0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessAbstract Support for coastal wetland restoration projects that consider carbon (C) storage as a climate mitigation benefit is growing as coastal wetlands are sites of substantial C sequestration. However, the climate footprint of wetland restoration remains controversial as wetlands can also be large sources of methane (CH 4 ). We quantify the vertical fluxes of C in restored fresh and oligohaline nontidal wetlands with managed hydrology and a tidal euhaline marsh in California's San Francisco Bay‐Delta. We combine the use of eddy covariance atmospheric flux measurements with 210 Pb‐derived soil C accumulation rates to quantify the C sequestration efficiency of restored wetlands and their associated climate mitigation service. Nontidal managed wetlands were the most efficient in burying C on‐site, with soil C accumulation rates as high as their net atmospheric C uptake (−280 ± 90 and −350 ± 150 g C m −2 yr −1 ). In contrast, the restored tidal wetland exhibited lower C burial rates over decadal timescales (70 ± 19 g C m −2 yr −1 ) that accounted for ∼13%–23% of its annual C uptake, suggesting that the remaining fraction is exported via lateral hydrologic flux. From an ecosystem radiative balance perspective, the restored tidal wetland showed a > 10 times higher CO 2 ‐sequestration to CH 4 ‐emission ratio than the nontidal managed wetlands. Thus overall, tidal wetland restoration resulted in a negative radiative forcing (cooling) through increased soil C accumulation, while nontidal wetland restoration led to an early positive forcing (warming) through increased CH 4 emissions potentially lasting between 2.1 ± 2.0 to 8 ± 4 decades.
Ariane Arias‐Ortiz, Patricia Y. Oikawa, Joseph Carlin, Pere Masqué, Julie Shahan, Sadie Kanneg, Adina Paytan, Dennis Baldocchi (2021). Tidal and Nontidal Marsh Restoration: A Trade‐Off Between Carbon Sequestration, Methane Emissions, and Soil Accretion. , 126(12), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jg006573.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2021
Authors
8
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
en
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jg006573
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access