4.7 Article

Carbon Sequestration and Sedimentation in Mangrove Swamps Influenced by Hydrogeomorphic Conditions and Urbanization in Southwest Florida

期刊

FORESTS
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f7060116

关键词

carbon sequestration; sediment accretion; mangrove wetlands; coastal geomorphology; blue carbon; Cs-137; Pb-210; Rhizophora mangle; sea level rise

类别

资金

  1. Florida Gulf Coast University's Everglades Wetland Research Park
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET 1033451]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares carbon sequestration rates along two independent tidal mangrove creeks near Naples Bay in Southwest Florida, USA. One tidal creek is hydrologically disturbed due to upstream land use changes; the other is an undisturbed reference creek. Soil cores were collected in basin, fringe, and riverine hydrogeomorphic settings along each of the two tidal creeks and analyzed for bulk density, total organic carbon profiles, and sediment accretion. Radionuclides Cs-137 and Pb-210 were used to estimate recent sediment accretion and carbon sequestration rates. Carbon sequestration rates (mean +/- standard error) for seven sites in the two tidal creeks on the Naples Bay (98 +/- 12 g-C m(-2) . year(-1) (n = 18)) are lower than published global means for mangrove wetlands, but consistent with other estimates from the same region. Mean carbon sequestration rates in the reference riverine setting were highest (162 +/- 5 g-C m(-2) . year(-1)), followed by rates in the reference fringe and disturbed riverine settings (127 +/- 6 and 125 +/- 5 g-C m(-2) . year(-1), respectively). The disturbed fringe sequestered 73 +/- 10 g-C m(-2) . year(-1), while rates within the basin settings were 50 +/- 4 g-C m(-2) . year(-1) and 47 +/- 4 g-C m(-2) . year(-1) for the reference and disturbed creeks, respectively. These data support our hypothesis that mangroves along a hydrologically disturbed tidal creek sequestered less carbon than did mangroves along an adjacent undisturbed reference creek.

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

4.7
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