There's a lot of work going into blue carbon efforts at the moment .. better understanding and utilising seagrasses and algaes, mangroves, etc. as carbon sinks.
That said, what I've never understood about the potential of seagrass as a carbon sink (and this sugar thing might go someway to explaining it), is how it works given how short lived individual plants are, and how fragile - and shallow - seagrass ecosystems are.
CO2 / methane (?) released by decaying biomass at depth may stay trapped in sediment, but how realistic is this at depths of 20-40m? Does anyone have any more info?
Yeah absolutely. My previous understanding was that the main carbon capture potential was simply in what ended up as part of the plant, rather than the portion being excreted / fed on by symbionts. That is fascinating news.
My question is that, given that the "capture" component relies on that carbon not being re-released into the atmosphere, how does "seagrass sequestration" fare given that seagrass meadows mostly occur in shallow waters, where the seafloor tends to experience higher levels of dusturbance compared to the deep sea (tides, currents, predation -of plants and sugars-, human impacts).
Seagrasses are short lived compared to trees. Soil / biomass carbon sinks are potentially easily disturbed. Do seagrasses still have a genuine/reliable/outstanding role to play in the carbon game?
That said, what I've never understood about the potential of seagrass as a carbon sink (and this sugar thing might go someway to explaining it), is how it works given how short lived individual plants are, and how fragile - and shallow - seagrass ecosystems are.
CO2 / methane (?) released by decaying biomass at depth may stay trapped in sediment, but how realistic is this at depths of 20-40m? Does anyone have any more info?