This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems page were merged into Carbon sequestration on November 13, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was nominated for merging with Carbon dioxide removal on 26 May 2024. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Don’t merge. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I think this text block that I have just cut out of blue carbon fits better here. But as I am not 100%, I am copying it to the talk page first:
Organic carbon is only sequestered from the oceanic system if it reaches the sea floor and gets covered by a layer of sediment. Reduced oxygen levels in buried environments mean that tiny bacteria who eat organic matter and respire CO2 cannot decompose the carbon, so it is removed from the system permanently. Organic matter that sinks but is not buried by a sufficiently deep layer of sediment is subject to re-suspension by changing ocean currents, bioturbation by organisms that live in the top layer of marine sediments, and decomposition by heterotrophic bacteria. If any of these processes occur, the organic carbon is released back into the system. Carbon sequestration takes place only if burial rates by sediment are greater than the long term rates of erosion, bioturbation, and decomposition. [2] [3]
Sedimentation is the rate at which floating or suspended particulate matter sinks and accumulates on the ocean floor. The faster (more energetic) the current, the more sediment it can pick up. As sediment laden currents slow, the particles fall out of suspension and come to rest on the sea floor. In other words, fast currents can carry many heavy grains, while a slow current can pick up only tiny pieces. As one can imagine, different places in the ocean vary drastically when it comes to the amount of suspended sediment and rate of deposition. [3]
The open ocean has very low sedimentation rates because most of the sediments that make it here are carried by the wind. Wind transport accounts for only a small fraction of the total sediment delivery to the oceans. Additionally, there is much less plant and animal life living in the open ocean that could be buried. Therefore, carbon burial rates are relatively slow in the open ocean. [4]
Coastal margins have high sedimentation rates due to sediment input by rivers, which account for the vast majority of sediment delivery to the ocean. In most cases, sediments are deposited near the river mouth or are transported in the alongshore direction due to wave forcing. In some places sediment falls into submarine canyons and is transported off-shelf, if the canyon is sufficiently large or the shelf is narrow. Coastal margins also contain diverse and plentiful marine species, especially in places that experience periodic upwelling. More marine life combined with higher sedimentation rates on coastal margins creates hotspots for carbon burial. [2] [5]
Marine canyons are magnets for sediment because as currents carry sediment on the shelf in the alongshore direction, the path of the current crosses canyons perpendicularly. When the same amount of water flow is suddenly in much deeper water it slows down and deposits sediment. Due to the extreme depositional environment, carbon burial rates in the Nazare Canyon near Portugal are 30 times greater than the adjacent continental slope. This canyon alone accounts for about 0.03% of global terrestrial organic carbon burial in marine sediments. This may not seem like much, but the Nazarre submarine canyon only makes up 0.0001% of the area of the worlds ocean floor. [4] EMsmile ( talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
EMsmile ( talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the lead section of this article is heavily weighted towards human intervention, and particularly on deep geologic storage of carbon dioxide. The lead says nothing about the carbon-sequestering value of leaving old growth forests, peatlands, and native grasslands alone. Deep geologic storage of carbon dioxide, which is an expensive and thus-far little-used technology, is mentioned three times:
By rough estimates, anthropogenic carbon removal sequesters 2 gigatons of CO2 per year, including a tiny amount of deep geologic sequestration. Non-anthropogenic processes sequester around 10 times as much. I will add a POV tag to the article as I think this bias in the lead is severe. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 22:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
nothing about the carbon-sequestering value of leaving old growth forests, peatlands, and native grasslands alone.has not been addressed. The following has also been removed, which makes the lead even less informative about the significance of vegetation:
I've removed this recently added text block as I felt it was too specific an example and didn't really fit into this kind of high level overview article. Please discuss if you think it really does belong here:
"In 1997-1998, approximately 12,000 tons of orange peels were dumped on degraded land in Costa Rica. In 2013, researchers found the land had more tree biomass, more forest canopy, and richer soil than unfertilized land nearby. [1] Princeton University ecologist Timothy Treuer remarked "This is one of the only instances I've ever heard of where you can have cost-negative carbon sequestration." [2]" EMsmile ( talk) 14:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 14:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change#How to clean up the mess around trees and mitigation? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I've removed this quote from the IPCC AR6 report as I felt it was too cryptic for our average readers and also digressing into other areas. Could we rather take just the essence of it and say it in our own words? " IPCC AR6 concluded that “Where carefully and appropriately implemented, AFOLU mitigation measures are uniquely positioned to deliver substantial co-benefits and help address many of the wider challenges associated with land management. If AFOLU measures are deployed badly then, when taken together with the increasing need to produce sufficient food, feed, fuel and wood, they may exacerbate trade-offs with the conservation of habitats, adaptation, biodiversity and other services.” [1]" EMsmile ( talk) 11:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps the hatnote mention is enough as otherwise the reader might be confused.
Also should Carbon dioxide removal be mentioned in the lead and if so how? Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I've removed this textblock about concrete from the "mineral carbonisation" section (a section that I felt was overly long and detailed, and difficult to understand for the layperson reader). In case, this should go back in, or should go into a different Wikipedia article, please advise:
++++++++
Concrete is a promising destination for captured carbon dioxide. Several advantages that concrete offers include, but not limited to: a source of plenty of calcium due to its substantial production all over the world; a thermodynamically stable condition for carbon dioxide to be stored as calcium carbonates; and its long-term capability of storing carbon dioxide as a material widely used in infrastructure. [2] [3] Demolished concrete waste or recycled concrete could be also used aside from newly produced concrete. [4] Studies at HeidelbergCement show that carbon sequestration can turn demolished and recycled concrete into a supplementary cementitious material, which can act as a secondary binder in tandem with Portland cement, in new concrete production. [5] [6] EMsmile ( talk) 15:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 15:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the current image in the lead (see on the right) is not very suitable. I am looking at it and can't figure out what I am looking at. Is this some kind of carbon cycle, where is the CO2 coming in or going. What are those strange yellow bundles at the right. They look like French fries but are meant to symbolise crops, I guess. There are some other schematics in Wikimedia Commons that come up when searching for carbon sequestration, although nothing that immediately convinced me. EMsmile ( talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
References
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems page were merged into Carbon sequestration on November 13, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was nominated for merging with Carbon dioxide removal on 26 May 2024. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Don’t merge. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I think this text block that I have just cut out of blue carbon fits better here. But as I am not 100%, I am copying it to the talk page first:
Organic carbon is only sequestered from the oceanic system if it reaches the sea floor and gets covered by a layer of sediment. Reduced oxygen levels in buried environments mean that tiny bacteria who eat organic matter and respire CO2 cannot decompose the carbon, so it is removed from the system permanently. Organic matter that sinks but is not buried by a sufficiently deep layer of sediment is subject to re-suspension by changing ocean currents, bioturbation by organisms that live in the top layer of marine sediments, and decomposition by heterotrophic bacteria. If any of these processes occur, the organic carbon is released back into the system. Carbon sequestration takes place only if burial rates by sediment are greater than the long term rates of erosion, bioturbation, and decomposition. [2] [3]
Sedimentation is the rate at which floating or suspended particulate matter sinks and accumulates on the ocean floor. The faster (more energetic) the current, the more sediment it can pick up. As sediment laden currents slow, the particles fall out of suspension and come to rest on the sea floor. In other words, fast currents can carry many heavy grains, while a slow current can pick up only tiny pieces. As one can imagine, different places in the ocean vary drastically when it comes to the amount of suspended sediment and rate of deposition. [3]
The open ocean has very low sedimentation rates because most of the sediments that make it here are carried by the wind. Wind transport accounts for only a small fraction of the total sediment delivery to the oceans. Additionally, there is much less plant and animal life living in the open ocean that could be buried. Therefore, carbon burial rates are relatively slow in the open ocean. [4]
Coastal margins have high sedimentation rates due to sediment input by rivers, which account for the vast majority of sediment delivery to the ocean. In most cases, sediments are deposited near the river mouth or are transported in the alongshore direction due to wave forcing. In some places sediment falls into submarine canyons and is transported off-shelf, if the canyon is sufficiently large or the shelf is narrow. Coastal margins also contain diverse and plentiful marine species, especially in places that experience periodic upwelling. More marine life combined with higher sedimentation rates on coastal margins creates hotspots for carbon burial. [2] [5]
Marine canyons are magnets for sediment because as currents carry sediment on the shelf in the alongshore direction, the path of the current crosses canyons perpendicularly. When the same amount of water flow is suddenly in much deeper water it slows down and deposits sediment. Due to the extreme depositional environment, carbon burial rates in the Nazare Canyon near Portugal are 30 times greater than the adjacent continental slope. This canyon alone accounts for about 0.03% of global terrestrial organic carbon burial in marine sediments. This may not seem like much, but the Nazarre submarine canyon only makes up 0.0001% of the area of the worlds ocean floor. [4] EMsmile ( talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
EMsmile ( talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the lead section of this article is heavily weighted towards human intervention, and particularly on deep geologic storage of carbon dioxide. The lead says nothing about the carbon-sequestering value of leaving old growth forests, peatlands, and native grasslands alone. Deep geologic storage of carbon dioxide, which is an expensive and thus-far little-used technology, is mentioned three times:
By rough estimates, anthropogenic carbon removal sequesters 2 gigatons of CO2 per year, including a tiny amount of deep geologic sequestration. Non-anthropogenic processes sequester around 10 times as much. I will add a POV tag to the article as I think this bias in the lead is severe. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 22:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
nothing about the carbon-sequestering value of leaving old growth forests, peatlands, and native grasslands alone.has not been addressed. The following has also been removed, which makes the lead even less informative about the significance of vegetation:
I've removed this recently added text block as I felt it was too specific an example and didn't really fit into this kind of high level overview article. Please discuss if you think it really does belong here:
"In 1997-1998, approximately 12,000 tons of orange peels were dumped on degraded land in Costa Rica. In 2013, researchers found the land had more tree biomass, more forest canopy, and richer soil than unfertilized land nearby. [1] Princeton University ecologist Timothy Treuer remarked "This is one of the only instances I've ever heard of where you can have cost-negative carbon sequestration." [2]" EMsmile ( talk) 14:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 14:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change#How to clean up the mess around trees and mitigation? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I've removed this quote from the IPCC AR6 report as I felt it was too cryptic for our average readers and also digressing into other areas. Could we rather take just the essence of it and say it in our own words? " IPCC AR6 concluded that “Where carefully and appropriately implemented, AFOLU mitigation measures are uniquely positioned to deliver substantial co-benefits and help address many of the wider challenges associated with land management. If AFOLU measures are deployed badly then, when taken together with the increasing need to produce sufficient food, feed, fuel and wood, they may exacerbate trade-offs with the conservation of habitats, adaptation, biodiversity and other services.” [1]" EMsmile ( talk) 11:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps the hatnote mention is enough as otherwise the reader might be confused.
Also should Carbon dioxide removal be mentioned in the lead and if so how? Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I've removed this textblock about concrete from the "mineral carbonisation" section (a section that I felt was overly long and detailed, and difficult to understand for the layperson reader). In case, this should go back in, or should go into a different Wikipedia article, please advise:
++++++++
Concrete is a promising destination for captured carbon dioxide. Several advantages that concrete offers include, but not limited to: a source of plenty of calcium due to its substantial production all over the world; a thermodynamically stable condition for carbon dioxide to be stored as calcium carbonates; and its long-term capability of storing carbon dioxide as a material widely used in infrastructure. [2] [3] Demolished concrete waste or recycled concrete could be also used aside from newly produced concrete. [4] Studies at HeidelbergCement show that carbon sequestration can turn demolished and recycled concrete into a supplementary cementitious material, which can act as a secondary binder in tandem with Portland cement, in new concrete production. [5] [6] EMsmile ( talk) 15:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 15:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the current image in the lead (see on the right) is not very suitable. I am looking at it and can't figure out what I am looking at. Is this some kind of carbon cycle, where is the CO2 coming in or going. What are those strange yellow bundles at the right. They look like French fries but are meant to symbolise crops, I guess. There are some other schematics in Wikimedia Commons that come up when searching for carbon sequestration, although nothing that immediately convinced me. EMsmile ( talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
References