ReviewCambridge prisms. Coastal futures2024
When and where can coastal wetland restoration increase carbon sequestration as a natural climate solution?
Review in Cambridge prisms. Coastal futures, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Microbial Decomposition of Lignin to Methane Reduces Net Blue Carbon Benefit Across China's Saltmarshes.Global change biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coastal wetlands are hotspots of carbon sequestration, and their conservation and restoration can help to mitigate climate change. However, there remains uncertainty on when and where coastal wetland restoration can most effectively act as natural climate solutions (NCS). Here, we synthesize current understanding to illustrate the requirements for coastal wetland restoration to benefit climate, and discuss potential paths forward that address key uncertainties impeding implementation. To be effective as NCS, coastal wetland restoration projects will accrue climate cooling benefits that would not occur without management action (additionality), will be implementable (feasibility) and will persist over management-relevant timeframes (permanence). Several issues add uncertainty to understanding if these minimum requirements are met. First, coastal wetlands serve as both a landscape source and sink of carbon for other habitats, increasing uncertainty in additionality. Second, coastal wetlands can potentially migrate outside of project footprints as they respond to sea-level rise, increasing uncertainty in permanence. To address these first two issues, a system-wide approach may be necessary, rather than basing cooling benefits only on changes that occur within project boundaries. Third, the need for NCS to function over management-relevant decadal timescales means methane responses may be necessary to include in coastal wetland restoration planning and monitoring. Finally, there is uncertainty on how much data are required to justify restoration action. We summarize the minimum data required to make a binary decision on whether there is a net cooling benefit from a management action, noting that these data are more readily available than the data required to quantify the magnitude of cooling benefits for carbon crediting purposes. By reducing uncertainty, coastal wetland restoration can be implemented at the scale required to significantly contribute to addressing the current climate crisis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.