the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Livestock grazing, plant community and abiotic factors shape blue carbon stocks in Nordic coastal marshes
Abstract. Coastal marshes are key habitats contributing to organic carbon (OC) storage but remain understudied in Nordic regions regarding Blue Carbon processes. This study quantified OC stocks in above- and below-ground biomass and in the top 50 cm-soil across 12 grazed and ungrazed marshes, spanning major environmental gradients, and assessed how biotic (plant communities, livestock grazing) and abiotic (soil properties, environmental conditions) drivers shape OC storage. Grazing and environmental gradients strongly structured plant communities, partly by regulating the reed Phragmites australis, prevalent in ungrazed sites. Aboveground OC stocks were reduced by grazing, both directly through biomass removal and indirectly by reducing reed dominance. Belowground OC stocks were driven by plant community composition and indirectly by grazing effects on vegetation. Root biomass was concentrated in the top 15 cm in grazed sites and deeper (15–50 cm) in ungrazed sites, reflecting contrasting plant strategies. Abiotic soil properties were major large-scale drivers of soil OC storage, while grazing affected soil OC storage indirectly through plant composition. Soil OC stocks accounted for ∼73 % of total OC in grazed sites and ∼63 % in ungrazed ones and was higher in grazed sites (99.7 ± 57.9 Mg ha⁻¹) than in ungrazed sites (78.2 ± 44.2 Mg ha⁻¹). Soil OC increased with finer textures, whereas vegetation and grazing effects were variable and locally expressed. Overall, soil OC stocks in Nordic coastal marshes fall within the lower range of global estimates. These findings highlight the need to consider soil processes, grazing and environmental gradients tin the sustainable management of Nordic coastal marshes and their carbon storage potential.
- Preprint
(1582 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(623 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-991', Heli Jutila, 24 Mar 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Anaïs Richard, 18 May 2026
The extra "t" has been removed. Thanks for your comment.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-991-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Anaïs Richard, 18 May 2026
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-991', Nezha Mejjad, 20 Apr 2026
General Comments
The study provides valuable insights into understudied Nordic Blue Carbon processes. However, certain methodological choices regarding soil acidification require further justification, and the flow of the results could be improved for better clarity.
Abstract
Structure and Flow: I suggest restructuring lines 21–27 to first present the calculated carbon stocks, followed by the biotic and abiotic factors that influenced them. This "results-first" approach allows the reader to grasp the magnitude of the findings before examining into the drivers.
Methods
Quantification Formulas: Please include the specific equations used to calculate the aboveground, belowground, and soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks to ensure full transparency.
Acidification Protocol: The authors report using 1.2 N HCl to remove carbonates, citing Kennedy et al. (2005). This concentration is relatively high; typical salt marsh protocols often favor more dilute solutions (e.g., 1–4% or ~0.1–0.5 N) to minimize the risk of hydrolyzing or leaching labile organic carbon.
Please clarify if this concentration was an intentional adaptation and provide a justification for its use over more dilute alternatives. Also provide additional details on the acidification procedure, including the volume of acid added, total reaction time, and drying protocols.
Discussion & Analysis
Grazer Specificity: Does the specific type of livestock (e.g., sheep vs. cattle) impact carbon storage differently? I suggest the authors expand on whether there is a known relationship between grazer identity, specific plant traits (beyond just Phragmites reduction), and the ecosystem's overall carbon capture capacity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-991-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-991', Scott Jones, 07 May 2026
General Comments
This manuscript presents biomass and soil carbon data from coastal wetlands across the Nordic region. The authors quantify carbon stocks and associated plant communities/environmental conditions at 12 areas, with paired grazed/ungrazed sites. They present a regional summary of carbon stocks for an understudied region that will be of interest to blue carbon folks, and give some discussion on potential drivers of those stocks. The sites vary along environmental gradients but in a systematic fashion that makes disentangling drivers seem like a stretch given the data collected. The title and abstract therefore may over-promise an elucidation of drivers, when there is discussion but not much in the way of strong conclusions. The work is still impressive and highly valuable, but perhaps as a beginning to regional understanding and a large contribution to global comparisons, more than for specific understanding of ecological drivers. Specific comments below.
Specific Comments
-Difficult to interpret drivers when they are confounded (e.g., L270, L527). Please clarify how this could be addressed in the future (or current analysis if possible) for a better understanding of which drivers are important for C stocks in the region. Seems that current site distribution doesn’t allow disentangling of variables.
-Much of the paper focuses on plant community dynamics and responses. This is all good stuff, but it seems a little tangential to the stated focus on carbon stocks/processes. I understand that plant communities can be an important driver of stocks (biomass stocks most obviously). Section 4.1 leading the discussion felt strange given the set up of the paper focusing on carbon dynamics.
-Diversity is presented at quadrat scale as I understand. Given there are several quadrats at each site, have authors also calculated site-scale diversity? Soil carbon is likely controlled at the site scale, not quadrat scale, so understanding how plant diversity is structured across quadrats within sites may be helpful (e.g., are quadrats similar or dissimilar within sites comparing grazed and ungrazed as a simple measure of turnover).
-L76. If exposure and tidal fluctuations vary along the Baltic region, suggest including tide range/exposure metrics for all sites in site description tables.
-Please clarify if grazed/ungrazed sites within each geographic area/location are otherwise similar in geomorphology/position/etc. More information on typical management of grazed wetlands for readers outside the region may be helpful (e.g., are these typically diked/hydrologically managed?). L160 for example, all sites grazed and ungrazed similar in relative tidal position? Any porewater salinity available and is porewater salinity similar comparing grazed/ungrazed within an area/location?
-Largest differences b/w grazed and ungrazed in plant communities and sediment properties seem to be from sites in close proximity (Tullgarn N, Tullgarn S, Naset). Ungrazed lower/wetter? Please clarify/discuss why this may be and if this region is ‘driving’ some of the pooled differences in the overall dataset.
-Section 2.3.4. goes far beyond data analysis. Suggest breaking off plant community analyses as separate section for clarity.
-L246. Please include a more detailed justification for why these specific variables were included to explain variability, and not additional variables. Same for L276.
-L263. If one site and need to interpret cautiously, maybe better to just not interpret that site?
-Please justify the use of SEM given the data density here.
-Please clarify the use of PERMANOVA among these groups when it appears that dispersion varies systematically between treatments.
-Figure 5. Suggest graying out and not including estimate for non-significant paths.
-L478. Distributed how? Please be specific.
-L506. Slightly higher? Was that supported by analysis?
-L518. Seemed to? Please be cautious in discussing results given support (or lack of) from analyses.
-L556. Don’t think it’s necessary to include ‘but remain slightly low in a global context’
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-991-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 671 | 288 | 55 | 1,014 | 122 | 54 | 62 |
- HTML: 671
- PDF: 288
- XML: 55
- Total: 1,014
- Supplement: 122
- BibTeX: 54
- EndNote: 62
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
These findings highlight the need to consider soil processes, grazing and environmental gradients tin the sustainable management of Nordic coastal marshes and their carbon storage potential.
I wonder whether this last sentence of abstract has an error with extra t and shoulde be as follows
These findings highlight the need to consider soil processes, grazing and environmental gradients in the sustainable management of Nordic coastal marshes and their carbon storage potential.