4.6 Article

Effects of coastal marsh conversion to shrimp aquaculture ponds on CH4 and N2O emissions

Journal

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
Volume 199, Issue -, Pages 125-131

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2017.09.023

Keywords

Land-use conversion; Methane; Nitrous oxide; Tidal marsh; Shrimp pond; Anthropogenic influence

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [41671088, 41371127]
  2. Program for Innovative Research Team of Fujian Normal University [IRTL1205]
  3. National Basic Scientific and Technological Work [2013FY111805]
  4. Swedish Council VR
  5. Linkoping University
  6. European Research Council ERC [725546]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we compared the CH4 and N2O fluxes from a tidal brackish Cyperus malaccensis marsh ecosystem and nearby shrimp ponds, converted from C malaccensis marsh in the last 3-4 years, in the Min River estuary of southeast China over the aquaculture period of the year. Significant differences in CH4 and N2O fluxes were observed in space (between brackish marsh and shrimp ponds) and in time (between sampling occasions that were distributed over the aquaculture period). CH4 fluxes from the shrimp ponds were on an average 10-fold higher than from the brackish marsh. N2O emissions, on the other hand, were lower from the shrimp pond (25% of the emissions from the brackish marsh). Accessory data indicates that these patterns were primarily linked to water level variability and temperature (all fluxes), sediment porewater sulfate concentrations (CH4 flux) and total nitrogen concentrations (N2O flux). Our research demonstrates that the coastal marsh ecosystem converted to aquaculture ponds considerably alter emissions of CH4 and N2O and provides input to the global discussion on how to account for emissions from various types of flooded land in greenhouse gas inventories. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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