Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40881330›Full record

ReviewCambridge prisms. Coastal futures2024

When and where can coastal wetland restoration increase carbon sequestration as a natural climate solution?

Scott F Jones, Ariane Arias-Ortiz, Dennis Baldocchi, Meagan Eagle, Daniel A Friess, Catrina Gore, Greg Noe, Stefanie Nolte, Patty Oikawa, Adina Paytan and 9 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

19 authors.

Scott F JonesDepartment of Biology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1056-3785
Ariane Arias-OrtizPhysics Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9408-0061
Dennis BaldocchiDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3496-4919
Meagan EagleWoods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5072-2755
Daniel A FriessDepartment of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3087-5233
Catrina GoreSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3949-6835
Greg NoeFlorence Bascom Geoscience Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6661-2646
Stefanie NolteSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8570-241X
Patty OikawaDepartment of Earth & Environmental Sciences, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7852-4435
Adina PaytanDepartment of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8360-4712
Jacqueline L RawAnthesis, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5270-032X
Brian J RobertsLouisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6366-3165
Kerrylee RogersSchool of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1350-4737
Charles SchutteDepartment of Environmental Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3907-7828
Camille L StaggWetland and Aquatic Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Lafayette, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1125-7253
Karen M ThorneWestern Ecological Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-0657
Eric J WardEarth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5047-5464
Lisamarie Windham-MyersWater Resources Mission Area, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0281-9581
Erik S YandoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8786-6178

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

carbon sequestrationcoastal wetlandsecosystem managementnatural climate solutionsrestoration

Identifiers

PMID40881330
PMCPMC12337610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
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.