17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Recovering wetland biogeomorphic feedbacks to restore the world’s biotic carbon hotspots

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Biogeomorphic wetlands cover 1% of Earth’s surface but store 20% of ecosystem organic carbon. This disproportional share is fueled by high carbon sequestration rates and effective storage in peatlands, mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows, which greatly exceed those of oceanic and forest ecosystems. Here, we review how feedbacks between geomorphology and landscape-building vegetation underlie these qualities and how feedback disruption can switch wetlands from carbon sinks into sources. Currently, human activities are driving rapid declines in the area of major carbon-storing wetlands (1% annually). Our findings highlight the urgency to stop through conservation ongoing losses and to reestablish landscape-forming feedbacks through restoration innovations that recover the role of biogeomorphic wetlands as the world’s biotic carbon hotspots.

          Restoring wetlands for carbon

          Wetlands disproportionately contribute to carbon sequestration globally. However, the ability of wetlands to store carbon depends on feedbacks between vegetation and geomorphology that allow wetlands to continue to develop over long time periods. When these feedbacks break down, wetlands can become carbon sources. Temmink et al . reviewed recent research on the role of plant-landform interactions in wetland carbon storage and the potential for restoration to restore these critical processes. —BEL

          Abstract

          A review explains that restoring plant-landform linkages is critical to harnessing the carbon sequestration potential of wetlands.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND

          Evaluating effects of global warming from rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentrations requires resolving the processes that drive Earth’s carbon stocks and flows. Although biogeomorphic wetlands (peatlands, mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows) cover only 1% of Earth’s surface, they store 20% of the global organic ecosystem carbon. This disproportionate share is fueled by high carbon sequestration rates per unit area and effective storage capacity, which greatly exceed those of oceanic and forest ecosystems. We highlight that feedbacks between geomorphology and landscape-building wetland vegetation underlie these critical qualities and that disruption of these biogeomorphic feedbacks can switch these systems from carbon sinks into sources.

          ADVANCES

          A key advancement in understanding wetland functioning has been the recognition of the role of reciprocal organism-landform interactions, “biogeomorphic feedbacks.” Biogeomorphic feedbacks entail self-reinforcing interactions between biota and geomorphology, by which organisms—often vegetation—engineer landforms to their own benefit following a positive density-dependent relationship. Vegetation that dominates major carbon-storing wetlands generate self-facilitating feedbacks that shape the landscape and amplify carbon sequestration and storage. As a result, per unit area, wetland carbon stocks and sequestration rates greatly exceed those of terrestrial forests and oceans, ecosystems that worldwide harbor large stocks because of their large areal extent.

          Worldwide biogeomorphic wetlands experience human-induced average annual loss rates of around 1%. We estimate that associated carbon losses amount to 0.5 Pg C per year, levels that are equivalent to 5% of the estimated overall anthropogenic carbon emissions. Because carbon emissions from degraded wetlands are often sustained for centuries until all organic matter has been decomposed, conserving and restoring biogeomorphic wetlands must be part of global climate solutions.

          OUTLOOK

          Our work highlights that biogeomorphic wetlands serve as the world’s biotic carbon hotspots, and that conservation and restoration of these hotspots offer an attractive contribution to mitigate global warming. Recent scientific findings show that restoration methods aimed at reestablishing biogeomorphic feedbacks can greatly increase establishment success and restoration yields, paving the way for large-scale restoration actions. Therefore, we argue that implementing such measures can facilitate humanity in its pursuit of targets set by the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.

          Related collections

          Most cited references128

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The biomass distribution on Earth

          Significance The composition of the biosphere is a fundamental question in biology, yet a global quantitative account of the biomass of each taxon is still lacking. We assemble a census of the biomass of all kingdoms of life. This analysis provides a holistic view of the composition of the biosphere and allows us to observe broad patterns over taxonomic categories, geographic locations, and trophic modes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Natural climate solutions

            Significance Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C. We examine how much climate mitigation nature can contribute to this goal with a comprehensive analysis of “natural climate solutions” (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and/or improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We show that NCS can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Alongside aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, NCS offer a powerful set of options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity, cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Science
                Science
                American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
                0036-8075
                1095-9203
                May 06 2022
                May 06 2022
                : 376
                : 6593
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Environmental Sciences, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB, Utrecht, Netherlands.
                [2 ]Department of Coastal Systems, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, 1790 AB Den Burg, Netherlands.
                [3 ]Aquatic Ecology and Environmental Biology, Radboud Institute for Biological and Environmental Sciences, Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Netherlands.
                [4 ]B-WARE Research Centre, Toernooiveld 1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands.
                [5 ]Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, Engineering School for Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment, University of Florida, Post Office Box 116580, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
                [6 ]Department of Estuarine and Delta Systems, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, 4401 NT Yerseke, Netherlands.
                [7 ]Conservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, 9700 CC Groningen, Netherlands.
                [8 ]Building with Nature group, HZ University of Applied Sciences, Postbus 364, 4380 AJ Vlissingen, Netherlands.
                [9 ]Faculty of Geosciences, Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, 3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands.
                [10 ]Integrated Research on Energy, Environment and Society (IREES), University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 6, Groningen, 9747 AG, Netherlands.
                [11 ]Experimental Plant Ecology, Radboud Institute for Biological and Environmental Sciences, Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Netherlands.
                [12 ]Division of Marine Science and Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC, USA.
                [13 ]Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Greifswald University, Partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, Soldmannstrasse 15, 17487 Greifswald, Germany.
                Article
                10.1126/science.abn1479
                35511964
                193869ae-8854-49d4-9506-31f2a836b753
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article