the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Estimation of Metabolic Dynamics of Restored Seagrass Meadows in a Southeast Asia Islet: Insights from Ex Situ Benthic Incubation
Abstract. Seagrass meadows are vital carbon sinks, but their function is threatened by rapid decline, driving restoration efforts to enhance coastal recovery and carbon removal. The capacity of these restored seagrass as carbon sources or sinks depends largely on organic carbon metabolism and carbonate dynamics. In this study, we employed ex situ core incubation to investigate the metabolic rates of replanted seagrasses (SG), including gross primary productivity (GPP), community respiration (R), net ecosystem metabolism (NEM), and net ecosystem calcification (NEC) in SG and surrounding bare sediments (BS). SG exhibited higher GPP (26.0 ± 1.0 mmol O2 m-2 h-1 vs 0.7 ± 0.1 mmol O2 m-2 h-1) and NEM (208.2 ± 6.3 mmol O2 m-2 d-1 vs 20.1 ± 2.8 mmol O2 m-2 d-1) than BS, indicating their potential as carbon sinks by shifting benthic metabolism towards a more autotrophic state. In contrast, SG showed higher daytime carbonate production and nighttime carbonate dissolution, which could offset each other, resulting in no significant difference in NEC between SG and BS. In summary, our results found that the SG exhibited significantly higher NEM compared to BS, while no significant difference was found for NEC. Consequently, the net effect on the carbon uptake capacity of the restored seagrass is likely increased, primarily due to the higher NEM. Our findings highlight the ecological significance of seagrass restoration in mitigating climate change through carbon removal. Ex situ core incubation method allows for the simultaneous measurement of organic and inorganic carbon metabolism. While ex situ core incubation enhances feasibility, in situ assessments are still necessary to validate the results and ensure a comprehensive understanding of seagrass ecosystem dynamics.
- Preprint
(1264 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 05 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4000', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Feb 2025
reply
The authors presented a set of incubation experiments using vegetated and unvegetated sediment cores and explored production, respiration, and carbonate precipitation and dissolution rates for these two type of environments. Their general conclusions are as expected, i.e., seagrass vegetation enhances organic carbonate production along with net calcification, compared with bare sediments.
The manuscript is largely well written and easy to comprehend. The only major comment I have is with the way statistics is presented. It is unclear why the authors chose to report standard error instead of standard deviation for these replicate core incubations. Is the purpose to reduce the size of the error bar? I would report standard deviations instead to show variability. There are also some confusions with how the two set of incubations are compared, please see detailed comments below.
The graphic abstract is inconsistent with abstract "… resulting in no significant difference in NEC between SG and BS”. But in the graphic abstract, NEC = 10.9 and -2.3 in SG and BS sediments.
Section 2.5, need to spell out assumptions for using short durations (a few hours) to estimate daily rates.
L102, add citation for Coral Allen Atlas
L141, change “checker” to “sonde”
L163, change “difference” to “sum”, adding respiration rate and NPP to get GPP.
L175, state the duration of alkalinity difference measurements
L205-207, suggest removing this sentence, otherwise worsening OA at night needs to be included.
L234-235, show the data.
Fig. 5, use the same y-axis unit to avoid confusion
L287, reword to “when GPP is lower”.
Table 1, why not use the same unit to facilitate comparisons?
Fig. 7, need error bars
L356, remove “shoot density” or change to high shoot density and root biomass.
L383, but earlier in the text (L216), Ω between the two sets are not significantly different, which contradict with L213 however.
L391-392, with NEC much different, why alkalinity fluxes are similar? Or is it because the variations are larger than the difference of the means?
L396-397, note the cited study use a seawater that may or may not be the same as the seawater in your case, so it is useful to do some calculation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4000-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wen-Chen Chou, 21 Mar 2025
reply
Please see the attached file for our response to the comments. Thank you.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wen-Chen Chou, 21 Mar 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
154 | 39 | 12 | 205 | 5 | 3 |
- HTML: 154
- PDF: 39
- XML: 12
- Total: 205
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 60 | 32 |
Taiwan | 2 | 56 | 30 |
China | 3 | 7 | 3 |
Germany | 4 | 6 | 3 |
Japan | 5 | 6 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 60