4.7 Article

Macroalgae culture-induced carbon sink in a large cultivation area of China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 49, 页码 107693-107702

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-29985-6

关键词

Mariculture; Carbon sink; Macroalgae; Carbon neutrality; Sedimentation rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study examined the carbon sink and sources in sediments of a macroalgae cultivation field in Sansha Bay, Southeast China. The results showed that macroalgae-derived organic carbon accounted for less than 35% of the total organic carbon. A preliminary estimate suggested that macroalgae-induced carbon sink represented only 8.2 x 10^3 tons per year, which is relatively insignificant on a national or global scale. However, considering the small cultivation area, the impact of macroalgae culture on carbon sink should still be taken into account.
Macroalgae culture-induced carbon sink in sediments has been little investigated. Here, total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and delta C-13 were examined in sediments in a cultivation field of macroalgae (kelp and Gracilariopsis lemaneiformis) in Sansha Bay, Southeast China. Both proxies of C/N (TOC to TN ratio) and delta C-13 indicated a multisource of TOC. Based on a three-endmember model, macroalgae-derived TOC (TOCma) accounted for < 35% of the total TOC, averaging 16 +/- 9% (mean +/- SD). On average, terrestrial and phytoplankton-derived TOC showed much higher percentages of 24 +/- 17% and 60 +/- 20%, respectively (t-test, p < 0.02). A preliminary estimate suggested that TOCma represents a carbon sink of 8.2 x 10(3) tons per year, corresponding to about 22% of the sink associated with phytoplankton and macroalgae and 8 +/- 6% of the macroalgae carbon production in Sansha Bay. Considering its production magnitude, the macroalgae-induced carbon sink seems to be insignificant, on a national or global scale, to phytoplankton, though it should be taken into account given the small cultivation area.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据