4.6 Article

Greenhouse gas flux with reflooding of a drained salt marsh soil

Journal

PEERJ
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5659

Keywords

Greenhouse gas flux; Methane; Nitrous oxide; Salt marsh; Agricultural marsh; Managed realignment; Blue carbon

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [105665-13]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Salt marshes are highly effective carbon (C) sinks and bury more C per square meter annually than any other ecosystem. Reclamation and anthropogenic impacts, however, have resulted in extensive losses of salt marshes. Carbon credits can be generated and sold by restoring marshes, but only if C sequestration and net reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG) are reliably quantified. Restored marshes, however, may exhibit different patterns of GHG emissions than natural marshes and it is possible that they could temporarily become sources of N2O even in the usually N-limited estuarine environment. Research on short-term GHG flux following salt marsh restoration is limited to studies of two restored marshes which examined GHG flux more than six months after the return of tidal flooding. Here we report on a laboratory experiment in which soil cores collected from a drained agricultural marsh on the St. Lawrence Estuary were flooded with estuary water. Gas flux measurements immediately after flooding revealed small increases in N2O and CH4, but a large decline in CO(2 )yielding, from a climatic perspective, a net cooling effect over the observation period. In addition to restoring the land's capacity to sequester C once a marsh develops, returning tidal flooding thus appears to have the added benefit of stemming large ongoing C losses. With more than 400 km(2) of undeveloped dykeland, Eastern Canada is well positioned to restore large sections of marsh and contribute to reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available