Talk:Blue carbon

Review in 2016
Very nice, Blue Carbon group! Just a couple of suggestions. First, the references need to go after the punctuation, per Wikipedia Manual of Style. Some of the sections have this right now, others don't. Second, in the "Nutrient stoichiometry" section, perhaps change "In many studies around the world" to something more general? It appears again a couple of sentences later and sounds a bit repetitive. If having studies from around the world makes your argument/information stronger, perhaps identify specific places where the studies took place? Finally, perhaps you're trying to address it as I'm typing this, but the references at the bottom have some alerts? Perhaps missing links? I also see a lot of the same references. Other than that, it looks good overall! Huynhsa (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I went in consolidated the repeating sources by using the "reuse" option for citations. I double checked the citations side by side before saving :) There are still weird red links in the reference section at the bottom. Huynhsa (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it looks good! In the section on sedimentation and blue carbon burial, there are a few spots where there are really good points, but I think the language could be more objective. For example, "When humans started clearing land to grow crops, they ruined the ability of the land to retain sediment." Kowalskm (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why "blue"?
If there's an explanation as to why the carbon is blue, please add it. I presume this is simply to denote its connection to aquatic systems. On which point, what about lakes? And is there another "colour" of carbon for land systems (e.g. "green carbon")? If so, perhaps this should be mentioned by way of context (i.e. the terminology is used to distinguish different biologically-driven natural reservoirs of carbon; or whatever). --P LUMBAGO 16:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Response to your suggestion:
 * We define 'Blue Carbon' in the second paragraph in the background section. "New research on the role of vegetated coastal ecosystems have highlighted their potential as highly efficient C sinks, and led to the scientific recognition of the term "Blue Carbon"." I'm not sure if it needs more explanation than that? Currently it does not include freshwater systems, but does include brackish systems, which have a lot of carbon sequestration potential. I don't believe there is a 'green carbon' for land sequestration, since that refers to traditional and historical carbon sequestration (ie planting trees). That's why the 'blue carbon' designation is used, to indicate carbon fixing potential not occurring on land. But I will look into it. Thank you! Jevanswi (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)jevanswi


 * Hi. Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, I spotted that section, but it doesn't make the choice of colour any clearer. It's perhaps too obvious to require explanation (i.e. blue = aquatic), but "blue" is often used to mean other things (e.g. "blue chip"), so a simple statement to avoid confusion may be an idea. Cheers. --P LUMBAGO 09:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I am a new user, but I was curious how this article moved to avoid bias from entering into how it was written? Thank you! Morrowpe (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed content on Human changes to global sedimentary systems
I've removed this content because it was straying too far from the main topic. Also poorly sourced. Putting it hear in case anyone wants to rescue any key statements:

Human changes to global sedimentary systems
Humans have been modifying sediment cycles on a massive scale for thousands of years through a number of mechanisms.

Agriculture/land clearing
The first major change to global sedimentary cycling happened when humans started clearing land to grow crops. In a natural ecosystem, roots from plants hold sediment in place when it rains. Trees and shrubs reduce the amount of rainfall that impacts the dirt, and create obstacles that forest streams must flow around. When all vegetation is removed rainfall impacts directly on the dirt, there are no roots to hold on to the sediment, and there is nothing to stop the stream from scouring banks as it flows straight downhill. Because of this, land clearing causes an increase in erosion rates when compared to a natural system.

Dams
The first dams date back to 3000 BC and were built to control flood waters for agriculture. When sediment laden river flow reaches a dam's reservoir, the water slows down as it pools. Since slower water cannot carry as much sediment, virtually all of the sediment falls out of suspension before the water passes through the dam. The result is that most dams are nearly 100% efficient sediment traps. Additionally, the use of dams for flood control reduces the ability of downstream channels to produce sediment. Since the vast majority of sedimentation occurs during the biggest floods, reduced frequency and intensity of flood-like flows can drastically change production rates. For thousands of years there were too few dams to have a significant impact on global sedimentary cycles, except for local impacts on a few river deltas such as the Nile which were significant. However the popularization of hydroelectric power in the last century has caused an enormous boom in dam building. Currently only a third of the world's largest rivers flow unimpeded to the ocean.

Channelization
In a natural system, the banks of a river will meander back and forth as different channels erode, accrete, open, or close. Seasonal floods regularly overwhelm riverbanks and deposit nutrients on adjacent flood plains. These services are essential to natural ecosystems, but can be troublesome for humans, who build infrastructure and development close to rivers. In response, rivers in populated areas are often channelized, meaning that their banks and sometimes beds are armored with a hard material, such as rocks or concrete, which prevent erosion and fixes the stream in place. This inhibits sedimentation because there is much less soft substrate left for the river to take downstream. EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Re-focusing the article
I've done some work on this article today in order to re-focus it on its core topic, using the IPCC definition of blue carbon. In the process, I condensed it a bit, removing content that is the focus of other articles. Further work is needed to integrate it better with carbon sequestration, biosequestration and climate change mitigation to ensure there is minimal overlap, especially with regards to the numbers (amount of carbon stored and released). EMsmile (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Deep blue carbon does not belong here
Hi User:LrdShen I disagree with your recent addition of "deep blue carbon" content here. While it contains the term "blue carbon" in its name it is not part of the original blue carbon definition. I think the content should be moved to carbon sequestration where it fits better. The blue carbon article should keep its original focus on tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrasses. Just because some org has now coined the term "deep blue carbon" doesn't mean it belongs in this article. I suggest moving it to carbon sequestration and then just mentioning the term once and referring readers across. The article carbon sequestration is anyway the more important article which has more detail. Pinging also User:ASRASR EMsmile (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:EMsmile I have to respectfully disagree. The plain definition of Blue carbon includes both deep water and coastal water (The term “blue carbon” refers to the carbon stored in coastal AND marine ecosystems-UNESCO/IUNC/Etc.). Note that even IPCC considers Blue Carbon to be a comprehensive term, not limited to the coast. The previous version minimizes and then actively dismisses deep ocean, suggesting that it does not even belong in the definition, which doesn't come across as neutral, or accurate given the extensive work being done in the area. The carbon sequestration page is referenced for more detail, in the same way as Mangroves and Seagrass are linked to more comprehensive information pages. The 'Deep Blue Carbon' is referenced from a USC article from 2017, there are also other small independent websites that use the term. Though it could be 'Deep Ocean carbon' or 'Deep Water carbon', until a more consistant international terminology is adopted. The point being that if Coastal Carbon is a subset of Blue Carbon (as currently written) then Deep "_" carbon is the other side of that coin and should be indicated for accuracy. Do note that I did not remove the referenced critics and concerns in this area, nor did I touch any of the excellent info sections on the various costal definitions. But excluding the deep ocean area from this page completely is a disservice to readers- unless you want to change page title to 'Coastal Blue Carbon', in which case I will happily withdraw my concerns- although a Blue Carbon page would probably still be required.LrdShen — Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I hadn't thought of it that way. Perhaps changing the article title to coastal blue carbon would indeed be a good way forward. Do you agree that the details of "deep ocean carbon" should sit at carbon sequestration? I see you haven't edited that article yet. Is that on your to-do list? Note also a discussion at carbon dioxide removal which is related, right?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbon_dioxide_removal#Ocean_direct_removal At this stage, I'd also invite others who are watching this page to weigh in with their opinion. One thing that I really want to avoid is that the same/similar content would be added here and also at carbon sequestration. I see this one here as the smaller article which only explains the term but not the depth of all the processes involved (notice my recent culling and reorganising of this article which you can see in the revision history). EMsmile (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I think either we need a much shorter 'umbrella' Blue Carbon wiki page that gives the full broad definition and links off to dedicated Coastal and Deep water pages (which themselves then link off to dedicated sectors - Mangroves, Sequestration etc), or this Blue Carbon page needs to include all elements of Blue Carbon. If the latter I would still leave in the deep 'whatever' section as a summary, similar to how mangroves is there as a summary- as the justification for its inclusion is exactly the same. Not a repeat of content- but a quick summary to spark interest in further research. Haven't gotten to the sequestration or CO2 removal pages yet, trying to start at the top level definitions first, and keep the consistency and logic straight. LrdShen (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the two options that you've outlined: either we need a much shorter 'umbrella' Blue Carbon wiki page that gives the full broad definition and links off to dedicated Coastal and Deep water pages (which themselves then link off to dedicated sectors - Mangroves, Sequestration etc), or this Blue Carbon page needs to include all elements of Blue Carbon. Which one is better? Which one takes us less time to set up? I think maybe I am leaning towards reworking this current article so that it becomes the "umbrella" blue carbon article and more clearly splitting it into a coastal blue carbon section versus a deep water blue carbon section. At a later stage (if someone has the energy), the coastal blue carbon section could then be split off into a sub-article called coastal blue carbon. Overall, I think it should all remain quite brief and be more focused on terminology; details then provided at carbon sequestration with clever and good linking back and forth between the two articles. EMsmile (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My vote is to keep the present blue carbon article as is, covering both coastal and deep marine systems. The general understanding is that blue carbon covers all marine systems https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11693-w ASRASR (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi User:ASRASR, I've now integrated a bit of text from the paper that you mentioned. Also, I have re-arranged and toned down the content about deep blue carbon that User:LrdShen had added. The paper that you had mentioned does not once talk about deep ocean blue carbon. Instead it says "stored by the oceans and coastal ecosystems, particularly by vegetated coastal ecosystems" and goes on to only talk about the coastal ecosystems. I think it's OK to mention the term deep blue carbon in passing but it should not be overly emphasised in this article. The IPCC AR 6 WG 3 report mentions blue carbon 126 times but not deep blue carbon, not even once. The deep ocean stuff really is part of carbon sequestration, not of blue carbon. EMsmile (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Deep blue sequestration is described in that article and it appears to be THE main carbon storage process of the ocean. "Recent first-order estimates have suggested that up to 14 Tg C yr−1 of macroalgae-derived particulate organic C is buried in shelf sediments and an additional 153 Tg C yr−1 is sequestered in the deep ocean6." So it should be given some space in the article even if this is not a common term yet. ASRASR (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The paper does not use the term "deep blue sequestration" though. It rather says "is sequestered in the deep ocean".
 * It seems to me that "blue carbon" generally has a definition that refers mainly to vegetated coastal zones, whereas the "deep blue sequestration" topic could rather be called "deep ocean sequestration" in which case it would be clearer that it belongs with the carbon sequestration article. (I mean, why even use the term blue instead of ocean). Anyway, my proposal is to briefly mention this in the "blue carbon" Wikipedia article to mention how different people use the term(s) but that the details about anything to do with the deep ocean carbon storage should be provided at Carbon sequestration, not here. (so pretty much like it is now). I am wondering if at some point in the future someone wants to create a spin-off article called carbon sequestration in oceans? EMsmile (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have to point out again that Blue Carbon in its plain definition includes the deep ocean. That is just a fact. While most of the efforts under recently have been coastal that does not negate the fact that the ocean is part of the 'Blue - and in fact it is becoming a much larger part of the picture. It must be included in any Blue Carbon summary. LrdShen (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made some further tweaks to this. The point is: different authors or different organisations use different definitions. It's not up to us to decide which one is "right". The IPCC definition clearly focuses on the coastal vegetated ecosystems so I think it's fair to mention this one first in the definition section. If other authors use differing definitions we can included those (and they are listed now) but without attempting to decide which is right and which is wrong. We should focus on describing how the term is used in general, and keeping in mind WP:DUE. I think the wording now should be quite OK. EMsmile (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sustainable Futures
— Assignment last updated by JeremyRack (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)