Taillardat Pierre, Thompson Benjamin S, Garneau Michelle, Trottier Karelle, Friess Daniel A
Université du Québec à Montréal - Geotop, Canada.
Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Interface Focus. 2020 Oct 6;10(5):20190129. doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2019.0129. Epub 2020 Aug 14.
The cost-effective mitigation of climate change through nature-based carbon dioxide removal strategies has gained substantial policy attention. Inland and coastal wetlands (specifically boreal, temperate and tropical peatlands; tundra; floodplains; freshwater marshes; saltmarshes; and mangroves) are among the most efficient natural long-term carbon sinks. Yet, they also release methane (CH) that can offset the carbon they sequester. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis on wetland carbon dynamics to (i) determine their impact on climate using different metrics and time horizons, (ii) investigate the cost-effectiveness of wetland restoration for climate change mitigation, and (iii) discuss their suitability for inclusion in climate policy as negative emission technologies. Depending on metrics, a wetland can simultaneously be a net carbon sink (i.e. boreal and temperate peatlands net ecosystem carbon budget = -28.1 ± 19.13 gC m y) but have a net warming effect on climate at the 100 years time-scale (i.e. boreal and temperate peatland sustained global warming potential = 298.2 ± 100.6 gCO eq m y). This situation creates ambivalence regarding the effect of wetlands on global temperature. Moreover, our review reveals high heterogeneity among the (limited number of) studies that document wetland carbon budgets. We demonstrate that most coastal and inland wetlands have a net cooling effect as of today. This is explained by the limited CH emissions that undisturbed coastal wetlands produce, and the long-term carbon sequestration performed by older inland wetlands as opposed to the short lifetime of CH in the atmosphere. Analysis of wetland restoration costs relative to the amount of carbon they can sequester revealed that restoration is more cost-effective in coastal wetlands such as mangroves (US$1800 ton C) compared with inland wetlands (US$4200-49 200 ton C). We advise that for inland wetlands, priority should be given to conservation rather than restoration; while for coastal wetlands, both conservation and restoration may be effective techniques for climate change mitigation.
通过基于自然的二氧化碳去除策略实现具有成本效益的气候变化缓解已获得了大量政策关注。内陆和沿海湿地(特别是北方、温带和热带泥炭地;苔原;洪泛区;淡水沼泽;盐沼;以及红树林)是最有效的天然长期碳汇之一。然而,它们也会释放甲烷(CH₄),这可能抵消它们所固存的碳。在此,我们对湿地碳动态进行了一项荟萃分析,以(i)使用不同指标和时间范围确定它们对气候的影响,(ii)研究湿地恢复对于缓解气候变化的成本效益,以及(iii)讨论它们作为负排放技术纳入气候政策的适用性。根据指标不同,一片湿地可能同时是一个净碳汇(即北方和温带泥炭地的净生态系统碳预算 = -28.1 ± 19.13 gC m⁻² y⁻¹),但在100年时间尺度上对气候有净变暖效应(即北方和温带泥炭地的持续全球变暖潜能 = 298.2 ± 100.6 gCO₂ eq m⁻² y⁻¹)。这种情况在湿地对全球温度的影响方面造成了矛盾。此外,我们的综述揭示了记录湿地碳预算的(数量有限的)研究之间存在高度异质性。我们表明,截至目前,大多数沿海和内陆湿地具有净降温效应。这可以通过未受干扰的沿海湿地产生的有限CH₄排放,以及较老的内陆湿地进行的长期碳固存来解释,而CH₄在大气中的寿命较短。相对于它们能够固存的碳量对湿地恢复成本进行分析表明,与内陆湿地(4200 - 49200美元/吨碳)相比,红树林等沿海湿地的恢复更具成本效益(1800美元/吨碳)。我们建议,对于内陆湿地,应优先进行保护而非恢复;而对于沿海湿地,保护和恢复都可能是缓解气候变化的有效技术。