Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of seagrass loss and subsequent revegetation on carbon sequestration and stocks

Open access
Marbà, Núria, Arias‐Ortiz, Ariane, Masqué, Pere, Kendrick, Gary A., Mazarrasa, Inés, Bastyan, Geoff R., Garcia‐Orellana, Jordi, Duarte, Carlos M.·2015·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Seagrass meadows are sites of high rates of carbon sequestration and they potentially support ‘blue carbon’ strategies to mitigate anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Current uncertainties on the fate of carbon stocks following the loss or revegetation of seagrass meadows prevent the deployment of ‘blue carbon’ strategies. Here, we reconstruct the trajectories of carbon stocks associated with one of the longest monitored seagrass restoration projects globally. We demonstrate that sediment carbon stocks erode following seagrass loss and that revegetation projects effectively restore seagrass carbon sequestration capacity. We combine carbon chronosequences with 210 Pb dating of seagrass sediments in a meadow that experienced losses until the end of 1980s and subsequent serial revegetation efforts. Inventories of excess 210 Pb in seagrass sediments revealed that its accumulation, and thus sediments, coincided with the presence of seagrass vegetation. They also showed that the upper sediments eroded in areas that remained devoid of vegetation after seagrass loss. Seagrass revegetation enhanced autochthonous and allochthonous carbon deposition and burial. Carbon burial rates increased with the age of the restored sites, and 18 years after planting, they were similar to that in continuously vegetated meadows (26.4 ± 0.8 gCorg m−2 year−1). Synthesis. The results presented here demonstrate that loss of seagrass triggers the erosion of historic carbon deposits and that revegetation effectively restores seagrass carbon sequestration capacity. Thus, conservation and restoration of seagrass meadows are effective strategies for climate change mitigation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2745.12370

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 279

Metadata

Authors
Marbà, N., Arias‐Ortiz, A., Masqué, P., Kendrick, G. A., Mazarrasa, I., Bastyan, G. R., Garcia‐Orellana, J., & Duarte, C. M.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02-09
Volume
103
Issue
2
Pages
296-302
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2082511538
Cited by
279
References
2
FWCI
22.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of seagrass loss and subsequent revegetation on carbon sequestration and stocks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2745.12370
The paper
Marbà, N., Arias‐Ortiz, A., Masqué, P., Kendrick, G. A., Mazarrasa, I., Bastyan, G. R., Garcia‐Orellana, J., & Duarte, C. M. (2015). Impact of seagrass loss and subsequent revegetation on carbon sequestration and stocks. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12370

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.