No abstract

The recent focus on carbon trading has intensified interest in ‘Blue Carbon’–carbon sequestered by coastal vegetated ecosystems, particularly seagrasses. Most information on seagrass carbon storage is derived from studies of a single species, Posidonia oceanica, from the Mediterranean Sea. We surveyed 17 Australian seagrass habitats to assess the variability in their sedimentary organic carbon (Corg) stocks. The habitats encompassed 10 species, in mono-specific or mixed meadows, depositional to exposed habitats and temperate to tropical habitats. There was an 18-fold difference in the Corg stock (1.09–20.14 mg Corg cm−3 for a temperate Posidonia sinuosa and a temperate, estuarine P. australis meadow, respectively). Integrated over the top 25 cm of sediment, this equated to an areal stock of 262–4833 g Corg m−2. For some species, there was an effect of water depth on the Corg stocks, with greater stocks in deeper sites; no differences were found among sub-tidal and inter-tidal habitats. The estimated carbon storage in Australian seagrass ecosystems, taking into account inter-habitat variability, was 155 Mt. At a 2014–15 fixed carbon price of A$25.40 t−1 and an estimated market price of $35 t−1 in 2020, the Corg stock in the top 25 cm of seagrass habitats has a potential value of $AUD 3.9–5.4 bill. The estimates of annual Corg accumulation by Australian seagrasses ranged from 0.093 to 6.15 Mt, with a most probable estimate of 0.93 Mt y−1 (10.1 t. km−2 y−1). These estimates, while large, were one-third of those that would be calculated if inter-habitat variability in carbon stocks were not taken into account. We conclude that there is an urgent need for more information on the variability in seagrass carbon stock and accumulation rates, and the factors driving this variability, in order to improve global estimates of seagrass Blue Carbon storage.

No abstract

Trophic ecology has benefitted from the use of stable isotopes for the last three decades. However, during the last 10 years, there has been a growing awareness of the isotopic biases associated with some pre-analytical procedures that can seriously hamper the interpretation of food webs. We have assessed the extent of such biases by: (1) reviewing the literature on the topic, and (2) compiling C and N isotopic values of marine invertebrates reported in the literature with the associated sample preparation protocols. The factors considered were: acid-washing, distilled water rinsing (DWR), sample type (whole individuals or pieces of soft tissues), lipid content, and gut contents. Two-level ANOVA revealed overall large and highly significant effects of acidification for both delta(13)C values (up to 0.9 per thousand decrease) and delta(15) N values (up to 2.1 per thousand decrease in whole individual samples, and up to 1.1 per thousand increase in tissue samples). DWR showed a weak overall effect with delta(13)C increments of 0.6 per thousand (for the entire data set) or decrements of 0.7 per thousand in delta(15) N values (for tissue samples). Gut contents showed no overall significant effect, whereas lipid extraction resulted in the greatest biases in both isotopic signatures (delta(13)C, up to -2.0 per thousand in whole individuals; delta(15)N, up to +4.3 per thousand in tissue samples). The study analyzed separately the effects of the various factors in different taxonomic groups and revealed a very high diversity in the extent and direction of the effects. Maxillopoda, Gastropoda, and Polychaeta were the classes that showed the largest isotopic shifts associated with sample preparation. Guidelines for the standardization of sample preparation protocols for isotopic analysis are proposed both for large and small marine invertebrates. Broadly, these guidelines recommend: (1) avoiding both acid washing and DWR, and (2) performing lipid extraction and gut evacuation in most cases.