Abstract
Context
Seagrass ecosystems are lauded for storing organic carbon in underlying sediments, but storage is highly variable, even at relatively small spatial scales. While environmental setting and seagrass cover are known drivers of carbon storage capacity, it is unclear how other seagrass features such as species composition influence carbon storage, and whether historical vs. contemporary features are better predictors of storage.
Objectives
We examined the influence of historical and contemporary seagrass variables on surface (0–10 cm) sediment organic carbon storage at the meadow-scale (~ 25 km2), in addition to the influence of environmental drivers. Our study area was located within a subtropical mixed-species seagrass meadow along a low-energy coastline in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (Cedar Key, Florida, USA).
Methods
We derived historical metrics of seagrass cover and composition from 14-year seagrass monitoring datasets and measured surface sediment carbon densities and grain size, contemporary seagrass biomass and species composition, as well as environmental characteristics related to hydrology and physical disturbance (i.e., relative exposure, elevation, and distance to navigation channels). We assessed bivariate relationships between predictor variables and surface carbon densities with linear regression analyses and used path analysis to assess hypothesized relationships between a subset of predictor variables and carbon densities.
Results
While low relative to global values, surface carbon densities in Cedar Key seagrass meadows varied by an order of magnitude. Sediment grain size was strongly related to carbon densities, but environmental variables had only indirect effects on carbon densities. Historical seagrass cover, variability in cover, and species diversity were generally better predictors of storage than contemporary variables. Historical and contemporary species identity–specifically the presence of Thalassia testudinum–were also significant drivers of storage.
Conclusions
In Cedar Key, historically diverse and persistent seagrass meadows dominated by late-successional species contained the largest surface carbon stores. Our results highlight the importance of site history in terms of meadow stability (inversely measured as variability in cover) as well as species identity and diversity in enhancing surface carbon storage. The environmental variables we examined had comparatively weak effects on carbon densities, however, relative exposure and elevation may not be the most relevant hydrological drivers of carbon storage at the meadow scale. Together, these findings suggest that drivers of seagrass meadow carbon storage are context and scale dependent.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Drivers of ecosystem function are complex and include environmental and biological components and their interactions. For example, temperature, pH, and oxygen directly affect leaf litter decomposition in streams (Webster and Benfield 1986) but also constrain the microbial and macroinvertebrate communities involved in decomposition (Gessner et al. 1999). In forest ecosystems, climate, nutrient availability, and plant diversity influence productivity (Lieth 1975; Vicca et al. 2012; Duffy et al. 2017), where climate determines the shape of biodiversity-productivity relationships (Fei et al. 2018). Drivers of ecosystem function are also context and scale dependent: decomposition rates can vary across riffles within a single stream reach (Tiegs et al. 2009), and forest productivity can vary according to local resource availability mediated by topography (Hao et al. 2018) and canopy structure (Gough et al. 2019). Controls on carbon cycling in vegetated coastal ecosystems, such as seagrass meadows, are similarly complex, so holistically examining abiotic and biotic variables at targeted scales can identify drivers of variability in the ecosystem function of sediment carbon storage.
Seagrasses are marine angiosperms that grow along coastlines globally (except for Antarctica) and provide ecosystem services including but not limited to habitat provisioning for fish and invertebrates, sediment stabilization, water quality enhancement, and carbon storage (Nordlund et al. 2016). Seagrass ecosystems have gained recognition for their ability to trap and store organic carbon in underlying sediments, preserving stored carbon under anoxic conditions for decades to millennia (Fourqurean et al. 2012; Duarte et al. 2013). Seagrass meadows store an estimated 4.2–8.4 Pg organic carbon globally (Fourqurean et al. 2012), but storage is highly variable spatially and therefore difficult to predict (McLeod et al. 2011). Improved understanding of the mechanisms controlling spatial variability in seagrass carbon storage will inform global carbon budgets (Duarte et al. 2013) and better equip conservation practitioners and other end users to utilize seagrass restoration and management for nature-based climate change mitigation (Macreadie et al. 2017, 2019). While environmental characteristics such as coastal geomorphology may constrain carbon storage capacity at global scales (Kennedy et al. 2022), drivers of smaller scale variability in storage are unresolved.
Seagrass sediment organic carbon storage varies substantially geographically, even throughout estuaries and within meadows (Oreska et al. 2017; Ewers Lewis et al. 2018; Ricart et al. 2020). Previous work has emphasized hydrology, water depth, and landscape configuration as broad-scale controls on carbon accumulation and storage (Serrano et al. 2014, 2016b; Lima et al. 2019; Asplund et al. 2021), but at smaller spatial scales, seagrass shoot density, meadow extent, and canopy architecture can also influence carbon burial efficiency (Samper-Villarreal et al. 2016; Mazarrasa et al. 2018). Canopy complexity, an emergent property of leaf size and morphology, affects wave velocity above the canopy, which in turn affects organic matter deposition at the sediment surface (Hendriks et al. 2008; Barcelona et al. 2021). Belowground, seagrasses deliver dissolved organic carbon via root exudates directly to the sediment (Moriarty et al. 1986; Barrón and Duarte 2009), in some cases accumulating high concentrations of sugar in near-surface sediments (Sogin et al. 2022) and promote anoxic conditions that prevent carbon remineralization (Trevathan-Tackett et al. 2017). Canopy complexity, release of root exudates, and sediment redox potential may therefore be local drivers of carbon storage, and these features likely vary according to meadow characteristics such as plant density and species composition.
Temporal fluctuations in the amount of seagrass cover and species assemblage associated with succession, disturbance, and season can substantially alter canopy complexity and belowground processes that may affect carbon accumulation and burial (Williams 1990; Rasheed 2004; Kilminster et al. 2015; Dahl et al. 2020 2020; Zhu et al. 2022). Loss of seagrass cover often results in diminished carbon stocks (Arias-Ortiz et al. 2018; Moksnes et al. 2021), but natural seagrass recovery and restoration can help to return this ecosystem service (Greiner et al. 2013; Macreadie et al. 2015; Marbà et al. 2015; Aoki et al. 2021). Given seagrass meadow cover can be highly dynamic, site history, especially in terms of seagrass cover, may be an important determinant of sediment carbon storage. In addition to cover, studies have found meadows dominated by certain seagrass genera or species support greater carbon stocks than other seagrass assemblages (Lavery et al. 2013; Gillis et al. 2017; Alemu et al. 2022). However, seagrass assemblage and carbon stocks were assessed contemporaneously, and sampling sites spanned a large area (> 100 km2). Therefore, mismatched spatial and temporal scales may have confounded species effects: seagrass assemblage may differ spatially along unobserved environmental gradients and/or may have changed over the time in which the measured carbon stocks accumulated. Sampling carbon densities at the meadow-scale and considering site history may help to clarify the role of seagrass cover and species composition in carbon storage.
If species composition is a determinant of carbon storage, species diversity may also drive storage in seagrass meadows where multiple species co-exist. Mixed-species meadows are more prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions, but carbon storage research is biased toward temperate meadows that are often dominated by a single species (Piñeiro-Juncal et al. 2022). Biodiversity-ecosystem function theory predicts that biodiversity will promote ecosystem stability and functioning, and many positive relationships have been observed between biodiversity and ecosystem function in manipulative experiments and natural systems (Balvanera et al. 2006; Cardinale et al. 2011; O’Connor et al. 2017; Duffy et al. 2017). The role of biodiversity in seagrass ecosystem functioning has typically been studied in terms of phenotypic (i.e., structural complexity) and genetic diversity. Seagrass meadow functions of habitat, food, and predation refugia provisioning generally increase with structural complexity (sensu shoot density or leaf surface area; Duffy 2006). Genetic diversity can confer resistance to and enhance recovery following disturbance (Hughes and Stachowicz 2004, 2011; DuBois et al. 2021), increase shoot density (Hughes et al. 2009), and promote the recovery of ecosystem services following restoration (Reynolds et al. 2012). Species diversity has received less attention but may also drive seagrass ecosystem functioning: species-driven variation in plant physical structure and physiology affect canopy and belowground properties that ultimately affect carbon accumulation and storage. Species diversity, in terms of both richness and identity, may also reflect the community response to an ecological disturbance via succession within a seagrass meadow (Williams 1990; Martínez López et al. 2019; Correia and Smee 2022). In this way, species diversity may be correlated to meadow successional status and disturbance history, which are also likely drivers of carbon storage.
We set out to investigate historical (14-year averaged) and contemporary meadow-scale controls on surface sediment organic carbon storage in a subtropical, mixed-species seagrass meadow in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Surface carbon densities (here defined as 0–10 cm) are subject to community metabolism, bioturbation and other processes that can erode carbon stores and therefore represent potential quantities of carbon stored in the longer term; and for these same reasons, they are most appropriate to identify decadal-scale historical and contemporary drivers of carbon storage. We measured surface carbon densities at long-term seagrass monitoring stations to assess how storage varies by both historical and contemporary seagrass cover, species composition, and species diversity. Given the well-documented effects of environmental setting on carbon accumulation, we determined whether sediments with high carbon densities were spatially clustered across the ~ 25 km2 study area and considered the effect of relative exposure, elevation (as a proxy for depth), and distance to navigation channels (as a proxy for physical disturbance related to boating activity) on carbon densities. There are several potential environmental drivers of carbon storage, but we focused on drivers that directly affect hydrology (i.e., relative exposure, elevation) or cause physical disturbance (i.e., boating activity). We also assessed the relationship between sediment grain size and carbon densities as grain size commonly covaries with organic carbon content (Serrano et al. 2016a). Finally, we used path analysis to evaluate hypothesized causal relationships between predictor variables to shed light on historical and contemporary processes that may influence carbon storage at the meadow-scale.
We hypothesized biodiversity would affect seagrass carbon storage indirectly: historical species diversity may be correlated with meadow stability (inversely measured as variability in cover) and productivity, which create and sustain conditions favorable for carbon accrual (i.e., increased seagrass canopy complexity that promotes particle trapping and stabilized sediments or otherwise modified rhizosphere conditions that promote long-term storage); and contemporary biomass and species composition may influence the vulnerability of surface carbon densities to remineralization via species-specific metabolism, rhizosphere oxygenation, and root exudation rates. We expected environmental drivers would be directly related to carbon densities but would also affect carbon storage indirectly via historical and contemporary meadow features.
Methods
Sampling location and collection
We conducted this study in nearshore seagrass beds proximal to Cedar Key, Florida (USA) that are part of a small river delta system fed by the Suwannee River in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Cedar Key experiences a mean tidal range of 0.86 m and seagrass beds are predominantly subtidal, though seagrasses in some areas may briefly experience emersion during extreme low tides. Seagrass beds in Cedar Key host up to five seagrass species, growing singly or intermixed, and include Thalassia testudinum, Syringodium filiforme, Halodule wrightii, Halophila engelmanii, and Ruppia martima. The species present in our study area exhibit a spectrum of life history strategies, ranging from smaller pioneering species (e.g., H. wrightii) to larger persistent species (e.g., T. testudinum; Kilminster et al. 2015). Our study sites were co-located with 25 fixed stations in Cedar Key (Fig. 1) where the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) monitors annual total seagrass cover and species-specific cover as part of the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve seagrass monitoring program. In August 2020, we collected samples at each of the 25 sites to quantify surface (0–10 cm) carbon densities and contemporary meadow features.
We targeted the sediment depth that likely reflects recent accumulation coinciding with seagrass monitoring initiated in 2006; globally, seagrass meadow sediment accretion rates range from 0.13 to 9.9 mm yr−1 (Potouroglou et al. 2017), so 10 cm may represent accumulation over the past decade or longer. We collected 3 replicate 2.5-cm diameter cores (60-cc syringe) to 10 cm depth for sediment organic carbon analysis and an additional core for grain size analysis at each site, taking care to core between seagrass shoots to avoid collecting live seagrass tissue. The number of replicate cores for some sites was fewer than 3 because we discarded any cores that were < 10 cm depth. Sediment cores were sectioned into 3 intervals for processing: 0–3 cm, 3–6 cm, and 6–10 cm. We also collected 10 replicate 15-cm diameter cores to 20 cm depth to measure contemporary seagrass biomass at each site. Each replicate core was collected ~ 1 m apart for both sediment and biomass samples. All samples were kept on ice until transported to the laboratory where they were frozen (− 40 °C) until processed.
Sediment organic carbon content
We measured sediment sample bulk wet weight and dry weight after drying for 1–2 weeks at 60 °C to calculate bulk density (mass of dried soil divided by wet sample volume). Dried sediment samples were then homogenized using a mortar and pestle and plant tissue (both live and detrital) and shell fragments > 1 mm were removed from dried sample to isolate sediment organic matter from belowground biomass because the focus of this study was on the sediment component of carbon storage (Greiner et al. 2013; Oreska et al. 2017). While we mostly avoided sampling live plant tissue in sediment cores, pieces of live shoots were occasionally ensnared within the cores, especially at sites with more dense seagrass cover. Detrital seagrass tissue has potential to contribute to long-term carbon storage but was removed because retaining larger pieces of detrital tissue in the relatively small (2.5 cm-diameter) cores would have led to inflated percent organic carbon values. Removing shells and plant tissue from the dried bulk samples likely resulted in the underestimation of total organic carbon, however, the amount of dried material removed from each sample was minimal, typically < 0.1 g, and an order of magnitude smaller than the mean dry sample weight of ~ 8.5 g.
We indirectly measured percent total organic carbon by subtracting percent total inorganic carbon from percent total carbon. Total carbon was measured using a Carlo Erba NA1500 CNS Elemental Analyzer and total inorganic carbon was measured by coulometric titration using an acidification preparation device (AutoMate FX, Inc.) coupled to a CM5017 CO2 Coulometer (UIC, Inc.). We estimated carbon densities by multiplying percent total organic carbon by core section length (cm) and bulk density (g cm−3) and converted values to mg organic carbon (OC) cm−3. We calculated total core carbon as the summed carbon densities across all depth intervals as described in Fourqurean et al. (2014) for each replicate core and calculated the mean value for each site to generate mean surface carbon densities.
Grain size
We measured sediment grain size for each core depth interval for each site. Prior to analysis, samples were dried for 1–2 weeks at 60 °C and passed through a 2-mm sieve. We analyzed particle size distribution using a Beckman Coulter LS-13,320 multi-wave particle size analyzer equipped with PIDS technology at the University of Florida Environmental Pedology and Land Use Laboratory. To assess site-level variability in grain size, we analyzed a duplicate core for ~ 10% of samples and found the coefficient of variation for average particle diameter was < 15% across all duplicate cores. We calculated the percent of fine-grained sediment, hereafter referred to as percent fines, for the entire length of the cores (0–10 cm) as the depth-averaged sum of percent clay (< 2 μm) and percent silt (2–50 μm) grain size classes.
Historical seagrass data
We analyzed annual seagrass monitoring data (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2021) to calculate historical predictor variables for each site. We used all available seagrass cover data that preceded our sampling event in 2020 (13 years total within 2006–2019). Seagrass cover was determined using the Braun-Blanquet method, a visual cover estimation technique. The Florida DEP estimated cover using a slightly modified Braun-Blanquet scale where the lowest Braun-Blanquet score is 1 and spans values of 0.1–5% cover (Table S1 in Online Resource 1). The modified scale may be less precise in estimating small amounts of seagrass cover but still allowed us to compare differences in seagrass cover between sites and within sites over time.
Braun-Blanquet density values are ordinal, so we converted values to percent cover using a log-linear transformation (van der Maarel 2007) for ease of interpretation, though both transformed and untransformed Braun-Blanquet data perform well as proxies for continuous data in statistical analyses (Furman et al. 2018). For each site, we calculated the following historical seagrass cover variables from 4 replicate quadrats surveyed at each site annually across the monitoring period: mean total cover (includes all species), variability in cover (coefficient of variation), mean species richness, and mean relative dominance by species (species-specific cover divided by mean total cover).
Contemporary seagrass data
We thawed and rinsed seagrass samples and removed epiphytes by gently scraping leaves with a razor blade. After drying for ~ 1 week at 60 °C, we measured dry weight of biomass separated by species and by aboveground vs. belowground tissue. For each site, we calculated the following contemporary seagrass biomass variables from the 10 replicate biomass cores: mean total, mean above- and belowground biomass, and mean relative dominance by species (species-specific biomass divided by total biomass). Contemporary species richness was calculated as the number of unique species identified across all 10 replicate biomass cores.
Environmental variables
To account for environmental heterogeneity across our study area, we calculated a relative exposure index as described in Fonseca and Bell (1998) and measured elevation (as a proxy for depth) and distance to navigation channels (as a proxy for physical disturbance related to boating activity) for each site. The relative exposure index uses wind speed, wind direction, and fetch to estimate relative exposure related to wave energy. Wind data from 2018 to 2020 were obtained from the NOAA National Data Buoy Center (Station CDRF1; https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/). Fetch was estimated using the R package ‘waver’ (Marchand and Gill 2018) by calculating site distance to shore from eight bearings based on the Florida Shoreline (1 to 40,000 Scale) dataset (available at https://geodata.myfwc.com/).
We used modelled elevation as a proxy for water depth to account for differences in light that may influence seagrass meadow distribution (Duarte 1991) and carbon cycling (Serrano et al. 2014). We measured elevation using the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information Continuously Updated Digital Elevation Model (CUDEM)–1/9 Arc-Second Resolution Bathymetric-Topographic Tiles (available at: https://coast.noaa.gov). We measured site distance to navigational channels using the Coastal Maintained Channels in U.S. Waters dataset (Office of Coast Survey 2015). Portions of the navigation channels in Cedar Key were excluded from this dataset, so we georeferenced a more comprehensive map of channels (https://beta.marinenavigation.noaa.gov/gateway/) to the study area using the World Imagery Basemap in ArcGIS 10.8, and then digitized the channels to create a vector file with a more accurate representation of Cedar Key navigation channels.
Statistical analyses
All statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.2.0 (R Core Team 2022). We first tested for spatial autocorrelation of carbon densities to determine whether spatial weights would be necessary for further statistical analysis and found no evidence of significant spatial autocorrelation based on Moran’s I statistic (Moran’s I = − 0.04, p-value = 0.42) implemented using the ‘ape’ package (Paradis and Schliep 2019). We examined bivariate relationships between each predictor variable and carbon densities using simple linear regression with the ‘lm’ function. We checked assumptions of linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity of residuals by visually examining fitted values vs. residuals, scale-location plots, and performing Shapiro-Wilk tests using the ‘shapiro.test’ function, respectively. Species richness was log-transformed to meet model assumptions. We adjusted the threshold for statistical significance for bivariate analyses to increase the power to detect relationships with small effect sizes (r2 < 0.25) and a relatively small sample size (n = 25): we considered evidence for relationships to be strong, moderate, and weak at α < 0.01, 0.01 ≥ α < 0.05, and 0.05 ≥ α < 0.10, respectively (Mudge et al. 2012; Muff et al. 2022). While linear regression may oversimply the likely nonlinear and multivariate nature of factors driving carbon storage, the bivariate analyses were useful in assessing general patterns (i.e., direction and magnitude of effects) between potential driver variables and carbon densities.
We evaluated hypothesized causal relationships driving carbon storage with exploratory path analysis using the ‘lavaan’ package (Rosseel 2012). We selected a subset of the many potential predictor variables of carbon densities we measured–at least one variable from each of the variable types (i.e., sediment, environmental, historical seagrass, and contemporary seagrass variables)–to create a path model. First, we checked for collinearity between potential predictor variables within each variable type based on Pearson correlation coefficients calculated using the ‘Hmisc’ package (Harrell 2022). Within each variable type, there were significant correlations (α < 0.05) among most of the potential predictor variables (Table S2 in Online Resource 1). We therefore selected noncorrelated variable(s) from each type: for example, we selected contemporary total biomass as the contemporary seagrass variable, because total biomass was significantly correlated with contemporary above- and belowground biomass, species richness, and T. testudinum relative dominance (Table S2 in Online Resource 1).
The path model consisted of two exogenous variables (elevation and distance to channel), two historical endogenous variables (variability in cover and historical species richness), and three contemporary endogenous variables (total biomass, sediment percent fines, and carbon densities,) to test our hypothesis that environmental drivers would have direct effects and indirect effects mediated by historical drivers on contemporary features that influence carbon storage (Fig. 2). Data were centered and scaled using the ‘scale’ function to facilitate analysis across variables with different measurement units and scales. We iteratively tested variations of the model with additional direct links between predictor variables and carbon densities. We assessed model fit by examining the goodness-of-fit χ2 test statistic (χ2p > 0.05), comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.95), and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR ≤ 0.10).
Figures were generated in R version 4.2.0 (R Core Team 2022) using the following R packages: ‘DiagrammeR’ (Iannone 2022), ‘DiagrammeRsvg’ (Iannone 2016), ‘ggplot’ (Wickham 2016), ‘ggplotify’ (Yu 2021), ‘ggmap’ (Kahle and Wickham 2013), ‘ggsn’ (Santos Baquero 2019), ‘ggpubr’ (Kassambara 2020), ‘RColorBrewer’ (Neuwirth 2022), ‘rsvg’ (Ooms 2022), ‘semPlot’ (Epskamp 2022), and ‘tiff’ (Urbanek and Johnson 2022).
Results
Sediment organic carbon content and grain size
Sediment characteristics varied across sites (Table S3 in Online Resource 1). Dry bulk density ranged from 1.01 to 1.94 g cm−3, with a mean of 1.48 g cm−3, 95% CI [1.38, 1.59]. Total carbon spanned an order of magnitude from 0.10 to 2.37 total carbon by percent weight (mean = 0.92, 95% CI [0.64, 1.19]). Sediments from all sites contained low amounts of inorganic carbon, averaging 0.18 total inorganic carbon by percent weight, 95% CI [0.11, 0.24]. Therefore, organic carbon comprised the bulk fraction of the sediment total carbon at most sites. Carbon densities incorporated total organic carbon and dry bulk density measurements and varied considerably from 1.23 to 21.04 mg organic carbon (OC) cm−3, with a mean of 9.85 mg OC cm−3, 95% CI [7.53, 12.17], though high values for carbon densities were not spatially clustered (Fig. 1). Mean particle size and percent fines also varied across sites, with mean values of 315.53 μm, 95% CI [288.09, 342.97], and 4.25% volume, 95% CI [3.11, 5.39], respectively.
Historical and contemporary seagrass metrics
Both historical and contemporary seagrass metrics varied across sites (Table S3 in Online Resource 1). Historical seagrass mean total cover (log-linear transformed) and variability in cover (coefficient of variation) ranged from 22.94 to 154.82% and from 0.13 to 2.1, respectively. While up to five seagrass species occur in Cedar Key, historical species richness averaged over the entire monitoring period was low (mean = 1.4, 95% CI [1.26, 1.54]). Historically, T. testudinum had the highest relative dominance (mean = 0.52, 95% CI [0.38, 0.66]), followed by H. wrightii (mean = 0.34, 95% CI [0.18, 0.51]) and S. filiforme (mean = 0.15, 95% CI [0.06, 0.24]. Two sites were completely bare during the August 2020 sample collection, though they were historically vegetated. Contemporary seagrass biomass ranged from 0 (bare) to 752.55 g m−2. While the maximum contemporary species richness was 4, richness was lower at most sites (mean = 2.00, 95% CI [1.57, 2.43]). Contemporary relative dominance values were similar to patterns in the historical dataset where T. testudinum had the highest relative dominance (mean = 0.59, 95% CI [0.42, 0.77]), followed by H. wrightii (mean = 0.37, 95% CI [0.17, 0.56]) and S. filiforme (mean = 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.19]). H. engelmannii was rarely observed in both the historical and contemporary datasets. R. maritima cover was recorded for a single site in 2006 and was not present in any of the contemporary biomass cores; historical and contemporary relative dominance of R. maritima were therefore excluded from analyses.
Environmental variables
Environmental characteristics varied across sites even though all sites spanned a relatively small area (Table S3 in Online Resource 1). The relative exposure index (unitless) ranged from 4.1 × 103 to 2.6 × 104, averaging 1.8 × 104, 95% CI [1.5 × 104, 2.1 × 104]. Elevation extracted from the digital elevation model ranged from − 2.95 to − 0.09 m, averaging − 1.02 m, 95% CI [1.40, − 0.64]. The distance to the nearest navigational channel ranged from 0.19 to 3.55 km, averaging 1.35 km, 95% CI [0.99, 1.71].
Bivariate relationships
We found statistically significant relationships (p-value < 0.10) relationships between sediment and seagrass variables and carbon densities but not between environmental variables (i.e., relative exposure, elevation, distance to channel) and carbon densities (Table 1). Percent fines was strongly related to carbon densities (Fig. 3). Both historical mean total cover and species richness were positively related to carbon densities while H. wrightii relative dominance and variability in cover were negatively related to carbon densities (Fig. 4). Contemporary H. wrightii relative dominance was also negatively related to carbon densities while contemporary T. testudinum relative dominance was positively related to carbon densities (Fig. 5). Contemporary S. filiforme relative dominance and species richness were both weakly positively related to carbon densities (Fig. 5).
Path analysis
We found greatest support in terms of model fit for the hypothesized path model with an additional direct link from historical variability to carbon densities (Table 2; Fig. 6). Contrary to the hypothesized model (Fig. 2), the final, best-fitting model contained positive path coefficients between elevation and percent fines and distance from channel and historical species richness, and negative path coefficients between elevation and historical species richness and historical species richness and contemporary total biomass. Therefore, we found evidence that environmental drivers indirectly influence carbon densities via percent fines and historical species richness in unexpected ways and that historical variability influences carbon densities directly, or at least via mechanisms other than contemporary total biomass.
Discussion
Seagrass meadows in Cedar Key, Florida generally stored less carbon compared to previous regional and global estimates, but surface carbon storage to 10 cm depth was spatially variable, ranging from 1.23 to 21.04 mg OC cm− 3 within the 25 km2 sampling area. Identifying drivers of variability observed at small spatial scales improves our ability to generate reliable global estimates of carbon storage and enhances our understanding of the role of seagrass meadows in the global carbon cycle. We found that historical measures of meadow cover were generally better predictors of carbon densities than contemporary measures of seagrass biomass, highlighting the importance of site history to ecosystem function. Species identity was also a significant driver of carbon storage: meadows dominated by the long-lived, large-bodied species, T. testudinum, stored the greatest amounts of carbon. Both historical and contemporary species diversity were weakly related to carbon densities and environmental variables had only indirect effects on storage. Our findings suggest meadow stability and late-successional species assemblages, and to a lesser degree species diversity, enhance seagrass sediment carbon storage at the meadow scale.
Comparison to global and regional carbon stocks
Carbon storage reported for different depth intervals is not directly comparable, so it is not surprising that mean carbon densities measured for 0–10 cm in our study were generally lower than densities reported for deeper cores. Mean percent total organic carbon (0.73%) was less than the global median of 1.8% in the top meter of sediments (Fourqurean et al. 2012) and mean carbon densities, 9.85 Mg organic carbon (OC) ha− 1 in the top 10 cm, were lower than the estimated global mean of 15.4 Mg OC ha− 1 in the top 20 cm (Kennedy et al. 2022). Densities were also lower than values reported for 0–25 cm in temperate Zostera marina meadows (27.2 Mg OC ha− 1; Röhr et al. 2018) and for 0-100 cm in tropical seagrass meadows (129.0 Mg OC ha-1; Alongi 2014). Regionally, densities were lower than average values reported for 0–20 cm from subtropical and tropical meadows from the Gulf of Mexico (25.7 Mg OC ha− 1; Thorhaug et al. 2017), but the maximum density from our study (21.04 Mg OC ha− 1) approached the maximum value reported for 0–20 cm from nearby sites up to 80 km south of Cedar Key (~ 20 mg OC cm− 3 from Barry et al. 2018). If scaled to 1-m stocks, average carbon densities from Cedar Key (9.85 Mg OC ha− 1 for 0–10 cm) would approach or exceed the reported global and regional averages. However, organic carbon content tends to decrease with depth (Fourqurean et al. 2012) so additional measurements would be needed to compare densities across varying depth intervals.
Maximum carbon densities from Cedar Key were greater than densities estimated from deeper cores in nearby sites influenced by a different river system further south along peninsular Florida’s west coast (Barry et al. 2018). Here, we suspect hydrologic controls, mainly river discharge, explain differences in densities. Seagrass meadows in this study and in Barry et al. (2018) are in open coastal systems, where local variation in carbon storage may be related to allochthonous carbon and sediment delivery rates (Ewers Lewis et al. 2018). The Suwanee River, with a mean annual discharge of 298.5 m3 s− 1 (Franklin et al. 1995), likely delivers more carbon and sediment to Cedar Key than do smaller rivers flowing into coastal meadows to the south; for example, the Waccasassa River has a mean annual discharge of only 8.0 m3 s− 1 (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2005). The Suwanee and Waccasassa are partially and primarily spring-fed, respectively, so both deliver relatively small amounts of sediment to the coast compared to other river systems in the Gulf of Mexico, which limits the carbon storage potential in receiving meadows (Thorhaug et al. 2017). Watershed characteristics and delivery rates of fine-grained sediments may therefore represent broad-scale controls on carbon storage in this region.
As expected, we found a strong relationship between percent fines and carbon densities (Figs. 3 and 6) in congruence with past studies (Dahl et al. 2016; Howard et al. 2020; Krause et al. 2022). Serrano et al. (2016a) found that tight correlations between fine-grained sediment and sediment organic carbon in seagrass meadows typically indicate that seagrass-derived organic carbon contributes minimally to the sediment organic carbon pool. We therefore suspect that allochthonous organic matter, rather than seagrass-derived organic matter, comprises the bulk of carbon densities in Cedar Key, though organic carbon source analysis would be needed to confirm this hypothesis. Mean percent fines in our study (4.25%) was much lower than the global mean percent mud (18.93%) for 0–10 cm in seagrass sediments (Piñeiro-Juncal et al. 2022), which suggests a lower supply of fine-grained sediments and/or higher site erosional energy may explain the low mean carbon densities in Cedar Key relative to global averages. However, percent mud encompasses a slightly larger particle size class (< 63 μm) than does percent fines (< 50 μm), and particle size distributions assessed using different methods (e.g., sieving vs. laser diffraction) may not be directly comparable (Eshel et al. 2004). Percent fines is considered a driver of carbon storage because the greater particle surface area provides more adsorption sites for small organic particles, and the resulting mineral-associated organic carbon is largely protected from degradation (Mayer 1994; Miyajima et al. 2017). Percent fines may also be a covariate of carbon storage because fine-grained sediment accumulates in depositional environments where organic matter also accumulates (Mazarrasa et al. 2017; Novak et al. 2020). Whether percent fines is a causative or correlative agent of carbon densities, it is nonetheless a strong predictor of seagrass carbon storage.
Meadow persistence, composition, and diversity as drivers of carbon storage
While mean carbon densities were generally low in Cedar Key, there was significant variation across sites, and consistent with our hypotheses, historical seagrass features directly influenced carbon densities. Sites with persistent, high cover over time stored more carbon, whereas sites with higher contemporary biomass did not necessarily store more carbon (Table 1; Figs. 4 and 5). The path model emphasized the importance of historical variables in driving carbon storage, which aside from percent fines, had the greatest total effects on carbon densities (Table 2). Historical variability in cover had a direct negative effect on carbon densities beyond the indirect path via contemporary biomass (Fig. 6), suggesting that meadow history rather than standing biomass is the better predictor of carbon densities. In other Florida estuaries, Howard et al. (2020) similarly found a positive correlation between historical (two-year averaged) seagrass cover and carbon storage in Florida Bay, and Lebrasse et al. (2022) found meadow extent in St. Joseph’s Bay had not changed over a 30-year period and inferred that belowground carbon stores were also likely to be stable. Other studies have linked contemporary seagrass cover or biomass with carbon storage (Lavery et al. 2013; Belshe et al. 2018; Alemu et al. 2022), but historical drivers of seagrass biomass, such as long-term nutrient history, may underpin observed patterns (Armitage and Fourqurean 2016). Seagrass cover can change over intra- to interannual time scales (O’Brien et al. 2018), but sediment carbon accumulation occurs over longer time scales (Mateo et al. 1997; Orem et al. 1999; Mckee et al. 2007), so metrics that account for annual fluctuation in cover may better explain variation in carbon densities. It is unclear how long of a historical record is needed to evaluate meadow stability as a driver of sediment carbon densities and likely varies across environmental and ecological disturbance gradients (Snelgrove et al. 2014). In Cedar key, 14-year meadow cover history predicted surface (0–10 cm) carbon densities well, where meadows with stable seagrass cover confer greater carbon storage benefits than do meadows with more variable cover; however, it’s not clear whether this time scale is appropriate to predict carbon densities deeper than 10 cm.
We also detected species composition effects on carbon densities, presumably because the spatial extent of our study (25 km2) did not span pronounced geomorphic gradients that often overwhelm community drivers of carbon storage (Belshe et al. 2018). Sites with historically and contemporaneously high amounts of H. wrightii stored less carbon and sites with contemporaneously high amounts of T. testudinum–and S. filiforme to a lesser degree–stored more carbon (Figs. 4 and 5). T. testudinum, a large-bodied, slow-growing persistent species, may more strongly attenuate wave or current velocity and better stabilize sediments (Fonseca and Fisher 1986), thereby enhancing organic carbon deposition and storage in sediments. H. wrightii, a small-bodied, fast-growing pioneering species, may better withstand harsher hydrodynamic conditions in settings where fine sediments and organic carbon are unlikely to accumulate (Fonseca and Bell 1998).
H. wrightii and T. testudinum relative dominance may also be indicators of site disturbance history and ecological succession: contemporary relative dominance by T. testudinum was negatively correlated with variability in cover and both historical and contemporary relative dominance by H. wrightii were positively correlated with variability in cover (Table S2 in Online Resource 1). In this way, T. testudinum may indicate past meadow stability, whereas H. wrightii may indicate past meadow instability. Alemu et al. (2022) similarly found higher carbon stocks in Singaporean seagrass communities containing persistent seagrasses (Cymodocea species), but other studies from the Indo-Pacific have found higher carbon stocks associated with pioneering species in the genus Halophila (Lavery et al. 2013; Gillis et al. 2017). Our findings agreed with the global pattern of large-bodied, long-lived seagrass species driving meadow carbon storage (Kennedy et al. 2022; Piñeiro-Juncal et al. 2022) but species identity effects on carbon storage must be studied at fine (< 1 m) spatial scales to uncover the mechanisms generating this pattern.
The relationship between species richness and carbon storage was less clear: historical and contemporary species richness were both only weakly directly related to carbon densities (Table 1; Figs. 4 and 5) but historical species richness had a strong total effect on carbon storage in the path model, mainly via a positive effect on percent fines (Table 2; Fig. 6). Given the moderately strong relationships between species’ relative dominance and densities, we suspect the positive relationships between species richness and densities could be due to selection effects (Loreau and Hector 2001), where more diverse assemblages are more likely to contain the persistent species, T. testudinum. Competition between species may also drive the effects of species richness on surface carbon storage. For example, Krause et al. (2023) observed increased leaf lengths in mixed-species meadows in the Florida Keys where S. filiforme and T. testudinum competed for light; increased canopy height resulting from interspecific competition may enhance particle trapping and promote carbon storage. These findings suggest species identity as well as richness may be important to the ecosystem function of carbon storage at the site-level.
In our study, meadows contained a maximum of four species, so we might expect to find more pronounced species richness-carbon storage relationships in the comparatively species-rich meadows of the Indo-Pacific, where mixtures of species with different rooting depths better stabilize sediments than monocultures (Duarte et al. 1997). We also note that species richness is a simplified descriptor of species diversity that does not always reflect functional trait diversity (Schoolmaster et al. 2020), the purported mechanism driving biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships; therefore, fine-scale flume experiments or in situ hydrological measurements are needed to provide a mechanistic understanding of how seagrass species identity and trait diversity affect surface carbon storage via particle trapping and sediment stabilization.
Environmental drivers of carbon storage at the meadow-scale
We identified several site-level biological and sediment predictors of carbon storage, yet our linear regression results suggest environmental variables were less important drivers at the meadow scale (Table 1). We expected environmental variables, especially those related to hydrology (i.e., relative exposure, elevation) and anthropogenic disturbance (i.e., distance to navigation channels), to drive sediment deposition and carbon storage because water column temperature, salinity and nutrient levels are similar across nearshore meadows in this region (Sullivan et al. 2021). While we did not assess bulk sediment, sediment porewater, or seagrass tissue nutrient concentrations, we suspect seagrasses were nutrient-limited in Cedar Key, as is typical for tropical seagrasses in relatively unimpacted regions (Duarte and Chiscano 1999). There are also other potential hydrologic drivers of storage that we did not directly capture in this study, such as current speed (Fonseca and Bell 1998) and position within the meadow (i.e., edge vs. interior; Oreska et al. 2017).
We anticipated sites with greater exposure and higher elevation would experience greater wave energy and thus be less favorable to sediment deposition and sites near channels would have lower carbon densities due to sediment resuspension caused by boat traffic. However, the spatial scale relevant to boating impacts is difficult to identify. If boaters reliably utilize channels, we expect seagrass beds to experience highly localized impacts near channels, so we might not observe a trend between distance to channel and carbon densities for sites situated beyond 10–100 m from navigational channels. We did not find the hypothesized bivariate relationships between environmental variables and carbon densities at the meadow-scale, though the path analysis provided evidence that elevation and distance to navigation channels indirectly influenced carbon densities.
The path model highlights the indirect role of the environment on carbon storage, though the effects of elevation and distance to channels are difficult to interpret (Fig. 6). We expected higher-elevation sites closer to channels to host coarser sediments and more historically diverse seagrass assemblages with less consistent cover in response to mild disturbance. According to the intermediate disturbance hypothesis, moderate levels of environmental stress should favor greater diversity (Menge and Sutherland 1987). Our path model only partially supported this hypothesis, where distance to channel negatively affected variability, but elevation negatively influenced species richness and distance to the channel positively affected species richness. It is plausible that species richness decreases with elevation and increases with distance from channels because a particular species is better adapted to shallower, more disturbed environments, i.e., H. wrightii. Alternatively, elevation and distance to channels may not accurately represent wave energy and disturbance, respectively, because the elevation range was relatively small (− 0.1 to − 3.0 m) and boating activity commonly occurs outside of the navigation channels in Cedar Key. The path model was useful in exploring hypothesized relationships between several drivers that interact to affect carbon densities over different time scales but can and should be revised as our understanding of meadow-scale drivers of carbon storage improves.
The environmental variables we measured were likely too coarse to capture small-scale differences in hydrodynamic intensity mediated by seagrass cover, which closely correlates with sediment and carbon accretion rates (Zhu et al. 2022). Given the strong relationship between percent fines and carbon densities, meadow-facilitated organic matter trapping and burial may drive carbon storage in Cedar Key, where meadows have a limited sediment supply and likely accumulate allochthonous organic carbon at relatively slow rates. In other systems, seagrass productivity and species-specific traits, such as lignin content, may be more relevant drivers of carbon storage. Collectively, our results indicate that (unmeasured) site-level differences in hydrodynamic intensity, perhaps caused by or correlated to seagrass cover and composition, can drive variability in fine-grained sediment deposition and carbon storage at the meadow-scale. Therefore, we expect scaling up measurements from a single location over even a relatively small meadow area (~ 25 km2) to estimate carbon stocks may be inaccurate based on the high variability in carbon storage we and others found at this spatial scale (Oreska et al. 2017).
Conclusions
Species diversity-carbon storage relationships are likely scale and context dependent so that the strength and direction of relationships vary across spatial and temporal scales (Thompson et al. 2018; Qiu and Cardinale 2020). In terrestrial systems, plant species diversity often directly correlates with soil carbon storage, and this relationship is mainly mediated through on-site primary production and litter deposition (Chen et al. 2018; Zhou et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2020). In contrast, seagrass sediment carbon accrues over long times scales and storage is limited by the ability of a meadow to trap and retain fine-grained sediments and allochthonous organic matter. In seagrasses, biodiversity-ecosystem function theory may operate over longer time scales where historical species diversity promotes carbon storage directly through canopy particle trapping efficiency and indirectly via succession. Successional changes in seagrass species assemblage enable persistent species that may most efficiently capture and store carbon, such as T. testudinum, to establish in previously disturbed areas (Williams 1990). Our findings suggest seagrass species diversity may benefit carbon storage over smaller spatial and longer temporal scales. Meadows dominated by persistent species may contain the greatest carbon stores, but pioneering species can facilitate the establishment of persistent species. Preserving seagrass diversity ensures long-term processes such as succession sustain meadow development and ultimately promote sediment carbon storage.
Data availability
The datasets generated for this study are available in the Institutional Repository at the University of Florida and can be found here: https://original-ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu//IR00012085/00001
References
Alemu JB, Yaakub SM, Yando ES, Lau RYS, Lim CC, Puah JY, Friess DA (2022) Geomorphic gradients in shallow seagrass carbon stocks. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2021.107681
Alongi DM (2014) Carbon cycling and storage in mangrove forests. Ann Rev Mar Sci 6:195–219
Aoki LR, McGlathery KJ, Wiberg PL, Oreska MPJ, Berger AC, Berg P, Orth RJ (2021) Seagrass recovery following marine heat wave influences sediment carbon stocks. Front Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.576784
Arias-Ortiz A, Serrano O, Masqué P, Lavery PS, Mueller U, Kendrick GA, Rozaimi M, Esteban A, Fourqurean JW, Marbà N, Mateo MA, Murray K, Rule MJ, Duarte CM (2018) A marine heatwave drives massive losses from the world’s largest seagrass carbon stocks. Nat Clim Chang 8:1–7
Armitage AR, Fourqurean JW (2016) Carbon storage in seagrass soils: long-term nutrient history exceeds the effects of near-term nutrient enrichment. Biogeosciences 13:313–321
Asplund ME, Dahl M, Ismail RO, Franco N, Hammar L, Hoamby AI, Joa DD, Linderholm HW, Lyimo LD, Perry D, Rasmusson LM, Agata D, Ridgway SN, Salgado G, Ste G, Gullstro M (2021) Dynamics and fate of blue carbon in a mangrove – seagrass seascape: influence of landscape configuration and land-use change. Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01216-8
Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He JS, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B (2006) Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 9:1146–1156
Barcelona A, Oldham C, Colomer J, Garcia-Orellana J, Serra T (2021) Particle capture by seagrass canopies under an oscillatory flow. Coast Eng 169:103972
Barrón C, Duarte CM (2009) Dissolved organic matter release in a Posidonia oceanica meadow. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 374:75–84
Barry SC, Bianchi TS, Shields MR, Hutchings JA, Jacoby CA, Frazer TK (2018) Characterizing blue carbon stocks in Thalassia testudinum meadows subjected to different phosphorus supplies: a lignin biomarker approach. Limnol Oceanogr 63:2630–2646
Belshe EF, Hoeijmakers D, Herran N, Mtolera M, Teichberg M (2018) Seagrass community-level controls over organic carbon storage are constrained by geophysical attributes within meadows of Zanzibar. Tanzan Biogeosciences 15:4609–4626
Cardinale BJ, Matulich KL, Hooper DU, Byrnes JE, Duffy E, Gamfeldt L, Balvanera P, O’Connor MI, Gonzalez A (2011) The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am J Bot 98:572–592
Chen S, Wang W, Xu W, Wang Y, Wan H, Chen D, Tang Z, Tang X, Zhou Gu, Xie Z, Zhou D, Shangguan Z, Huang J, He JS, Wang Y, Sheng J, Tang L, Li X, Dong M, Wu Y, Wang Q, Wang Z, Wu J, Chapin FS, Bai Y (2018) Plant diversity enhances productivity and soil carbon storage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:4027–4032
R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Correia KM, Smee DL (2022) A meta-analysis of tropical cyclone effects on seagrass meadows. Wetlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-022-01611-0
Dahl M, Deyanova D, Gütschow S, Asplund ME, Lyimo LD, Karamfilov V, Santos R, Björk M, Gullström M (2016) Sediment properties as important predictors of carbon storage in Zostera marina meadows: a comparison of four european areas. PLoS ONE 11:1–21
Dahl M, Asplund ME, Deyanova D, Franco JN, Koliji A, Infantes E, Perry D, Björk M, Gullström M (2020) High seasonal variability in sediment carbon stocks of cold-temperate seagrass meadows. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 125:1–13
Duarte CM (1991) Seagrass depth limits. Aquat Bot 40:363–377
Duarte CM, Chiscano CL (1999) Seagrass biomass and production: a reassessment. Aquat Bot 65:159–174
Duarte CM, Terrados J, Agawin NSR, Fortes MD, Bach S, Kenworthy WJ (1997) Response of a mixed philippine seagrass meadow to experimental burial. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 147:285–294
Duarte CM, Losada IJ, Hendriks IE, Mazarrasa I, Marbà N (2013) The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 3:961–968
DuBois K, Williams SL, Stachowicz JJ (2021) Experimental warming enhances effects of eelgrass genetic diversity via temperature-induced niche differentiation. Estuaries Coasts 44:545–557
Duffy JE (2006) Biodiversity and the functioning of seagrass ecosystems. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 311:233–250
Duffy JE, Godwin CM, Cardinale BJ (2017) Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature 549:261–264
Epskamp S (2022) semPlot: Path Diagrams and Visual Analysis of Various SEM Packages’ Output. R package version 1.1.6, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semPlot
Eshel G, Levy GJ, Mingelgrin U, Singer MJ (2004) Critical evaluation of the use of laser diffraction for particle-size distribution analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:736–743
Ewers Lewis CJ, Carnell PE, Sanderman J, Baldock JA, Macreadie PI (2018) Variability and vulnerability of coastal ‘Blue Carbon’ stocks: a case study from southeast Australia. Ecosystems 21:263–279
Fei S, Jo I, Guo Q, Wardle DA, Fang J, Chen A, Oswalt CM, Brockerhoff EG (2018) Impacts of climate on the biodiversity-productivity relationship in natural forests. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07880-w
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2019) Waccasassa Bay Preserve State Park Approved Unit Management Plan. https://floridadep.gov/parks/parks-office-park-planning/documents/waccasassa-bay-preserve-state-park-approved-ump-2019
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2021) Big bend seagrasses and nature coast aquatic preserves-seagrass monitoring. Updated 06/24/2022. Distributed by: SEACAR data discovery interface, office of resilience and coastal protection, Florida department of environmental protection. https://dev.seacar.waterinstitute.usf.edu/programs/details/560
Fonseca MS, Bell SS (1998) Influence of physical setting on seagrass landscapes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 171:109–121
Fonseca MS, Fisher JS (1986) A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:15–22
Fourqurean JW, Duarte CM, Kennedy H, Marbà N, Holmer M, Mateo MA, Apostolaki ET, Kendrick GA, Krause-Jensen D, McGlathery KJ, Serrano O (2012) Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. Nat Geosci 5:505–509
Fourqurean J, Johnson B, Kauffman JB, Kennedy H, Lovelock CE et al (2014) Field sampling of soil carbon pools in coastal ecosystems. In: Coastal Blue Carbon: Methods for assessing carbon stocks and emissions factors in mangroves, tidal marshes. and seagrass meadows. pp 39–66
Franklin MA, Giese GL, Mixson PR (1995) Statistical Summaries of Surface-Water Hydrologic Data Collected in the Suwannee River Water Management District, Florida, 1906-93 (Open-File Report 94–709). U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr94709W
Furman BT, Leone EH, Bell SS, Durako MJ, Hall MO (2018) Braun-Blanquet data in ANOVA designs: comparisons with percent cover and transformations using simulated data. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 597:13–22
Gessner MO, Chauvet E, Dobson M (1999) A perspective on leaf litter breakdown in streams. Oikos 85:377
Gillis LG, Belshe FE, Ziegler AD, Bouma TJ (2017) Driving forces of organic carbon spatial distribution in the tropical seascape. J Sea Res 120:35–40
Gough CM, Atkins JW, Fahey RT, Hardiman BS (2019) High rates of primary production in structurally complex forests. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ECY.2864
Greiner JT, McGlathery KJ, Gunnell J, McKee BA (2013) Seagrass restoration enhances “Blue Carbon” sequestration in coastal waters. PLoS ONE 8:1–8
Hao MH, Zhang C, Zhao X, von Gadow K (2018) Functional and phylogenetic diversity determine woody productivity in a temperate forest. Ecol Evol 8:2395–2406
Harrell FE Jr (2022) Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.7-0, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
Hendriks IE, Sintes T, Bouma TJ, Duarte CM (2008) Experimental assessment and modeling evaluation of the effects of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica on flow and particle trapping. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 356:163–173
Howard JL, Lopes CC, Wilson SS, McGee-Absten V, Carrión CI, Fourqurean JW (2020) Decomposition rates of surficial and buried organic matter and the lability of soil carbon stocks across a large tropical seagrass landscape. Estuaries Coasts. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00817-x
Hughes AR, Stachowicz JJ (2004) Genetic diversity enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to disturbance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:8998–9002
Hughes AR, Stachowicz JJ (2011) Seagrass genotypic diversity increases disturbance response via complementarity and dominance. Ecology 99:445–453
Hughes AR, Stachowicz JJ, Williams SL (2009) Morphological and physiological variation among seagrass (Zostera marina) genotypes. Oecologia 159:725–733
Iannone R (2016) DiagrammeRsvg: Export DiagrammeR Graphviz Graphs as SVG. R package version 0.1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DiagrammeRsvg
Iannone R (2022) DiagrammeR: Graph/Network Visualization. R package version 1.0.9, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DiagrammeR
Kahle D, Wickham H (2013) Ggmap: spatial visualization with ggplot2. R J 5:144–161
Kassambara A (2020) ggpubr: “ggplot2” Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.4.0, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr
Kennedy H, Pagès JF, Lagomasino D, Arias-Ortiz A, Colarusso P, Fourqurean JW, Githaiga MN, Howard JL, Krause-Jensen D, Kuwae T, Lavery PS, Macreadie PI, Marbà N, Masqué P, Mazarrasa I, Miyajima T, Serrano O, Duarte CM, Kennedy H (2022) Species traits and geomorphic setting as drivers of global soil carbon stocks in seagrass meadows. Global Biogeochem Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GB007481. e2022GB007481
Kilminster K, McMahon K, Waycott M, Kendrick GA, Scanes P, McKenzie L, O’Brien KR, Lyons M, Ferguson A, Maxwell P, Glasby T, Udy J (2015) Unravelling complexity in seagrass systems for management: Australia as a microcosm. Sci Total Environ 534:97–109
Krause JR, Hinojosa-Corona A, Gray AB, Herguera JC, McDonnell J, Schaefer MV, Ying SC, Watson EB (2022) Beyond habitat boundaries: Organic matter cycling requires a system-wide approach for accurate blue carbon accounting. Limnol Oceanogr. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.12071
Krause JR, Lopes CC, Wilson SS, Briceño H, Fourqurean JW (2023) Status and trajectories of soft-bottom benthic communities of the South Florida seascape revealed by 25 years of seagrass and water quality monitoring. Estuaries Coasts 46:477–493
Lavery PS, Mateo M, Serrano O, Rozaimi M (2013) Variability in the carbon storage of seagrass habitats and its implications for global estimates of blue carbon ecosystem service. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073748
Lebrasse MC, Schaeffer BA, Coffer MM, Whitman PJ, Zimmerman RC, Hill VJ, Islam KA, Li J, Osburn CL (2022) Temporal stability of seagrass extent, leaf area, and carbon storage in St. Joseph Bay, Florida: a semi-automated remote sensing analysis. Estuaries Coasts. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-022-01050-4
Lieth H (1975) Modeling the primary Productivity of the World. In: Lieth H, Whitaker RH (eds) Primary Productivity of the Biosphere. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 237–263
Lima M, AC, Ward RD, Joyce CB (2019) Environmental drivers of sediment carbon storage in temperate seagrass meadows. Hydrobiologia 5:1773–1792
Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76
Macreadie PI, Trevathan-Tackett SM, Skilbeck CG, Sanderman J, Curlevski N, Jacobsen G, Seymour JR (2015) Losses and recovery of organic carbon from a seagrass ecosystem following disturbance. Proc Royal Soc B: Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1537
Macreadie PI, Nielsen DA, Kelleway JJ, Atwood TB, Seymour JR, Petrou K, Connolly RM, Thomson ACG, Trevathan-Tackett SM, Ralph PJ (2017) Can we manage coastal ecosystems to sequester more blue carbon? Front Ecol Environ 15:206–213
Macreadie PI, Anton A, Raven JA, Beaumont N, Connolly RM, Friess DA, Kelleway JJ, Kennedy H, Kuwae T, Lavery PS, Lovelock CE, Smale DA, Apostolaki ET, Atwood TB, Baldock J, Bianchi TS, Chmura GL, Eyre BD, Fourqurean JW, Hall-Spencer JM, Huxham M, Hendriks IE, Krause-Jensen D, Laffoley D, Luisetti T, Marbà N, Masque P, McGlathery KJ, Megonigal JP, Murdiyarso D, Russell BD, Santos R, Serrano O, Silliman BR, Watanabe K, Duarte CM (2019) The future of Blue Carbon science. Nat Commun 10:1–13
Marbà N, Arias-Ortiz A, Masqué P, Kendrick GA, Mazarrasa I, Bastyan GR, Garcia-Orellana J, Duarte CM (2015) Impact of seagrass loss and subsequent revegetation on carbon sequestration and stocks. J Ecol 103:296–302
Marchand P, Gill D (2018) waver: Calculate Fetch and Wave Energy. R package version 0.2.1
Martínez López IG, van den Akker M, Walk L, van Katwijk, MM, van der Heide, T, van Tussenbroek, BI(2019) Nutrient availability induces community shifts in seagrass meadows grazed by turtles. PeerJ 7:e7570 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7570
Mateo MA, Romero J, Pérez M, Littler MM, Littler DS (1997) Dynamics of millenary organic deposits resulting from the growth of the Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia oceanica. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 44:103–110
Mayer LM (1994) Surface area control of organic carbon accumulation in continental shelf sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 58:1271–1284
Mazarrasa I, Marbà N, Garcia-Orellana J, Masqué P, Arias-Ortiz A, Duarte CM (2017) Dynamics of carbon sources supporting burial in seagrass sediments under increasing anthropogenic pressure. Limnol Oceanogr 62:1451–1465
Mazarrasa I, Samper-Villarreal J, Serrano O, Lavery PS, Lovelock CE, Marbà N, Duarte CM, Cortés J (2018) Habitat characteristics provide insights of carbon storage in seagrass meadows. Mar Pollut Bull 134:106–117
Mckee KL, Cahoon DR, Feller IC (2007) Caribbean mangroves adjust to rising sea level through biotic controls on change in soil elevation. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:545–556
McLeod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WH, Silliman BR (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ 9:552–560
Menge BA, Sutherland JP (1987) Community regulation: variation in disturbance, competition, and predation in relation to environmental stress and recruitment. Am Nat 130:730–757
Miyajima T, Hori M, Hamaguchi M, Shimabukuro H, Yoshida G (2017) Geophysical constraints for organic carbon sequestration capacity of Zostera marina seagrass meadows and surrounding habitats. Limnol Oceanogr 62:954–972
Moksnes P, Röhr ME, Holmer M, Eklöf JS, Eriander L, Infantes E, Boström C (2021) Major impacts and societal costs of seagrass loss on sediment carbon and nitrogen stocks. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3658
Moriarty DJW, Iverson RL, Pollard PC (1986) Exudation of organic carbon by the seagrass Halodule wrightii Aschers. And its effect on bacterial growth in the sediment. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 96:115–126
Mudge JF, Baker LF, Edge CB, Houlahan JE (2012) Setting an optimal α that minimizes errors in null hypothesis significance tests. PLoS ONE 7:e32734
Muff S, Nilsen EB, O’Hara RB, Nater CR (2022) Rewriting results sections in the language of evidence. Trends Ecol Evol 37:203–210
Neuwirth E (2022) RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer palettes. R package version 1.1-3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RColorBrewer
Nordlund ML, Koch EW, Barbier EB, Creed JC (2016) Seagrass ecosystem services and their variability across genera and geographical regions. PLoS ONE 11:1–23
Novak AB, Pelletier MC, Colarusso P, Simpson J, Gutierrez MN, Arias-Ortiz A, Charpentier M, Masque P, Vella P (2020) Factors influencing carbon stocks and accumulation rates in eelgrass meadows across New England. Estuaries and Coasts, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00754-9
O’Brien KR, Waycott M, Maxwell P, Kendrick GA, Udy JW, Ferguson AJP, Kilminster K, Scanes P, McKenzie LJ, McMahon K, Adams MP, Samper-Villarreal J, Collier C, Lyons M, Mumby PJ, Radke L, Christianen MJA, Dennison WC (2018) Seagrass ecosystem trajectory depends on the relative timescales of resistance, recovery and disturbance. Mar Pollut Bull 134:166–176
O’Connor MI, Gonzalez A, Byrnes JEK, Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gamfeldt L, Griffin JN, Hooper D, Hungate BA, Paquette A, Thompson PL, Dee LE, Dolan KL (2017) A general biodiversity–function relationship is mediated by trophic level. Oikos 126:18–31
Office of Coast Survey (2015) Coastal maintained channels in US waters. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/39972
Ooms J (2022) rsvg: render SVG images into PDF, PNG, (encapsulated) postscript, or bitmap arrays. R package version 2.3.1, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rsvg
Orem WH, Holmes CW, Kendall C, Lerch HE, Bates AL, Silva SR, Boylan A, Corum M, Marot M, Hedgman C (1999) Geochemistry of Florida Bay sediments: nutrient history at five sites in eastern and central Florida Bay. J Coast Res 15:1055–1071
Oreska MPJ, McGlathery KJ, Porter JH, Bost M, McKee BA (2017) Seagrass blue carbon accumulation at the meadow-scale. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176630
Paradis E, Schliep K (2019) Ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses. R Bioinf 35:526–528
Piñeiro-Juncal N, Serrano O, Mateo M, Diaz-Almela E, Leiva-Dueñas C, Martinez-Cortizas A (2022) Review of the physical and chemical properties of seagrass soils. Geoderma. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2022.116219
Potouroglou M, Bull JC, Krauss KW, Kennedy HA, Fusi M, Daffonchio D, Mangora MM, Githaiga MN, Diele K, Huxham M (2017) Measuring the role of seagrasses in regulating sediment surface elevation. Sci Rep 7:1–11
Qiu J, Cardinale BJ (2020) Scaling up biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships across space and over time. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3166
Rasheed MA (2004) Recovery and succession in a multi-species tropical seagrass meadow following experimental disturbance: the role of sexual and asexual reproduction. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 310:13–45
Reynolds LK, McGlathery KJ, Waycott M (2012) Genetic diversity enhances restoration success by augmenting ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 7:1–7
Ricart AM, York PH, Bryant CV, Rasheed MA, Ierodiaconou D, Macreadie PI (2020) High variability of Blue Carbon storage in seagrass meadows at the estuary scale. Sci Rep 10:1–12
Röhr ME, Holmer M, Baum JK, Björk M, Chin D, Chalifour L, Cimon S, Cusson M, Dahl M, Deyanova D, Duffy JE, Eklöf JS, Geyer JK, Griffin JN, Gullström M, Hereu CM, Hori Ma, Hovel KA, Hughes AR, Jorgensen P, Kiriakopolos S, Moksnes PO, Nakaoka M, O’Connor MI, Peterson B, Reiss K, Reynolds PL, Rossi F, Ruesink J, Santos R, Stachowicz JJ, Tomas F, Lee KS, Unsworth RKF, Boström C (2018) Blue carbon storage capacity of temperate eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows. Global Biogeochem Cycles 32:1457–1475
Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 48:1–36
Samper-Villarreal J, Lovelock CE, Saunders MI, Roelfsema C, Mumby PJ (2016) Organic carbon in seagrass sediments is influenced by seagrass canopy complexity, turbidity, wave height, and water depth. Limnol Oceanogr 61:938–952
Santos Baquero O (2019) ggsn: North symbols and scale bars for maps created with “ggplot2” or “ggmap”. R package version 0.5.0, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggsn
Schoolmaster DR, Zirbel CR, Cronin JP (2020) A graphical causal model for resolving species identity effects and biodiversity–ecosystem function correlations. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3070
Serrano O, Lavery PS, Rozaimi M, Mateo M (2014) Influence of water depth on the carbon sequestration capacity of seagrasses. Global Biogeochem Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004872
Serrano O, Lavery PS, Duarte CM, Kendrick GA, Calafat A, York PH, Steven A, Macreadie PI (2016a) Can mud (silt and clay) concentration be used to predict soil organic carbon content within seagrass ecosystems? Biogeosciences 13:4915–4926
Serrano O, Ricart AM, Lavery PS, Mateo MA, Arias-Ortiz A, Masque P, Rozaimi M, Steven A, Duarte CM (2016b) Key biogeochemical factors affecting soil carbon storage in Posidonia meadows. Biogeosciences 13:4581–4594
Snelgrove PVR, Thrush SF, Wall DH, Norkko A (2014) Real world biodiversity-ecosystem functioning: a seafloor perspective. Trends Ecol Evol 29:398–405
Sogin EM, Michellod D, Gruber-Vodicka HR, Bourceau P, Geier B, Meier DV, Seidel M, Ahmerkamp S, Schorn S, D’Angelo G, Procaccini G, Dubilier N, Liebeke M (2022) Sugars dominate the seagrass rhizosphere. Nat Ecol Evol 2022 6(7 6):866–877
Sullivan CR, Smyth AR, Martin CW, Reynolds LK (2021) How does mangrove expansion affect structure and function of adjacent seagrass meadows? Estuaries Coasts 44:453–467
Thompson PL, Isbell F, Loreau M, O’ Connor MI, Gonzalez A (2018) The strength of the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship depends on spatial scale. Proc Royal Soc B: Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0038
Thorhaug A, Poulos HM, López-Portillo J, Ku TCW, Berlyn GP (2017) Seagrass blue carbon dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico: stocks, losses from anthropogenic disturbance, and gains through seagrass restoration. Sci Total Environ 605–606:626–636
Tiegs SD, Akinwole PO, Gessner MO (2009) Litter decomposition across multiple spatial scales in stream networks. Oecologia 161:343–351
Trevathan-Tackett SM, Seymour JR, Nielsen DA, Macreadie PI, Jeffries TC, Sanderman J, Baldock J, Howes JM, Steven ADL, Ralph PJ (2017) Sediment anoxia limits microbial-driven seagrass carbon remineralization under warming conditions. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 93:1–15
Urbanek S, Johnson K (2022) tiff: Read and Write TIFF Images. R package version 0.1–11, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tiff
van der Maarel E (2007) Transformation of cover-abundance values for appropriate numerical treatment - Alternatives to the proposals by Podani. J Veg Sci 18:767–770
Vicca S, Luyssaert S, Peñuelas J, Campioli M, Chapin FS, Ciais P, Heinemeyer A, Högberg P, Kutsch WL, Law BE, Malhi Y, Papale D, Piao SL, Reichstein M, Schulze ED, Janssens IA (2012) Fertile forests produce biomass more efficiently. Ecol Lett 15:520–526
Webster JR, Benfield EF (1986) Vascular plant breakdown in freshwater ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:567–594
Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York
Williams SL (1990) Experimental studies of caribbean seagrass bed development. Ecol Monogr 60:449–469
Xu S, Eisenhauer N, Ferlian O, Zhang J, Zhou G, Lu X, Liu C, Zhang D (2020) Species richness promotes ecosystem carbon storage: evidence from biodiversity-ecosystem functioning experiments. Proc Royal Soc B. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2063
Yu G (2021) ggplotify: Convert Plot to “grob” or “ggplot” Object. R package version 0.1.0, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggplotify
Zhou G, Xu S, Ciais P, Manzoni S, Fang J, Yu G, Tang X, Zhou P, Wang W, Yan J, Wang G, Ma K, Li S, Du S, Han S, Ma Y, Zhang D, Liu J, Liu S, Chu G, Zhang Q, Li Y, Huang W, Ren H, Lu X, Chen X (2019) Climate and litter C/N ratio constrain soil organic carbon accumulation. Natl Sci Rev 6:746–757
Zhu Q, Wiberg PL, McGlathery KJ (2022) Seasonal growth and senescence of seagrass alters sediment accumulation rates and carbon burial in a coastal lagoon. Limnol Oceanogr. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.12178
Acknowledgements
We thank everyone who assisted with fieldwork and lab processing for this project: S. Alford, H. Burrichter, L. DeFillips, A. Jansen, A. Looby, A. McDonald, and J. Roth. We also thank J. Curtis, A. Bacon, and A. Bochnak for providing laboratory training for sediment nutrient and grain size analyses, the Wetlands Biogeochemistry Laboratory Fellowship for funding sample analysis, and the Florida Sea Grant Ocean and Coastal Fellowship for covering publication costs. Additionally, we thank the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve staff (T. Jones, T. Green, and K. Suchanec) for access to sampling sites and historical datasets. C. Patrick’s advice on structural equation modeling and anonymous reviewers’ feedback greatly improved the manuscript.
Funding
L.K.R. and A.R.S are funded by USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture project no. FLA-SWS-005656 and FLA-TRC-005764, respectively. The Wetland Biogeochemistry Laboratory in the University of Florida Soil, Water, and Ecosystems Sciences Department partially funded laboratory analyses for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ALB, LKR, and ARS: contributed to the study conception and design. ALB: performed material preparation, data collection and analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ALB: and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bijak, A.L., Reynolds, L.K. & Smyth, A.R. Seagrass meadow stability and composition influence carbon storage. Landsc Ecol 38, 4419–4437 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01700-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01700-3