~ 17.08 >175,0009 >150,0009 65–7510 Serbia 88,361 30 100 100 0.11 12.5 12.50 Slovakia 49,036 60 0.12 30.6 11.77 Slovenia 20,273 83.9 0.41 4 4.5 4.3 5.07 Spain 505,992 300 400 350 0.07 180 220 200 57.14 Svalbard 62,422 3,0001 4.81 3,0001 100 Sweden 450,295 63,700 69,200 66,450 14.76 52,300 78.71 Switzerland 41,285 2806 0.68 120 42.86 Turkey 783,562 2201 < 0.1 307 13.64 Ukraine 603,500 10,0001 1.66 6,3951 63.95 United Kingdom 242,495 26,838.3 11.07 7,500 10,000 8,750 32.60 Total ~ 593,727 ~ 320,000 ~ 54 1 > 0 cm of peat; 2 > 0 cm of organic soil with > 12 % organic carbon content; 3 ≥ 45 cm of peat if undrained and ≥ 30 cm of peat if drained; 4 ≥ 30 cm of peat if undrained and ≥ 20 cm of peat if drained; 5 > 20 cm of organic soil with 20 % organic matter content; 6 >10 cm of organic soil with 20 % organic matter content; 7 > 20 cm of peat and >1 ha; 8 peatlands (> 30 cm peat) together with paludified shallow-peat lands (< 30 cm peat); 9 very rough estimate because statistics for agriculture and forestry do not distinguish between peatlands, shallow-peat lands and paludified mineral lands within drained lands (see Sirin & Minayeva 2001, Minayeva et al. 2009); 10 rather rough estimates - in some regions more than two-thirds of the peatland area may be drained, whereas in other regions almost the entire peatland area is undisturbed (Minayeva et al. 2009, Joosten et al. 2017a). F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 8 The total extent of peatland per country ranges from 0.015 km² (Cyprus) to around 235,000 km² (European Russia; Table 1). Proportionally (peatland as a fraction of the total area of the country), Finland is the country with most peatland (26.7 %). The extent of mire is highest in European Russia (more than 150,000 km²). The fraction of the total peatland area that is still mire is about 5 % or less in Croatia, Germany, Luxembourg, Republic of Macedonia, Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia (Table 1). In contrast, it is possibly close to 100 % in Andorra, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Faroe Islands and Svalbard, which probably arises partly (cf. Andorra, Azerbaijan, Cyprus) because non-mire peatlands have rapidly disappeared by total oxidation of the peat layer. The overall area of peatland in Europe is estimated at 593,727 km² (5.4 % of the total surface area). Mires cover more than 320,000 km² (about 54 % of the peatland area). If shallow-peat lands (< 30 cm peat) in European Russia are also taken into account, the total peatland area in Europe is more than 1,000,000 km2, which is almost 10 % of the total surface area. DISCUSSION This article attempts to provide the most accurate representation of current peatland distribution across the whole of Europe that is possible on the basis of available national data, using a consistent definition of peatland. Where recent relevant systematic national soils data are not available, we have used proxy data and expert judgement. Although this approach weakens the consistency of the methodology, we expect it to increase the reliability and completeness of the final product. Our estimates of national peatland/mire areas are largely derived from published sources. Combining them with other national GIS-based information, especially on land use, and using appropriate algorithms (including informed guesses) may improve the data, especially with regard to drained peatlands, whose extent may change rapidly as a result of ongoing peat oxidation (cf. Barthelmes et al. 2015 for Nordic and Baltic countries; datasets used in this publication). Eventually, however, national data must be improved by carrying out new inventories, either country-wide or in part of the country. Too often, national soils data are still very diverse and disparate (e.g., different techniques and scales of field survey, different criteria for classifying soils, different sampling methods and sampling densities), making it difficult to amalgamate the data meaningfully (Bragg & Lindsay 2003, Jandl et al. 2014). Combining standardised raster soil data with vegetation and climate data (‘top-down approach’, cf. Jones et al. 2004, 2005) can avoid some of these shortcomings. Montanarella et al. (2006) concluded that, for most European countries, the distribution of peat and peat-topped soils is more accurately portrayed by the map of organic carbon in topsoils (Jones et al. 2004) than by the European Soil Map (European Soil Bureau 2004). Still, the former approach yielded results that deviate substantially from the nationally-sourced information on peatland distribution presented here. Ideally, future peatland mapping should be based on aggregated data from local and national peat surveys rather than global soil maps (Montanarella 2014). The first step towards establishing a fully operational global peatland information system would be a complete inventory of available national peatland data, as presented here for Europe. Such an inventory can serve to identify gaps and priority areas for field surveys and further data collection activities. Remote sensing based mapping approaches (e.g., Gumbricht et al. 2017) may benefit from ‘bottom-up’ composite maps of national datasets when calibrating and cross-checking their modelling results. However, as long as elaborated ‘top-down’ maps for the whole of Europe are still absent, our map provides the most comprehensive distribution map of peatlands in Europe. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank all persons and institutions who helped us to access the national datasets used in this work - see acknowledgements in Joosten et al. (2017a). We also appreciate the constructive comments on this article of Luca Montanarella, Jonathan Price and the Editorin-Chief, Olivia Bragg. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS All authors except those from Greifswald Mire Centre (GMC) acquired, developed and/or modified national datasets (for their own countries) according to criteria set by, and extensive discussions with, the GMC authors. They also provided and checked the information presented in Table 1 and Appendix 1. Authors from GMC collaborated with the ‘national’ authors to develop, improve and augment the national datasets, compiled the data in GIS, and designed and created the composite peatland map of Europe. They also wrote the first draft of this article, which was then iteratively revised by all authors. F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 9 REFERENCES Barthelmes, A., Couwenberg, J., Risager, M., Tegetmeyer, C. & Joosten, H. (2015) Peatlands and Climate in a Ramsar Context: A Nordic- Baltic Perspective. TemaNord 2015:544, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 1–244. Bragg, O. & Lindsay, R. (eds.) (2003) Strategy and Action Plan for Mire and Peatland Conservation in Central Europe. Publication No. 18, Wetlands International, Wageningen, 94 pp. Online at: https://www.wetlands.org/publications/strategy- and-action-plan-for-mire-and-peatland- conservation-in-central-europe/ Broggi, M.F. (2009) Die Rietlandschaft im Dreieck der Ortschaften Ruggell, Bangs und Nofels (The Riet landscape in the triangle of the villages Ruggell, Bangs and Nofels). In: Broggi, F., Heeb, J., Nescher, M. & Rosier, X. (eds.) Naturerlebnis Liechtenstein - Ruggeller Riet und Schellenberger Riet (Experiencing Nature in Liechtenstein - Ruggell Riet and Schellenberg Riet), Alpenland Verlag, Schaan, 19–30 (in German). Chytrý, M., Kučera, T., Kočí, M., Grulich, V. & Lustyk, P. (eds.) (2010) Katalog biotopů České Republiky (Catalogue of Habitats of the Czech Republic). Second edition, Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny ČR, Prague, 448 pp. (in Czech). Connolly, J. & Holden, N.M. (2011) Object oriented classification of disturbance on raised bogs in the Irish Midlands using medium- and highresolution satellite imagery. Irish Geography, 44, 111–135. de Brogniez, D., Ballabio, C., Stevens, A., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L. & van Wesemael, B. (2014) A map of the topsoil organic carbon content of Europe generated by a generalized additive model. European Journal of Soil Science, 66, 121–134. Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe, K. (eds.) (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, IGES, Japan. Online at: http://www. ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html European Soil Bureau (2004) Thematic Map. PEAT. Soil Geographical Database of Eurasia. Version 4 beta, 25/09/2001 and Pedotransfer Rules 2.0. 1:30,000,000. Online at: https://esdac.jrc.ec. europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/ptrdb/peata3.pdf FAO (2006) World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006: A Framework for International Classification, Correlation and Communication. World Soil Resources Report 103, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, 128 pp. Online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0510e.pdf FAO (2015) World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. Update 2015. World Soil Resources Report 106, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, 203 pp. Online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a- i3794e.pdf FAO (2017) Unlocking the Potential of Soil Organic Carbon: Outcome Document of the Global Symposium on Soil Organic Carbon, 21–23 March 2017, FAO Headquarters, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, 22 pp. Online at: http://www.fao.org/3/b-i7268e.pdf Felbaba-Klyshina, L.M. (2010) [Фельбаба- Клушина, Л.М. (2010)] Рослинний покрив боліт і водойм верхівя басейну р. Тиса (Українські Карпати) та флювіальна концепція його охорони. (Vegetation of Mires and Waterbodies of the Upper Basin of Tisa River (Ukrainian Carpathians) and a Fluvial Concept for its Protection). Poligrafzentr Lira, Uzhgorod, 129 pp. (in Ukrainian). Goodwillie, R. (1980) European Peatlands. Nature and Environment Series No. 19, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 76 pp. Gumbricht, T., Roman-Cuesta, R.M., Verchot, L., Herold, M., Wittmann, F., Householder, E., Herold, N. & Murdiyarso, D. (2017) An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13689. Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M. & Troxler, T.G. (eds.) (2014) 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. IPCC, Switzerland, 354 pp. Jandl, R., Rodeghiero, M., Martinez, C., Cotrufo, M.F., Bampa, F., van Wesemael, B., Harrison, R.B., Guerrini, I.A., Richter, D.deB.Jr., Rustad, L., Lorenz, K., Chabbi, A. & Miglietta, F. (2014) Current status, uncertainty and future needs in soil organic carbon monitoring. Science of the Total Environment, 468–469, 376–383. Jones, R.J.A., Hiederer, R., Rusco, E., Loveland, P.J. & Montanarella, L. (2004) The map of organic carbon in topsoils in Europe, Version 1.2. September 2003: Explanation of Special Publication Ispra 2004 No.72 (S.P.I.04.72), European Soil Bureau Research Report No.17, F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 16 Country Dataset Peatland data Proxy data Dataset content Year Data format GIS edited by GMC Data creator/Holder of rights Sweden 1 x peatlands 2015 PY x Geological Survey of Sweden (SGU) and Metria AB/Swedish EPA; further developed by GMC (see Barthelmes et al. 2015, pp. 167–171) Switzerland 1 x “Hochmoore” (bogs) and “Flachmoore” (fens) 2010 PY Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU) 2 x organic soils recommended for the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory 2015 PY x C. Wüst-Galley et al./Agroscope Turkey 1 x main peatlands, small active peatlands, peat-like formations (< 20 cm peat, < 1 ha), degraded or buried peatland 2014 PT S. Kirca Ukraine 1 x organic soil (containing “bolotni”, “torfuvato-bolotni”, “torfovo-bolotni” soils, “torfovyshcha”) 2014 PY x Ukrainian Scientific Research Institute of Soil Science and Institute for Community Development 2 x small mires in the Carpathians (based on Felbaba-Klyshina 2010) 2014 PT x Felbaba-Klyshina (2010) and GMC United Kingdom 1 x peat and peaty soils 2011 PY x Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (MLURI; now James Hutton Institute) and University of Cranfield/Joint Nature Conservation Committee 1Data for the European part of the Russian Federation (ca. 40 % of the land area of Europe) are based on the ‘Peatlands of Russia’ Geographic Information System (GIS) of the Institute of Forest Science at the Russian Academy of Sciences, which was initiated in the 1990s (Vompersky et al. 1996, 2011). More accurate regional maps (e.g., Sirin et al. 2014) exist. Small peatlands typical for the southern (e.g., Sirin et al. 2016) and mountain regions are mostly not represented. Data for Kaliningrad Oblast were added at higher resolution to match the mapping accuracy of neighbouring countries. F. Tanneberger et al. THE PEATLAND MAP OF EUROPE Mires and Peat, Volume 19 (2017), Article 22, 1–17, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2017 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society, DOI: 10.19189/MaP.2016.OMB.264 17 Appendix 2: Additional author affiliations (see title page) 2 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food, Agricultural University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania 3 Department of Environment, Ministry of Tourism and Environment, Andorra la Vella, Andorra 4 Agency of Bioresources Management, Ministry of Nature Protection, Yerevan, Armenia 5 Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria 6 Faculty of Agrarian Sciences and Environment, Azores University, Angra do Heroismo, Portugal 7 Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus 8 Natural and Agricultural Environment Studies Department, Public Service of Wallonia, Gembloux, Belgium 9 Faculty of Forestry, University of Banja Luka, Banja Luka, Bosnia-Herzegovina 10 Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria 11 Department of Biology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia 12 Department of Botany, Faculty of Biology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece 13 Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Třeboň, Czech Republic 14 Risager Consult, Randers, Denmark 15 Nature Conservation Department, Environmental Board, Tallinn, Estonia 16 Faroese Museum of Natural History, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands 17 Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland 18 French Mire Resource Centre, Fédération des Conservatoires d'Espaces Naturels, Besançon, France 19 Department of Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia 20 Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Müncheberg, Germany 21 Department of Geology, University of Patras, Rio-Patras, Greece 22 Department of Botany, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, Hungary 23 Agricultural University of Iceland, Keldnaholt, Iceland 24 School of History and Geography, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland 25 Department of Life Science and Biotechnologies, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy 26 Environmental Protection Agency of Emilia Romagna Region, Reggio Emilia, Italy 27 Environment Modelling Centre, Technical University of Riga, Riga, Latvia 28 Nature Conservation Agency, Jūrmala, Latvia 29 State Service for Protected Areas under the Ministry of Environment, Protection and Management Division, Vilnius, Lithuania 30 Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia 31 Institute of Ecology and Geography, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Moldova, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova 32 Centre for Protection and Research of Birds of Montenegro, BirdLife Affiliate Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro 33 Wageningen Environmental Research (ALTERRA), Wageningen, Netherlands 34 NTNU University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway 35 ITP - Institute of Technology and Life Sciences, Falenty, Poland 36 A-dos-Cunhados (Torres Vedras), Portugal 37 Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development, Tulcea, Romania 38 Institute of Forest Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation 39 Institute of Living Systems, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russian Federation 40 Institute of Botany and Botanical Garden "Jevremovac", University of Belgrade – Faculty of Biology, Belgrade, Serbia 41 DAPHNE – Institute of Applied Ecology, Bratislava, Slovakia 42 Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ljubljana, Slovenia 43 Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Alava, Vitoria, Spain 44 Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain 45 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden 46 Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland 47 Agroscope, Zürich, Switzerland 48 Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry, University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey 49 Institute for Community Development, Kyiv, Ukraine 50 Sustainability Research Institute, University of East London, London, UK