the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Landscape-scale spatial variability of blue carbon stocks and fluxes in tropical seagrass meadows
Abstract. Seagrass meadows are emerging natural climate solutions for climate change mitigation through their high potential for organic carbon sequestration and storage, also known as blue carbon. However, the variability in current blue carbon stock and flux estimates is high, particularly at landscape scales. This knowledge gap highlights the need for evaluating blue carbon at spatial scales that are both locally robust and globally relevant. We quantified the magnitude of variability in blue carbon stocks and fluxes in tropical intertidal seagrass meadows at the landscape scale. We sampled six intertidal seagrass meadows representing three geomorphic settings, including reef-associated settings, estuaries and lagoons, across Singapore. Across these sites, we measured soil organic carbon (Corg) stocks and greenhouse gas fluxes using the static chamber method. We found that tropical intertidal seagrass meadows stored 132 ± 78 Mg Corg ha−1 (mean ± SD) in the top 100 cm of soil, which varied significantly within sites and geomorphic settings (min–max: 19–303 Mg Corg ha−1), and were positively associated with salinity. Seagrass fluxes averaged 660 ± 695 mg m-2 d-1 of CO2 and 12 ± 484 µg m-2 d-1 of CH4, which, unlike stocks, did not appear to vary significantly across geomorphic settings. However, we identified redox (positive) and bulk density (negative) as independent drivers of CO2, and Corg as an independent, strong predictor of CH4 after accounting for spatial hierarchy and geomorphic setting. Spatially explicit stock assessments and inclusion of greenhouse gas fluxes are important to inform robust coastal carbon budgeting and support the inclusion of seagrass in national climate mitigation frameworks.
- Preprint
(1370 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(215 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6519', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Feb 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Naima Iram, 26 Feb 2026
reply
We thank the reviewer for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive, detailed comments. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions to improve clarity around spatial scales, sampling design, environmental measurements, and the interpretation of greenhouse gas fluxes. We have utlined our point-by-point responses and planned changes in the attached PDF and we will revise the manuscript accordingly.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Naima Iram, 26 Feb 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 224 | 123 | 14 | 361 | 30 | 13 | 13 |
- HTML: 224
- PDF: 123
- XML: 14
- Total: 361
- Supplement: 30
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript is very descriptive and compares Corg stocks and GHG fluxes among sites and geomorphic settings in intertidal seagrass meadows in Singapore. With these results, the authors interpret variability within sites and at the landscape-scale. Some of the methods used are not clear, as relevant information is not provided. But overall, the results and conclusions (if the relevant info is provided) seem strong. See comments in the attached pdf. In supplemental material, describe better what the red trend line represents and avoid the use of / when reporting units, and use a negative superscript.