MARATTO

article · BioScience

All tidal wetlands are blue carbon ecosystems

202461 citationsOpen accessNelson Mandela University

In plain language

Coastal wetland management is a key approach for cutting atmospheric greenhouse gases and supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Conventional blue carbon initiatives focus primarily on mangroves, saltmarshes, and seagrass meadows to sequester carbon and curtail emissions. However, various other tidal wetlands also match these criteria, including tidal freshwater wetlands in the United States, supratidal wetlands in Australia, transitional forests in Southeast Asia, and estuarine forests in South Africa. Despite suffering heavy exploitation, these ecosystems hold equal or greater potential for carbon storage and emissions reductions compared to traditionally recognised blue carbon habitats. Expanding the definition of blue carbon to cover all environments directly or indirectly influenced by tides would enable their formal restoration and protection. Implementing carbon offset frameworks across these neglected tidal zones could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions while delivering vital environmental cobenefits, including the preservation of local biodiversity.

Key takeaways

  • Traditional blue carbon frameworks focus primarily on mangroves, saltmarshes, and seagrass meadows.
  • Other tidally influenced systems, such as estuarine and supratidal forests, possess comparable or greater carbon sequestration potential.
  • Many non-traditional tidal wetlands have experienced severe exploitation despite their capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Incorporating all tidally influenced wetlands into carbon offset mechanisms supports climate mitigation alongside biodiversity cobenefits.

Why it matters

Broadening recognised blue carbon systems beyond mangroves and seagrass expands the geographic scope of coastal conservation. Acknowledging all tidally influenced wetlands as viable carbon sinks helps nations achieve global climate targets, improves carbon accounting accuracy, and mobilises funding to restore heavily exploited coastal ecosystems while safeguarding regional biodiversity.

Commercialisation angle

The findings could inform developers of carbon offset projects, conservation organisations, and environmental policy makers seeking to generate certified carbon credits. By qualifying a broader range of tidal wetlands for blue carbon financing mechanisms, project operators could establish new offset programmes. This concept represents an early-stage proposal that requires adoption into formal carbon accounting standards before market deployment.

AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.

Abstract

Managing coastal wetlands is one of the most promising activities to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases, and it also contributes to meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. One of the options is through blue carbon projects, in which mangroves, saltmarshes, and seagrass are managed to increase carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, other tidal wetlands align with the characteristics of blue carbon. These wetlands are called tidal freshwater wetlands in the United States, supratidal wetlands in Australia, transitional forests in Southeast Asia, and estuarine forests in South Africa. They have similar or larger potential for atmospheric carbon sequestration and emission reductions than the currently considered blue carbon ecosystems and have been highly exploited. In the present article, we suggest that all wetlands directly or indirectly influenced by tides should be considered blue carbon. Their protection and restoration through carbon offsets could reduce emissions while providing multiple cobenefits, including biodiversity.

Research topics

  • Coastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
  • Marine and coastal plant biology
  • Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biae007

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.