Reply to Macreadie et al Comment on 'Geoengineering with seagrasses: is credit due where credit is given?'

Macreadie et al (this issue; M2017 Environ. Res. Lett.) challenged the conclusion presented by Johannessen and Macdonald (2016 Environ. Res. Lett.) that global estimates of carbon sequestration by seagrass meadows were too high. Here we clarify our global calculation, respond to M2017's criticisms and explain how the persistent misunderstandings about sediment dynamics within the Blue Carbon community continue to lead to overestimates of carbon sequestration in seagrass meadows. We point out that, although seagrasses appear to have a local effect on carbon sequestration compared with nearby barren sediments, their preferred substrate (slowly-accumulating, coarse sediment) makes them among the least effective coastal environments for burying carbon. We conclude with a proposal for the development of robust international protocols to quantify carbon burial in seagrass meadows that account for sediment accumulation, sediment mixing and carbon remineralization.