Blue carbon benefits from global saltmarsh restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coastal saltmarshes are found globally, yet are 25%–50% reduced compared with their historical cover. Restoration is incentivised by the promise that marshes are efficient storers of ‘blue’ carbon, although the claim lacks substantiation across global contexts. We synthesised data from 431 studies to quantify the benefits of saltmarsh restoration to carbon accumulation and greenhouse gas uptake. The results showed global marshes store approximately 1.41–2.44 Pg carbon. Restored marshes had very low greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes and rapid carbon accumulation, resulting in a mean net accumulation rate of 64.70 t CO 2 e ha −1 year −1 . Using this estimate and potential restoration rates, we find saltmarsh regeneration could result in 12.93–207.03 Mt CO 2 e accumulation per year, offsetting the equivalent of up to 0.51% global energy‐related CO 2 emissions—a substantial amount, considering marshes represent <1% of Earth's surface. Carbon accumulation rates and GHG fluxes varied contextually with temperature, rainfall and dominant vegetation, with the eastern coasts of the USA and Australia particular hotspots for carbon storage. While the study reveals paucity of data for some variables and continents, suggesting need for further research, the potential for saltmarsh restoration to offset carbon emissions is clear. The ability to facilitate natural carbon accumulation by saltmarshes now rests principally on the action of the management‐policy community and on financial opportunities for supporting restoration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".