Phillip Williamson, Robert W. Schlegel, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Julian E. Andrews, Tim D. Jickells
{"title":"Mason 等人严重夸大了盐沼恢复对气候的益处(2023 年)","authors":"Phillip Williamson, Robert W. Schlegel, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Julian E. Andrews, Tim D. Jickells","doi":"10.1111/gcb.17525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The meta-analysis by Mason et al. (<span>2023</span>) provides many important insights into carbon storage and dynamics in saltmarsh ecosystems. However, we consider that their estimate of the net global mean climate benefit of saltmarsh restoration of 64.70 t CO<sub>2</sub>e ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> is too high, by at least an order of magnitude.</p><p>Mason et al. determined the above value by adding atmospherically measured net CO<sub>2</sub> uptake (also known as net ecosystem exchange, NEE) to sediment-based organic carbon accumulation (C-acc) rates, then subtracting CO<sub>2</sub>e values for methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) and nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) emissions, using global arithmetic means for all parameters. However, the same atoms are involved in NEE and C-acc; such carbon was therefore double-counted (disregarding C imports/exports, a simplification also made by Mason et al.). Furthermore, most NEE data in Mason et al.'s database were daytime, growing-season measurements at low or mid-tide, using chambers. It is invalid to extrapolate these short-term CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes to annual rates since photosynthesis by saltmarsh vegetation either does not occur or is much reduced during nighttime, winter, and tidal immersion.</p><p>Eddy correlation NEE measurements in the database better integrate gas exchanges over large spatial areas and temporal periods. Their global mean value provides a carbon removal estimate of 7.8 t CO<sub>2</sub> ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>, combining data for restored and natural salt marshes. Correcting for CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O fluxes (using arithmetic mean values from Mason et al.'s table 1), changes this estimate to −1.3 t CO<sub>2</sub>e ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>; that is, indicating potential for net climate warming. Mason et al.'s CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O data are also mostly from chamber measurements; however, they are less likely to be affected by diel bias.</p><p>Although of interest, atmospherically based determinations of carbon sequestration are indirect, and the relatively few eddy correlation studies (<i>n</i> = 34) are geographically biased. We, therefore, consider that C-acc rates provide a better (upper) estimate of climate benefit, being more directly derived from depth profiles of sediment organic carbon content and sediment accretion rates. Using data from Mason et al.'s table 1, global arithmetic mean C-acc (expressed in terms of CO<sub>2</sub> uptake) is 16.2 and 7.8 t CO<sub>2</sub> ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> for restored (<i>n</i> = 82) and natural (<i>n</i> = 312) salt marshes, respectively. With corrections for CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O fluxes made separately for restored and natural sites, global mean values become −0.8 and 2.6 t CO<sub>2</sub>e ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> respectively, for the two conditions, showing the nonnegligible (yet highly uncertain, Rosentreter et al. <span>2021</span>) importance of these emissions, contrary to the conclusion drawn by Mason et al.</p><p>We therefore disagree with Mason et al. that saltmarsh restoration has clear potential to offset carbon emissions: the maximum benefit would seem < 0.05% of current CO<sub>2</sub> emissions rather than the 0.51% that they claim. Nevertheless, we recognize the value of protecting salt marshes (and their restoration, wherever feasible) for the many other environmental services that these ecosystems provide (Vegh et al. <span>2019</span>).</p><p><b>Phillip Williamson:</b> conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. <b>Robert W. Schlegel:</b> formal analysis, validation, writing – review and editing. <b>Jean-Pierre Gattuso:</b> conceptualization, validation, writing – review and editing. <b>Julian E. Andrews:</b> validation, writing – review and editing. <b>Tim D. Jickells:</b> validation, writing – review and editing.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>This article is a Letter to the Editor on Mason et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16943. See also response to this letter by Mason et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17526.</p>","PeriodicalId":175,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcb.17525","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Climate Benefits of Saltmarsh Restoration Greatly Overstated by Mason et al. (2023)\",\"authors\":\"Phillip Williamson, Robert W. Schlegel, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Julian E. Andrews, Tim D. Jickells\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gcb.17525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The meta-analysis by Mason et al. (<span>2023</span>) provides many important insights into carbon storage and dynamics in saltmarsh ecosystems. However, we consider that their estimate of the net global mean climate benefit of saltmarsh restoration of 64.70 t CO<sub>2</sub>e ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> is too high, by at least an order of magnitude.</p><p>Mason et al. determined the above value by adding atmospherically measured net CO<sub>2</sub> uptake (also known as net ecosystem exchange, NEE) to sediment-based organic carbon accumulation (C-acc) rates, then subtracting CO<sub>2</sub>e values for methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) and nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) emissions, using global arithmetic means for all parameters. However, the same atoms are involved in NEE and C-acc; such carbon was therefore double-counted (disregarding C imports/exports, a simplification also made by Mason et al.). Furthermore, most NEE data in Mason et al.'s database were daytime, growing-season measurements at low or mid-tide, using chambers. It is invalid to extrapolate these short-term CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes to annual rates since photosynthesis by saltmarsh vegetation either does not occur or is much reduced during nighttime, winter, and tidal immersion.</p><p>Eddy correlation NEE measurements in the database better integrate gas exchanges over large spatial areas and temporal periods. Their global mean value provides a carbon removal estimate of 7.8 t CO<sub>2</sub> ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>, combining data for restored and natural salt marshes. Correcting for CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O fluxes (using arithmetic mean values from Mason et al.'s table 1), changes this estimate to −1.3 t CO<sub>2</sub>e ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup>; that is, indicating potential for net climate warming. Mason et al.'s CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O data are also mostly from chamber measurements; however, they are less likely to be affected by diel bias.</p><p>Although of interest, atmospherically based determinations of carbon sequestration are indirect, and the relatively few eddy correlation studies (<i>n</i> = 34) are geographically biased. We, therefore, consider that C-acc rates provide a better (upper) estimate of climate benefit, being more directly derived from depth profiles of sediment organic carbon content and sediment accretion rates. Using data from Mason et al.'s table 1, global arithmetic mean C-acc (expressed in terms of CO<sub>2</sub> uptake) is 16.2 and 7.8 t CO<sub>2</sub> ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> for restored (<i>n</i> = 82) and natural (<i>n</i> = 312) salt marshes, respectively. With corrections for CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O fluxes made separately for restored and natural sites, global mean values become −0.8 and 2.6 t CO<sub>2</sub>e ha<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> respectively, for the two conditions, showing the nonnegligible (yet highly uncertain, Rosentreter et al. <span>2021</span>) importance of these emissions, contrary to the conclusion drawn by Mason et al.</p><p>We therefore disagree with Mason et al. that saltmarsh restoration has clear potential to offset carbon emissions: the maximum benefit would seem < 0.05% of current CO<sub>2</sub> emissions rather than the 0.51% that they claim. Nevertheless, we recognize the value of protecting salt marshes (and their restoration, wherever feasible) for the many other environmental services that these ecosystems provide (Vegh et al. <span>2019</span>).</p><p><b>Phillip Williamson:</b> conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. <b>Robert W. Schlegel:</b> formal analysis, validation, writing – review and editing. <b>Jean-Pierre Gattuso:</b> conceptualization, validation, writing – review and editing. <b>Julian E. Andrews:</b> validation, writing – review and editing. <b>Tim D. Jickells:</b> validation, writing – review and editing.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>This article is a Letter to the Editor on Mason et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16943. See also response to this letter by Mason et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17526.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Change Biology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcb.17525\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Change Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.17525\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.17525","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate Benefits of Saltmarsh Restoration Greatly Overstated by Mason et al. (2023)
The meta-analysis by Mason et al. (2023) provides many important insights into carbon storage and dynamics in saltmarsh ecosystems. However, we consider that their estimate of the net global mean climate benefit of saltmarsh restoration of 64.70 t CO2e ha−1 year−1 is too high, by at least an order of magnitude.
Mason et al. determined the above value by adding atmospherically measured net CO2 uptake (also known as net ecosystem exchange, NEE) to sediment-based organic carbon accumulation (C-acc) rates, then subtracting CO2e values for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, using global arithmetic means for all parameters. However, the same atoms are involved in NEE and C-acc; such carbon was therefore double-counted (disregarding C imports/exports, a simplification also made by Mason et al.). Furthermore, most NEE data in Mason et al.'s database were daytime, growing-season measurements at low or mid-tide, using chambers. It is invalid to extrapolate these short-term CO2 fluxes to annual rates since photosynthesis by saltmarsh vegetation either does not occur or is much reduced during nighttime, winter, and tidal immersion.
Eddy correlation NEE measurements in the database better integrate gas exchanges over large spatial areas and temporal periods. Their global mean value provides a carbon removal estimate of 7.8 t CO2 ha−1 year−1, combining data for restored and natural salt marshes. Correcting for CH4 and N2O fluxes (using arithmetic mean values from Mason et al.'s table 1), changes this estimate to −1.3 t CO2e ha−1 year−1; that is, indicating potential for net climate warming. Mason et al.'s CH4 and N2O data are also mostly from chamber measurements; however, they are less likely to be affected by diel bias.
Although of interest, atmospherically based determinations of carbon sequestration are indirect, and the relatively few eddy correlation studies (n = 34) are geographically biased. We, therefore, consider that C-acc rates provide a better (upper) estimate of climate benefit, being more directly derived from depth profiles of sediment organic carbon content and sediment accretion rates. Using data from Mason et al.'s table 1, global arithmetic mean C-acc (expressed in terms of CO2 uptake) is 16.2 and 7.8 t CO2 ha−1 year−1 for restored (n = 82) and natural (n = 312) salt marshes, respectively. With corrections for CH4 and N2O fluxes made separately for restored and natural sites, global mean values become −0.8 and 2.6 t CO2e ha−1 year−1 respectively, for the two conditions, showing the nonnegligible (yet highly uncertain, Rosentreter et al. 2021) importance of these emissions, contrary to the conclusion drawn by Mason et al.
We therefore disagree with Mason et al. that saltmarsh restoration has clear potential to offset carbon emissions: the maximum benefit would seem < 0.05% of current CO2 emissions rather than the 0.51% that they claim. Nevertheless, we recognize the value of protecting salt marshes (and their restoration, wherever feasible) for the many other environmental services that these ecosystems provide (Vegh et al. 2019).
Phillip Williamson: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Robert W. Schlegel: formal analysis, validation, writing – review and editing. Jean-Pierre Gattuso: conceptualization, validation, writing – review and editing. Julian E. Andrews: validation, writing – review and editing. Tim D. Jickells: validation, writing – review and editing.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
This article is a Letter to the Editor on Mason et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16943. See also response to this letter by Mason et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17526.
期刊介绍:
Global Change Biology is an environmental change journal committed to shaping the future and addressing the world's most pressing challenges, including sustainability, climate change, environmental protection, food and water safety, and global health.
Dedicated to fostering a profound understanding of the impacts of global change on biological systems and offering innovative solutions, the journal publishes a diverse range of content, including primary research articles, technical advances, research reviews, reports, opinions, perspectives, commentaries, and letters. Starting with the 2024 volume, Global Change Biology will transition to an online-only format, enhancing accessibility and contributing to the evolution of scholarly communication.