4.3 Article

Sources of sediment carbon sequestered in restored seagrass meadows

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 551, 期 -, 页码 95-105

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps11722

关键词

Seagrass; Carbon sequestration; Blue carbon; Stable isotopes

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0621014, DEB-1237733]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1237733] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seagrass meadows accumulate carbon in sediments as a result of in situ production and sedimentation of particulate organic matter (OM). We quantified the contribution of OM sources to the sediment carbon pool in restored seagrass meadows of different ages (unvegetated and 4 and 10 yr since restoration) in the Virginia coastal bays. Using carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) stable isotopes, we estimated the contribution of seagrass (Zostera marina), benthic diatoms and sestonic particles (BD/S), and macroalgae (MA) to the sediment OM pool influenced by restoration (top 10 cm) with a Bayesian mixing model. Marsh grass was not a likely source based on C: N ratios of the sediment OM. The 4 and 10 yr seagrass meadows had similar OM source contributions to the top 10 cm of sediment, which were distinct from those of unvegetated sites. Seagrass, BD/S, and MA contributed 41, 56, and 3%, respectively, in the 10 yr age treatments and 50, 46, and 4%, respectively, in the 4 yr age treatments. Diagenesis of OM sources had little impact on the source contribution estimates. In combination with carbon accumulation rates at these sites (37 g C m(-2) yr(-1)), these results indicate that 10 yr after seeding, restored seagrass meadows accumulated seagrass carbon at a rate of 14.3 g C m(-2) yr(-1) and non-seagrass carbon (BD/S and MA) at a rate of 22.4 g C m(-2) yr(-1). This study demonstrates how seagrass restoration contributes to the sequestration of 'blue carbon' and quantifies the impact restored seagrass meadow age has on stored sediment carbon.

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

4.3
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