Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39494493›Full record

ReviewGlobal change biology2024

Additionality in Blue Carbon Ecosystems: Recommendations for a Universally Applicable Accounting Methodology.

Alex Houston, Hilary Kennedy, William E N Austin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global change biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alex HoustonSchool of Geography & Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6511-2677
Hilary KennedySchool of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2290-2120
William E N AustinSchool of Geography & Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6544-3468

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE European Innovation Council HORIZON-CL5-2023-D1-02)Natural Environment Research Council NE/R010846/1Natural Environment Research Council NE/S007342/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blue carbon ecosystems (BCEs) remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store significant amounts of organic carbon (OC) in their soils. Consequently, the protection and restoration of BCEs may contribute to net greenhouse gas emissions abatement and help address the global challenges of both mitigating and adapting to climate change. An ongoing debate is whether OC sequestered out with the blue carbon (BC) project and transported to its present location (allochthonous) should be counted as 'additional'. There are inconsistencies in the treatment of allochthonous carbon between BCE methodologies, potentially undermining the credibility of global BC accounting initiatives. To explore these inconsistences, we compare the methodologies which we were able to find online, with particular focus on the VERRA, IPCC and BlueCAM methodologies, and review the science underlying any approach to account for allochthonous OC. Our findings indicate that there are currently no robust scientific approaches to define an appropriate apportioning of allochthonous OC for discounting in the calculation of additionality. We therefore advocate for the inclusion of allochthonous OC in BC crediting projects when an observational and experimental approach does not support the calculation (and discounting) of the refractory allochthonous carbon contribution.

Indexed as

CarbonClimate ChangeEcosystemCarbon DioxideCarbon SequestrationSoilCarbonCarbon DioxideSoiladditionalityallochthonousblue carboncarbon creditingIPCCnature‐based solutions

Identifiers

PMID39494493
PMCPMC11602935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.