Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T07:51:26.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The present, past and future of blue carbon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

Kerrylee Rogers*
Affiliation:
School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
Jeffrey J. Kelleway
Affiliation:
School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
Neil Saintilan
Affiliation:
School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Kerrylee Rogers; Email: kerrylee@uow.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Blue carbon is identified as a natural climate solution as it provides multiple ecosystem services, including climate mitigation, adaptation, and other co-benefits. There remain ongoing challenges for blue carbon as a natural climate solution, particularly as blue carbon ecosystems are at risk from climate change. Concepts of uniformitarianism were applied to consider how the present and past behaviour of blue carbon ecosystems can inform decision-makers of blue carbon risks. Climate change may increase the capture and storage of blue carbon in the short to medium term; this is largely due to negative feedbacks between elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature, and supplemented by natural processes of sediment supply and accumulation. Opportunities for retreat and increasing carbon storage as sea levels rise are likely to be greater where sea level has a longer history of relative stability, largely in the Southern Hemisphere. Landward retreat will be crucial where millennia of sea-level rise have limited the capacity for in situ blue carbon additionality; this may be thwarted by highly developed coastal zones and coastal squeeze effects. Negative feedbacks may fail under higher emissions, greater warming and rates of sea-level rise exceeding ~5–7 mm yr.−1; this tipping point may be surpassed within the next century under a high emissions scenario. Retreat of blue carbon ecosystems to higher elevations where they are afforded protection from the effects of sea-level rise will be critical for blue carbon additionality. Carbon markets are prepared to incentivise restoration of blue carbon ecosystems as they adapt to climate change; however, knowledge gaps remain, particularly regarding the behaviour of blue carbon ecosystems in the global south. Given the momentum in blue carbon research, scientists and practitioners are well placed to continue addressing blue carbon risks.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Global mapped distribution and existing estimates of carbon cycling parameters of (A) saltmarsh and (B) mangrove; (C) modelled distribution of seagrass; and (D) genus richness of benthic marine macroalgae. All values are global mean values ±1 standard deviation (where available) unless otherwise specified. Belowground carbon stocks are estimated to 1 m depth. CAR = (surface) carbon accumulation rate; NPP = net ecosystem primary productivity; SE = 1 standard error. Note that for macroalgae, CAR is replaced by estimates of carbon burial in situ (i.e. in algal beds) and exported particulate organic carbon buried in shelf sediments. Map data sources: saltmarsh (Mcowen et al., 2017); mangrove (Bunting et al., 2018); seagrass (Jayathilake and Costello, 2018); macroalgae (Kerswell, 2006). Carbon data sources: a (Rogers et al., 2019a); b (Pendleton et al. 2012a); c (Duarte and Cebrian, 1996); d (Wang et al., 2021); e (Ouyang and Lee, 2014); f (Atwood et al., 2017); g; h (Alongi, 2012); i; j (McLeod et al., 2011); k (Krause-Jensen and Duarte, 2016).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Profiles of BCE landscapes indicating (A) accommodation space, delimited by the highest astronomical tide, basement or bedrock geology, and hydrodynamic conditions favourable for mineral and organic matter accumulation (modified from Rogers (2021)); and (B) the range of techniques that can be used to observe and measure changes in substrate volume, mineral and organic matter accumulation, and position within the tidal frame, with specific focus on changing tidal position with sea-level rise, as per Allen (2000).

Figure 2

Figure 3. (A) Conceptual model of lateral zonation of BCEs of southeastern Australia with respect to tidal parameters, and varying distribution of soil organic carbon within the active root zone, inactive root zone and subtidal zone; and (B) associated generalised variation in carbon storage within BCEs (modified from Owers et al. (2022)). (C and D) Relationships between carbon storage and sea-level change (from T0 to Tn) under conditions of (C) relatively stable sea level since the mid-Holocene and (D) rising sea level since the mid-Holocene (modified from Allen (2000)).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Relative sea-level change is a significant control on processes of carbon accumulation and decomposition, and varies globally according to the generalised Holocene relative sea-level zones (A) (Clark et al., 1978) and generalised Holocene relative sea-level curves across these zones (B). Note the distribution of coastal acid sulphate soils in (Michael, 2013) (A), which corresponds broadly with regions where sea-level conditions facilitated widescale mangrove and saltmarsh development throughout the late-Holocene. When sea levels are rising (C), sedimentary carbon continues to accumulate within available accommodation and pathways of decomposition are dampened under increasingly anaerobic conditions. Where sea level has been relatively stable (D), blue carbon additionality is limited by the upper limit of tidal inundation and substrates become increasingly mineral dominated and support terrestrial vegetation as accommodation diminishes. Under conditions of falling sea levels (E), substrates become increasingly terrestrialised (i.e. with terrestrial vegetation) and conditions favour aerobic decomposition and methanogenesis of blue carbon.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Conceptualisation of the interacting effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, warming and relative sea-level rise on BCE projected to occur under a range of emissions scenarios. Under the baseline scenario (A) carbon is fixed by in situ vegetation and contributes to soil carbon accumulation and substrate volume via accretion. The landward margin under brackish conditions is a source of methane. Under the mid-range emissions scenario (B) the feedbacks between elevated atmospheric CO2 and organic carbon sequestration and between relative sea-level rise (RSLR) and organic carbon production, preservation, and vertical accretion are strengthened. Saline intrusion reduces methane emissions in the landward fringe, although this may be counterbalanced by increased emissions resulting from increases in NPP induced by CO2 and warming. Under the high-range emission scenario (C) a tipping point is reached where RSLR exceeds vertical accretion leading to mortality and shoreline retreat. Mortality of terrestrial vegetation contributes to elevated methane production in the short term. Note that the relative strength of interactions with greenhouse gases is indicated by the thickness of lines, and greyed-out vegetation is indicative of dieback or loss associated with the effects of rising sea levels.

Supplementary material: File

Rogers et al. supplementary material

Rogers et al. supplementary material

Download Rogers et al. supplementary material(File)
File 29.8 KB

Author comment: The present, past and future of blue carbon — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: The present, past and future of blue carbon — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests

Comments

This work is interesting and timely and provides a nice, albeit geographically biased, overview of the topic. There are however some shortcomings.

There are quite a few orthographic and spelling mistakes throughout, which should be addressed prior to resubmission, without line or page numbers it is difficult to highlight, but the first line of the abstract doesn’t make sense and should be rewritten, the other orthographic issues are on pg 2, 7, 9, 10 (a few),11, 12, 13 (a few), and 15 of the MS.

These are the minor issues.

Larger issues are that for a big review such as this there is not a lot of information on regions outside of the US, Australia and (a bit on some parts of Asia), particularly Europe and S. America, although there are a lot of articles on both SLR, and to a lesser extent, blue carbon from these areas.

On pg 4, when referring to sequestration in seagrasses, it should also be noted that seagrasses can export carbon to adjacent ecosystems including mudflats and in the final sentence of the first section on that page, it would be better to justify the focus of the paper on salt marshes and mangroves on the greater C storage capacity per area rather than solely on in situ storage.

On page 5 the second from last sentence focusses on the geographical regions of N America and Australia (plus S Africa). Is this solely because there has been a greater focus of study written in English on these regions, or potentially just studies that the authors have read on these regions. there is at least one study in S. America that discusses this, and potentially more in other regions.

On page 10, the first section (carried on from the previous page) is also focussed on particular regions. There are quite a few studies from groups in Europe (Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Fennoscandia, the Baltic States, UK, and France) and S America that are missing from this, including groups from the National University of Mar del Plata in Argentina, Marcelo Cohens group in Brazil, Luiz Drude de Lacerda’s group in another part of Brazil, and groups from Santa Catarina and Sao Paulo in Brazil that work in this area as well as Sanders from the US who works in S. America.

Lastly, the first paragraph of the conclusions finishes with a very broad generalisation of the southern hemisphere, which based on the review, really only accounts for Australia. It would be better to either broaden out the review to a wider geographical coverage or undertake a systematic review (this would be the best way forwards), that will truly account for global coverage, even if only English language publications.

Recommendation: The present, past and future of blue carbon — R0/PR3

Comments

Associate Editor (Krauss): My apologies for the time it took to received a review of this manuscript. I sent it to 22 people, and finally received 2 commitments. Only one was returned. I think this has to do with how many people you are affiliated with globally, and/or that this is a new journal not yet recognized.

This review is very nice. Most of my comments are grammatical, but please incorporate those comments and ideas provide by the reviewer. Upon revision, I only ask that you address how the reviewer’s comments were handled in your cover letter. No need to address my many minor edits.

Thank you for the submission. I look forward to reviewing the final revised version, as well as being able to cite this manuscript at a future date.

Editorial review,

Need to define “SLR” upon its first usage.

P. 4. McLeod et al., 2011. Should be a lower case “l” in name.

P. 5. Would you be willing to define “Sabkha” parenthetically next to its first usage. Not sure many readers will be familiar with that term.

P. 6. Need a period after “…Duarte 2016).”

P. 6. Please define the abbreviation “SRTM” upon first usage, or just delete the abbreviation. Next line, “or” should be “of”.

P. 7. Re: the statement “… of at least 20 years before harvesting can occur”. Also, in the tropical cyclone belt, harvesting would be replaced by storm effects over a similar period of time. Might be worth incorporating. This is our biggest point of discussion in the Neotropics where harvesting is limited. I tend to equate this cyclone destruction to annual marsh senescence; instead of an annual cycle of aboveground C turnover, mangroves can have a two-decade cycle of turnover.

P. 7. Presumption of synchronous C burial with aboveground C increment is interesting though. I feel like you have been able to document fairly well that this synchrony is not true for mangroves under rising sea-levels.

P. 7. Duplicate citation for “Saintilan 1997” on two occasions.

P. 7. Re: the statement “…where mangroves have expanded into saltmarsh zones positioned higher in the tidal frame” does not apply to the neotropics. I know that you have previously addressed this, but perhaps a caveat is needed here. Marshes are most often lower in the tidal frame than mangroves in the neotropics. You always step down when you transition from mangrove to marsh.

P. 9. Re: the statement “…oxidizing materials required for decomposition of soil organic matter.” Remember also that there are anaerobic pathways of soil organic matter decomposition. You address this immediately below, but I suggest instead of “required” consider a different word or phrase here.

P. 9. Should be “decomposition of organic matter”. Missing the word “of”.

P. 9. Line with the citation to Allen (2009); need to add space between “and” and “organic”.

P. 9. Hydroperiod also includes “depth,” or rather should be “depth, duration, and frequency”.

P. 10. Should the phrase be “sand sheets”?

P. 10. Be sure that “-1” is superscripted in 20 mm yr-1.

P. 10. A fairly useful perspective from the Caribbean basin is provided by: Sherrod CL, McMillan C (1985) The distributional history and ecology of mangrove vegetation along the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal region. Contributions in Marine Science, 28, 129–140. This might help with comments by the Reviewer as well. Also, look up what Maggie Toscano, Debra Willard, or Miriam Jones has published on the Everglades region. Might strengthen a few of these statements on Page 10.

P. 10. Please use “keep up” or ‘keep up’.

P. 11. In lieu of “1.5 o/oo,” I would standardize to “p.p.t.” for consistency.

P. 11. Should be “increases in atmospheric”. Need to add “in”.

P. 11. Paragraph break before “Presentation...”?

P. 11. Delete “,” after 3500 yr BP. Next line should be “reported to have”. Add the word “to”.

P. 12. Re: “…exhibit high soils organic carbon…”. Should this be “soil”?

P. 12. Mispelled “below-ground” as “belowgroun”.

P. 12. Line immediately after subheading. Delete “t”.

P. 13. Misspelled “livelihoods” and “security”.

P. 13. Need a space after “markets”

P. 13. Double citation of “Lovelock et al. 2022”

P. 14. Re: “…whilst the 100 year timeframe aligns with what is regarded to be “sequestered carbon”.” Is there is citation for the usage of this time frame? I’ve often wondered if there was a citation for that assumption. It seems to be more widely known in the core world as 100 years.

P. 15. Misspelled “flux” as “flx”. Next line, misspelled “atmospheric”.

P. 15. Should be “outcomes are”.

P. 16. Should this be “vary” instead of “varies”? Refers back to “magnitude and duration”. Two lines later, misspelled “between”.

P. 17. Re: “…capacity of at the site scale…”. Need to delete the word “of”. Few lines later, need space between “and” and “policy”.

P. 18. Misspelled “appreciate”. Also, should be “data were”.

Decision: The present, past and future of blue carbon — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: The present, past and future of blue carbon — R1/PR5

Comments

Dear Professor Tom Spencer;

Thank you for the invitation to submit an article to Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures focused on Blue Carbon. We appreciate the difficulty in finding reviewers for manuscripts; however, the reviews we received have allowed us to reflect on the manuscript and improve the submission.

In the attached document we have detailed explicitly how we have addressed each comment provided by reviewers. Here we have taken the opportunity to emphasise the primary changes that have been made to the manuscript. These changes have been substantial, but we feel have improved the manuscript. We have attached both a clean and tracked changes version of this manuscript.

Both reviewers suggested expanding upon the Holocene sea-level literature pertaining to the changing distribution of mangroves and saltmarshes with relative sea-level change, and the editor-in-chief (you) suggested structuring this section to focus more on relative sea-level rise zones proposed by Clark et al. (1978). In response, we have restructured the section titled “The PAST” to include considerably more global literature; however, to maintain brevity this section may still appear far from comprehensive. We agree with reviewer 2 that a comprehensive or systematic review is needed, but this is beyond the scope of this manuscript. We disagree that there was a focus on English literature, rather the focus was on regions where sea level has been rising and where sea level has been stable – much of this literature is from countries where English is the primary language; we have added more references to include literature from other regions, including South America.

Some changes to figures have occurred. Figure 4 has been replaced with schematics indicating sea level zones by Clark et al. (1978) and the varying response of substrates and blue carbon to relative sea-level change throughout the Holocene. Specific reference to this figure is made in “The PAST” and this addition facilitated structuring this section around the Holocene relative sea-level zones demarcated by Clark et al. (1978). We have also improved Figure 5 to provide additional detail regarding carbon fluxes across wetland substrates.

Again, we appreciate the informative reviews that were received. We look forward to receiving further guidance about the manuscript.

Kind regards

Kerrylee Rogers

Recommendation: The present, past and future of blue carbon — R1/PR6

Comments

Dr. Rogers - Nice job on the revision. Sorry for my delay in accepting your manuscript. We really appreciate you writing this manuscript, which should put this message forward into many hands. Your manuscript will also help advance the stature of Coastal Futures tremendously!

Decision: The present, past and future of blue carbon — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.