Quantifying the carbon benefits of ending bottom trawling
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Standard Standard
In: Nature, Vol. 617, 11.05.2023, p. E1–E2 .
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Quantifying the carbon benefits of ending bottom trawling
AU - Hiddink, Jan Geert
AU - van de Velde, Sebastian J.
AU - McConnaughey, Robert A.
AU - De Borger, Emil
AU - Tiano, Justin
AU - Kaiser, Michael J.
AU - Sweetman, Andrew
AU - Sciberras, Marija
PY - 2023/5/11
Y1 - 2023/5/11
N2 - Sala, et al. 1 suggest that seafloor disturbance by industrial trawlers and dredgers results in 0.58 to 1.47 Pg of aqueous CO2 emissions annually, owing to increased organic carbon mineralisation in sediments after trawling. We agree that bottom trawling disrupts natural carbon flows in seabed ecosystems due to sediment disturbance, resuspension and changes in the biological community and that it is important to estimate the magnitude of this effect. We disagree however that their assessment represents a ‘best estimate’. Firstly, they critically assume that organic carbon in undisturbed sediment is inert, and that only disturbance by trawling remineralises organic carbon, an assumption at odds with decades of geochemical research. Secondly, they greatly overestimate the volume of sediment where carbon is mineralised after trawling. Thirdly, they ignore secondary effects, such as the removal of bioturbating benthic fauna and sedimentary nutrient release, which could lead to more preservation and production of organic carbon. Together these issues result in an upward bias in the estimated CO2 emissions by one or more orders of magnitude.
AB - Sala, et al. 1 suggest that seafloor disturbance by industrial trawlers and dredgers results in 0.58 to 1.47 Pg of aqueous CO2 emissions annually, owing to increased organic carbon mineralisation in sediments after trawling. We agree that bottom trawling disrupts natural carbon flows in seabed ecosystems due to sediment disturbance, resuspension and changes in the biological community and that it is important to estimate the magnitude of this effect. We disagree however that their assessment represents a ‘best estimate’. Firstly, they critically assume that organic carbon in undisturbed sediment is inert, and that only disturbance by trawling remineralises organic carbon, an assumption at odds with decades of geochemical research. Secondly, they greatly overestimate the volume of sediment where carbon is mineralised after trawling. Thirdly, they ignore secondary effects, such as the removal of bioturbating benthic fauna and sedimentary nutrient release, which could lead to more preservation and production of organic carbon. Together these issues result in an upward bias in the estimated CO2 emissions by one or more orders of magnitude.
U2 - 10.1038/s41586-023-06014-7
DO - 10.1038/s41586-023-06014-7
M3 - Article
VL - 617
SP - E1–E2
JO - Nature
JF - Nature
SN - 1476-4687
ER -