marsh carbon storage in the national estuarine research ......cec. 2015. marsh carbon storage in the...
TRANSCRIPT
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA
A Comparison of Methodologies and Coastal Regions
Prepared for the CEC by Kristin Wilson, Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve &
Erik Smith, North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Version 1 March 31, 2015
Please cite as:
CEC. 2015. Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA: A Comparison of Methodologies and Coastal Regions.
Montreal, Canada: Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 67 pp.
This report was prepared by Kristin Wilson and Erik Smith for the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The information contained herein is the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the CEC, or the governments of Canada, Mexico or the United States of America.
About the author(s):
Kristin Wilson is the Research Coordinator at the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve in Wells, ME. Erik Smith is the Research Coordinator at the North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Georgetown, SC.
Reproduction of this document in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes may be made without special permission from the CEC Secretariat, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. The CEC would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication or material that uses this document as a source.
Except where otherwise noted, this work is protected under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License.
© Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2015
Publication Details [to be filled by CEC]
Publication type: [Report, Background paper] Publication date: [month, year] Original language: English Review and quality assurance procedures:
Final Party review: [month, year] QAxx.xx
Disponible en français – Disponible en español
Legal deposit—Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, [year]
Legal deposit—Library and Archives Canada, [year]
For more information:
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, bureau 200 Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 1N9 Canada t 514.350.4300 f 514.350.4314 [email protected] / www.cec.org
[Note: if only the executive summary—and not the whole document—is available in any of these languages, include “(Sommaire de rapport)” or “(resumen ejecutivo)” right after the corresponding text. Example: Disponible en français (Sommaire de rapport)]
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation iii
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .............................................................................. vi
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... viii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... viii
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. x
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Blue Carbon in Coastal Ecosystems ....................................................................... 1
1.2 Measuring Sediment Organic Carbon .................................................................... 2
1.3 The National Estuarine Research Reserve System ................................................. 3
2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Study Locations ...................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Wells NERR, Maine...................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Delaware NERR, Delaware ......................................................................... 7
2.1.3 North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR, South Carolina .......................................... 8
2.1.4 Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR, Florida ............................................... 10
2.1.6 Grand Bay NERR, Mississippi ................................................................... 11
2.1.7 San Francisco NERR, California ............................................................... 12
2.1.8 Lake Superior NERR, Wisconsin ............................................................... 13
2.1.9 Old Woman Creek NERR, Ohio ................................................................. 14
2.2 Field Methods & Laboratory Techniques ............................................................ 15
2.3 Data Analyses ....................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Statistical Analyses .................................................................................... 18
2.3.2 Data Workshop .......................................................................................... 19
3 Study Results & Discussion ....................................................................................... 20
3.1 A Comparison of Methodologies: Percent LOI vs. Percent Carbon Content ....... 20
3.2 Variability in Sediment Properties ....................................................................... 23
4 Conclusions & Future Work ..................................................................................... 27
4.1 Key Findings .......................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Future Studies ........................................................................................................ 28
5 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 29
Spatial Variability in Carbon Storage Within and Across Marshes of the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), USA: A Comparison of
Methodologies and Coastal Regions ......................................................................... 60
6 Works Cited ................................................................................................................ 65
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of the specific marsh sites sampled in this study .............. 4
Table 2. Site, general elevational zone (low, high), dominant vegetation type, and
mean visual percent cover plus or minus the standard deviation of the
top three plant species composing each dominant vegetation category ... 4
Table 3. Results of the model comparison showing Model 2 to be the best fit
model, where y = percent organic carbon and x = percent organic matter
by LOI ..................................................................................................... 21
Table 4. Individual regression lines for each site, where y = percent organic
carbon and x = percent organic matter by LOI ....................................... 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. The National Estuarine Research Reserve System includes 28 sites
across the United States of America. Sites in red indicate those included
in this study ............................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Distributions of percent organic carbon (% C) and bulk density (BD) of
salt marsh sediments integrated over 0-10 cm and 20-30 cm along a
single transect in the North Inlet, SC, estuary extending from the upland
edge of the marsh platform to the creekbank (a). Relationships between
percent organic carbon (elemental analysis) and percent organic matter
(LOI) for data collected in three regions of the salt marsh platform (b) .. 2
Figure 3. The Wells NERR located in Wells, ME showing landscape views (left)
and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in
this study (right) ........................................................................................ 7
Figure 4. The Delaware NERR located in Dover, DE showing landscape views
(left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled
in this study (right) .................................................................................... 8
Figure 5. The North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR located in Georgetown, SC
showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant
vegetation types sampled in this study (right) .......................................... 9
Figure 6. The GTM NERR located in, FL showing landscape views (left) and
representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this
study (right)............................................................................................. 10
Figure 7. The Grand Bay NERR located in, MS showing landscape views (left)
and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in
this study (right) ...................................................................................... 11
Figure 8. The San Francisco NERR located in Wells, CA showing landscape
views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types
sampled in this study (right) ................................................................... 12
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation v
Figure 9. The Lake Superior NERR located in Superior, WI showing landscape
views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types
sampled in this study (right) ................................................................... 13
Figure 10. The Old Woman Creek NERR located in Wells, OH showing
landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant
vegetation types sampled in this study (right) ........................................ 15
Figure 11. The modified coring device used in this study. Close-up of the core
head showing the cutting crown to reduce sediment compaction (a). We
manufactured a removable key with handle (b) to assist in core
collection. Assembled cores before shipping (c) .................................... 17
Figure 12. Faces of the fieldwork: Kristin Wilson, Wells NERR, Maine (a), Erik
Smith North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR, South Carolina (b), Shon
Schooler, Lake Superior NERR, Wisconsin (c), and Jason Lynn, Guana
Tolomato Matanzas NERR, Florida (d) .................................................. 17
Figure 13. Core locations (yellow dots) for each study site; also available online
at http://bit.ly/1utPbJ8. Photographs are from ArcOnline. ..................... 18
Figure 14. Workshop participants ponder preliminary results (a). From left to
right, Amelie Jensen (Research Technician, Wells NERR), Tim Dubay
(Research Technician, Wells NERR), Kristin Wilson (Research
Coordinator, Wells NERR), Nikki Dix (Research Coordinator, GTM
NERR), Mark Woodrey (Research Coordinator, Grand Bay NERR),
Lyndie Hice-Dunton (Research Coordinator, Delaware NERR), and
Erik Smith (North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR). Taking a break from data
analyses, Research Coordinators snowshoe to the salt marsh to observe
Maine’s frozen carbon stores (b). From left to right, Nikki Dix, Mark
Woodrey, Lyndie Hice-Dunton, Erik Smith, Kristin Wilson, and Kristi
Arend (Research Coordinator, Old Woman Creek NERR) .................... 19
Figure 15. Sediment organic carbon content (%) versus organic matter content by
LOI (%) ................................................................................................... 22
Figure 16. Relationship between sediment dry bulk density and sediment organic
carbon content (%) showing two distinct relationships as reveled by
break point analysis ................................................................................ 23
Figure 17. Distribution of organic carbon content (upper panel), bulk density
(middle panel) and organic carbon density (lower panel) within and
across eight marsh sites of the NERRS. Median values denoted by
horizontal line, boxes contain the 25th and 75th quartiles, wiskers denote
the 10th and 90th percentiles, and outliers are denoted by points. Sites
with the same letter are not significantly different from one another (p >
0.05). State abbreviations indicate site location ..................................... 24
Figure 18. Mean sediment carbon density by dominant vegetation type, zone, and
site. Bars that share the same letter are not statistically significant from
one another .............................................................................................. 26
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation vi
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AIC Akaike Information Criterion
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
BD Bulk Density
C Carbon
°C degrees Celsius
CA California
CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation
cm centimeter
DE Delaware
FL Florida
g gram
GTM Guana Tolomato Matanzas
GPS Global Positioning System
H Hydrogen
HSD Honestly Significant Difference
ID Identification
km kilometer
LOI Loss On Ignition
m meter
MA Massachusetts
ME Maine
MS Mississippi
N Nitrogen
NC North Carolina
NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve
NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OH Ohio
OWC Old Woman Creek
% Percent
SC South Carolina
SWMP System Wide Monitoring Program
TIDES Training for the Integration of Decisions and Ecosystems Science
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation vii
USA United States of America
WI Wisconsin
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation viii
Abstract
‘Blue Carbon’ refers to the organic carbon stored in coastal habitats, such as tidal marshes. The
largest store of organic carbon in coastal habitats is in the sediment. A full accounting of global
carbon storage in coastal marshes has been limited by a lack of data on how sediment organic carbon
varies spatially, both within and across different marsh types. This is further complicated by some
uncertainty in the way carbon content is often estimated and especially in how transferable this
estimation approach is across broadly different marsh types. Therefore, this study directly measured
sediment organic carbon, as well as assessed the common approach for indirectly estimating sediment
organic carbon, in eight National Estuarine Research Reserves across the United States. These eight
sites represented a range of marsh types, from freshwater wetlands to high salinity salt marshes. Mean
sediment organic carbon, as a % of total sediment mass, showed significant spatial variability within
most, but not all, marshes, as well as among most of the different marsh types. Overall, sediment
organic carbon content ranged from 0.1 to 32.2 % and was inversely related to sediment density, but
not vegetation type. While a single predictive relationship could be used with some confidence to
estimate organic carbon across all marshes, there were distinctly different relationships evident when
considering spatial variability at finer scales. This study emphasizes the importance of considering
spatial variability in carbon content within coastal marshes and offers an improved means of
estimating organic carbon from common loss on ignition measurements.
Executive Summary
This research fills critical gaps in understanding spatial variability in soil organic carbon density in
the upper 20 cm across a range of sites of the National Estuarine Research Reserves System (NERRS)
of Maine, Delaware, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, California, Wisconsin, and Ohio. The sites
selected for this study represent a gradient from freshwater (WI, OH), to brackish (DE, CA), to high
salinity (ME, SC, FL, MS) marshes that vary in their geomorphic context and dominant vegetative
communities. Including these ranges was purposeful, to improve estimates of sediment carbon density
in the full extent of marsh types and to better understand the potential for loss on ignition
methodology to be extrapolated across marsh habitats throughout North America.
Twenty, 7.62 cm diameter by 20 cm long cores were collected randomly within the four dominant
vegetation types at each of the eight sites. Cores were split and processed for paired samples of
percent sediment organic matter through loss on ignition and percent organic carbon content through
elemental analysis over homogenized 5 cm depth intervals. Using percent carbon content and dry
bulk density measurements, sediment carbon density was calculated and compared across sites, marsh
zones, and vegetation types.
Results show that sediment organic matter by loss on ignition and sediment organic carbon content
(%) are highly correlated, that the global relationship differs from that of other published studies (e.g.,
Craft et al. 1991; Callaway et al. 2012), and that individual sites significantly contribute to variation
in this global relationship. Across broad spatial scales, a single curve adequately captures the vast
majority of the variability in sediment organic carbon explained by LOI. Study results show that at
finer scales in some regions, variability in sediment properties may dictate the use of site-specific
calibration curves, however.
Results of a break point analysis revealed a shift in the relationship between organic carbon content
and bulk density at an organic carbon content of 2.04 %. Above this value, the relationship was
highly significant and had a slope very similar to those observed in previous studies. Below this
value, the relationship was not statistically significant. Interestingly, the samples with organic carbon
content below 2.04 % were almost exclusively from the southeastern United States (South Carolina,
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation ix
Florida, and Mississippi), and were largely confined to the mid-marsh halophyte and/or short-form
Spartina alterniflora vegetation zone.
Mean sediment organic carbon density in the upper 20 cm ranged from 0.001 to 0.061 g C cm-3, with
a grand mean of 0.030 ± 0.011 g C cm-3, and differed significantly by site. Sediments from Maine
and California contained significantly more organic carbon per cubic centimeter than the other sites
sampled. Mean sediment organic carbon density also differed significantly by high and low marsh
zones in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida, though the pattern of this difference was not
uniform. In Mississippi, the low marsh zone had significantly greater organic carbon density than the
high marsh zone, while in South Carolina and California, the opposite pattern was observed. Finally,
mean sediment organic carbon density differed significantly by vegetation at half the sites sampled
(Maine, Mississippi, California, and South Carolina). These results reveal that there is considerable
spatial variation in sediment organic carbon density in the upper 20 cm at the marsh scale.
This study greatly increases the number of sites across the United States for which sediment carbon
density measurements exist and improves our understanding of methodologies that use loss on
ignition as a proxy for sediment organic carbon. Our results suggest that region-specific calibration
curves that relate sediment organic matter to sediment carbon content are needed in some regions and
that there are significant differences in sediment organic carbon density in the upper 20 cm by site,
zone, and vegetation type. Importantly, the significant within and across marsh differences in
sediment carbon density have implications for how marsh-scale carbon budgets are calculated and
incorporated into blue carbon policies.
Future work should further expand the number of locations for which we have sediment carbon
density measurements and explore the degree to which additional regional calibration curves are
needed. Additional studies should also explore changes in sediment carbon density with depth by
collecting longer cores to improve calculations of carbon budgets at the marsh scale. The 28 Reserves
of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System are excellent potential partners to expand blue
carbon work in protected wetlands of the United States that encompass a range of marsh types,
management regimes, and natural and anthropogenic stressors.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation x
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Commission for Environmental Coordination for funding this work.
They also wish to thank the Research Coordinators from the six other National Estuarine Research
Reserves (NERR) who contributed to the project, including: Kristin Arend (Old Woman Creek
NERR, Ohio), Nikki Dix (Guana Tolomato Matanzas (GTM) NERR, Florida), Lyndie Hice-Dunton
(Delaware NERR, Delaware), Matt Ferner (San Francisco Bay NERR, California), Shon Schooler
(Lake Superior NERR, Wisconsin), and Mark Woodrey (Grand Bay NERR, Mississippi).
The Wells NERR, Maine thanks John Speight for his help in core construction design and fabrication;
summer research student intern Dana Cohen-Kaplan for his assistance fabricating cores and testing
protocol designs; Beverly Johnson of Bates College for project advice; University of New Hampshire
TIDES graduate student volunteer, Sydney Nick for her help with field work; Wells NERR staff
Jacob Aman and Jeremy Miller for assistance in the field; Wells NERR staff Sue Bickford for her
help with fieldwork and GIS components; and Wells NERR research interns Tim Dubay and Amelie
Jensen for their assistance in the field, organization of project photographs, assistance with figure and
table creation, and the many overtime, holiday, and off-hours they spent in the lab processing project
cores for loss on ignition and preparation for CHN analyses to meet tight project timelines. Partial
funding for this work was provided through NOAA and the George and Eleanor Ford Research Fund.
The North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR, South Carolina thanks Tracy Buck for assistance with field
sampling and processing of vegetation biomass samples and Susan Denham for conducting all CHN
analysis and especially for her extraordinary effort at ensuring all analyses were completed on a very
compressed time-frame.
The Old Woman Creek NERR, Ohio thanks the following people for their assistance with field work:
University of New Hampshire TIDES intern Rebecca Jacobson; OWC volunteers Russ Clause and
Natalie Moore; OWC staff Jen Bucheit, Bill Pifer, Cheryl Wolf-Cragin, and Kim Johnston.
The GTM NERR, Florida thanks Jason Lynn and Pamela Marcum for collecting samples in the field
and sorting biomass. Todd Osborne, University of Florida Whitney Laboratory, provided drying
ovens and the analytical balance, plus performed the final weights for biomass estimates.
The Delaware NERR, Delaware thanks Delaware Coastal Programs and NERR staff Drexel Siok,
Kenny Smith, Christina Whiteman, and Amanda Santoni for the assistance with field work and
Kenny Smith and volunteer Lihoshimar Gonzalez for their assistance processing biomass samples.
The San Francisco Bay NERR, California thanks Anna Deck for field planning, data collection, and
shipping of cores; Sarah Ferner and Lara Martin for assistance in the field; Mike Vasey for
transporting biomass samples; Rebecca Crowe for drying and weighing biomass samples, and Tom
Parker for providing laboratory access. Partial funding support was provided by a grant under the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and awarded to San Francisco
State University.
The Lake Superior NERR, Wisconsin thanks Ralph Garono, Michael Krick, and Tracey Ledder for
their assistance with sample collection and lab processing.
The Grand Bay NERR, Mississippi would like to thank Ron Cole for invaluable assistance in the field
and laboratory. Logistical and partial funding support was provided to Mark Woodrey by the
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and the Grand Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve through NOAA grant #NA13NOS4200072 and Mississippi Department of Marine
Resources Grant DMR #651 – 717.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Blue Carbon in Coastal Ecosystems
Coastal ecosystems are known to contain substantial amounts of blue carbon (Pendleton et al. 2012)
and have value as locations that sequester and store carbon over the long-term (Beaumont et al.
2014), but an understanding of global carbon storage in marshes is limited by uncertainties in
conversion factors that use loss on ignition as a proxy for organic carbon and by the sparse number
and inadequate spatial coverage of studies to date (Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC) 2013). This lack of data undermines accurate quantification of blue carbon stores, the role of
these stores in the global carbon cycle and potential value to carbon markets, and predictions of how
these stores may respond to changing environmental conditions and anthropogenic stressors
(Pendleton et al. 2012; McLeod et al. 2011; Crooks et al. 2010; Craft et al. 2009).
Therefore, to address these uncertainties in coastal blue carbon stores, the goals of this study were to:
1. Compare direct measures of sediment organic carbon determined by elemental analysis and
organic matter concentration measured by loss on ignition in a subset of eight National
Estuarine Research Reserves across the United States (Figure 1) that encompass a range of
salinity, vegetation, and geomorphic conditions, to assess the viability of the loss on ignition
methodology as a means of reliably estimating sediment organic carbon content.
2. Quantify sediment organic carbon density at those eight sites thus increasing the number of
locations across the United States for which marsh carbon density measures exist, thus filling
critical gaps in current carbon storage estimates across a range of marsh types.
Figure 1. The National Estuarine Research Reserve System includes 28 sites across the United States of America. Sites in red indicate those included in this study
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2
1.2 Measuring Sediment Organic Carbon
Studies of sediment organic carbon content usually measure it one of two ways: (1) directly, using an
elemental analyzer (e.g., Callaway et al. 2012) or (2) indirectly, using loss on ignition (LOI) and an
assumed conversion factor (Pribyl 2010) or previously reported empirical relationships between
organic carbon content and LOI (e.g., Craft et al. 1991). The second option has been used widely in
coastal blue carbon studies (e.g. Chmura 2011; Macreadie et al. 2013; Coverdale et al. 2014), as the
LOI methodology is less time and cost intensive. Further, the availability of a general empirical
relationship between the two measures provides a means of generating organic carbon values even
more broadly in regions where cost or access to analytical capabilities limit direct collection of
organic carbon measurements, but where additional measures of wetland carbon are desired (CEC
2013). Use of the LOI method as a proxy for organic carbon assumes, however, that the relationship
between carbon concentration within soil organic matter is relatively constant (Callaway et al. 2012)
such that an empirical relationship derived in one type of environment or region (e.g., that of Craft
[1991] for North Carolina salt marshes) will be broadly applicable to other regions or habitats.
The nature and generality of relationships between organic carbon measured directly by elemental
analysis and organic matter measured by LOI has been debated for decades in the terrestrial soil
science community (Chatterjee et al. 2009; Szava-Kovats 2009), but only recently gained much
attention with respect to coastal habitats (e.g., Howard et al. 2014). Recent work in salt marshes, sea
grass beds, and mangroves suggests that this relationship between organic carbon and LOI varies by
region and habitat (Callaway et al. 2012; Hansen et al. 2013). Further work shows that sediment
carbon concentrations vary spatially and with depth down-core and that these differences can be
explained by species-specific differences in vegetation and geomorphic context (Howard et al. 2014;
Lavery et al. 2013; Saintilan et al. 2013; Bernal & Mitsch 2013). Preliminary data collected at the
North Inlet–Winyah Bay NERR reveal significant spatial variability in the soil percent organic carbon
content and bulk density over relatively short distances along the marsh platform as well as with
sample depth (Figure 2a). Furthermore, observed relationships between percent soil organic carbon
and percent soil organic matter derived from the more traditional LOI measurements show variability
among adjacent marsh vegetation zones (Fig. 2b). These results suggest that the scientific community
may be oversimplifying carbon dynamics in blue carbon habitats.
Figure 2. Distributions of percent organic carbon (% C) and bulk density (BD) of salt marsh sediments integrated over 0-10 cm and 20-30 cm along a single transect in the North Inlet, SC, estuary extending from the upland edge of the marsh platform to the creek bank (a). Relationships
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 3
between percent organic carbon (elemental analysis) and percent organic matter (LOI) for data collected in three regions of the salt marsh platform (b)
1.3 The National Estuarine Research Reserve System
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is a network of 28 National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-supported, protected sites throughout the United States that are
dedicated to protecting and restoring coastal ecosystems through integrated research, stewardship,
education, and community partnerships (Figure 1).
This work builds on an existing, long-term monitoring program within the NERRS known as the
System Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) that “measures short-term variability and long-term
changes in the water quality, biological systems, and land-use/land-cover characteristics of estuaries
and estuarine ecosystems for the purposes of informing effective coastal zone management” (NERRS
2011). Recently, the NERRS has expanded SWMP to include standardized measurements of short-
and long-term variations in marsh vegetation and sediment dynamics in response to changing climate
(NERRS 2011). SWMP is an excellent, existing platform that could readily include more
measurements of blue carbon storage and sequestration, thereby greatly expanding our understanding
of processes governing blue carbon in diverse, protected settings across the United States.
2 Methods
2.1 Study Locations
The NERRS sites selected for this study represent a gradient from freshwater (WI, OH), to brackish
(DE, CA), to high salinity (ME, SC, FL, MS) marshes that vary in their geomorphic context and
dominant vegetative communities (Tables 1, 2; Appendix 1). Including these ranges is critical to
improving estimates of sediment carbon density in the full extent of marsh types and the potential for
LOI methodology to be extrapolated across marsh habitats throughout North America.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 4
Table 1. Characteristics of the specific marsh sites sampled in this study
State Site Latitude, Longitude Mean Annual Air
Temperature ± SD
Mean Annual
Salinity ± SD
Mean
Tidal
Range
Mean
Water
Depth
Maine Webhannet Marsh 43.311858, -70.574431 9.1 ± 9.7 30.5 ± 1.8 2.6 -
Delaware St. Jones River 39.084152, -75.437877 13.3 ± 10.1 11.0 ± 7.0 1.5 -
South Carolina Crabhaul Marsh 33.347256, -79.194680 18.0 ± 8.2 33.3 ± 3.7 1.4 -
Florida Hat Island 29.977153, -81.322631 20.7 ± 6.7 29.8 ± 6.8 1.6 -
Jason’s Creek 29.822866, -81.284898 20.7 ± 6.7 34.7 ± 2.5 1.7 -
Moses Creek 29.771384, -81.287675 20.7 ± 6.7 34.8 ± 2.2 1.4 -
Pellicer Creek 29.660294, -81.246602 20.7 ± 6.7 17.4 ± 9.8 0.6 -
Pine Island 30.086837, -81.367022 20.7 ± 6.7 29.8 ± 6.8 1.6 -
Washington Oaks 29.629838, -81.215771 20.7 ± 6.7 17.4 ± 9.8 1.7 -
Mississippi Middle Bayou 30.398732, -88.414874 19.6 ± 7.8 16.5 ± 8.2 0.6 -
Middle Bay 30.374761, -88.411634 19.6 ± 7.8 22.2 ± 5.8 0.6 -
North Rigolets 30.361677, -88.415282 19.6 ± 7.8 22.2 ± 5.8 0.6 -
California Rush Ranch 38.201369, -122.028248 14.7 ± 6.3 4.1 ± 2.7 2.3 -
Wisconsin Pokegama Bay 46.672662, -92.136929 2.9 ± 13.2 0.2 ± 0.1 - 1.4
Ohio Old Woman Creek 41.377557, -82.513726 10.6 ± 10.6 0.2 ± 0.1 - 0.4
Note: Mean annual air temperature is in degrees Celcius, mean annual salinity in practical salinity units, mean
tidal range and mean water depth in meters.
Table 2. Site, general elevational zone (low, high), dominant vegetation type, and mean visual percent cover plus or minus the standard deviation of the top three plant species composing each dominant vegetation category
Site Zone Dominant Vegetation Type Mean Visual Percent Cover ± SD Maine Low Spartina alterniflora, tall S. alterniflora tall (92 ± 8), bare ground (6 ± 7), Ascophyllum
nodosum (1 ± 2) (Suaeda linearis, Spartina patens)
Spartina alterniflora, short S. alterniflora short (98 ± 4), S. patens (1 ± 2), Plantago maritima (< 1 ± 1) (Salicornia europaea)
High Forb panne Plantago maritima (26 ± 22), Triglochin maritimum (23 ± 15), Glaux maritima (14 ± 31) (Agalinis maritima, S. alterniflora short, Limonium nashii, Distichlis spicata, S. patens)
Spartina patens S. patens (98 ± 2), bare ground (1 ± 2), S. europaea (< 1 ± 1), S. alterniflora (< 1 ± 1) (G. maritima)
Delaware Low Spartina alterniflora, tall S. alterniflora tall (72 ± 9), wrack (13 ± 14), bare ground (13 ± 9) (other)
Spartina alterniflora, short S. alterniflora short (73 ± 12), wrack (18 ± 9), bare ground (7 ± 3) (other)
High Spartina patens S. patens (86 ± 8), D. spicata (7 ± 8), bare ground (4 ± 2) (S. alterniflora short , Iva frutescens, wrack)
Spartina cynosuroides S. cynosuroides (49 ± 9), bare ground (26 ± 7), S. alterniflora tall (13 ± 13) (other, wrack, S. alterniflora short)
South Carolina
Low Spartina alterniflora, tall S. alterniflora tall (52 ± 4), bare ground (48 ± 4) Spartina alterniflora, short S. alterniflora short (90 ± 6), bare ground (10 ± 6)
High Salicornia depressa/mixed S. depressa (72 ± 35), Limonium carolinianum (10 ± 20), S. alterniflora (10 ± 15) (D. spicata)
Juncus roemerianus J. roemerianus (85 ± 13), Borrichia frutescens (3 ± 4), bare ground (3 ± 4)
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 5
(L. carolinianum, D. spicata, S. depressa) Florida Low Spartina alterniflora, tall bare ground (63 ± 21), S. alterniflora tall (35 ± 22), Batis
maritima (2 ± 4) Spartina alterniflora, short S. alterniflora short (52 ± 19), bare ground (45 ± 18), Sarcocornia
perennis (1 ± 2) (wrack)
High Juncus roemerianus J. roemerianus (48 ± 23), bare ground (40 ± 16), B. maritima (8 ± 12) (S. alterniflora tall, wrack)
Batis maritima bare ground (39 ± 16), B. maritima (50 ± 32), J. roemerianus (8 ± 18) (S. perennis, S. alterniflora short, wrack, D. spicata)
Mississippi Low Spartina alterniflora S. alterniflora (80 ± 4), bare ground (20 ± 4) Juncus roemerianus J. roemerianus (95 ± 0), bare ground (5 ± 0)
High Spartina patens/ Spartina spartinae
S. patens (34 ± 19), bare ground (28 ± 20), S. spartinae (16 ± 25) (J. roemerianus, Salicornia virginica, Panicum virgatum, B. maritima, A. maritima, Solidago sempervirens)
Salicornia virginica, Batis maritima
bare ground (69 ± 17), S. virginica (31 ± 17)
California Low Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
S. acutus/californicus (49 ± 33), wrack (32 ± 39), Typha sp. (14 ± 26), bare ground (14 ± 21) (Lepidium latifolium, other)
Schoenoplectus americanus S. americanus (53 ± 29), wrack (52 ± 35), L. latifolium (3 ± 7) (other)
High Distichlis spicata/Salicornia pacifica
S. pacifica (93 ± 6), wrack (12 ± 22), Cuscuta pacifica (8 ± 12) (D. spicata, Frankenia salina, Jaumea carnosa)
Distichlis spicata/Juncus balticus
Juncus ariticus sp. balticus (95 ± 5), D. spicata (7 ± 10), bare ground (3 ± 5), Atriplex prostrata (3 ± 3) (F. salina)
Wisconsin Low Sagittaria rigida S. rigida (93 ± 4), bare ground (4 ± 9), Scirpus validus (1 ± 1) (Zizania palustris, S. eurycarpum, Potamogeton pectinatus)
Sparganium eurycarpum S. eurycarpum (94 ± 8), Typha sp. (3 ± 7), Z. palustris (<1 ± 1) (S. rigida, Ceratophyllum demersum)
High Typha sp. Typha sp. (82 ± 19), S. eurycarpum (12 ± 17), Potentilla palustris (2 ± 5), Equisetum fluviatile (2 ± 5) (Rumex orbiculatus, Lythrum salicaria, Carex lacustris)
Carex lacustris C. lacustris (86 ± 26), Carex stricta (8 ± 18), L. salicaria (5 ± 9) (Typha sp., Onoclea sensibilis, Lycopus uniflorus, E. fluviatile)
Ohio Low Sparganium eurycarpum open water (56 ± 7), S. eurycarpum (36 ± 11), Polygonum hydropiperoides (4 ± 9) (Nymphaea odorata, Sagittaria latifolia)
Typha angustifolia open water (57 ± 21), T. angustifolia (22 ± 8), N. odorata (14 ± 19) (Leersia oryzoides, Nelumbo lutea, S. latifolia)
Leersia oryzoides open water (56 ± 27), L. oryzoides (40 ± 27), P. hydropiperoides (1 ± 2), S. latifolia (1 ± 2), T. angustifolia (1 ± 2) (Scirpus sp., Phragmites australis)
High Phragmites australis open water (87 ± 12), P. australis (12 ± 13), S. eurycarpum (1 ± 2) (S. latifolia, T. angustifolia)
Note: When there was a tie among the top three species in the plot, all species in the tie are listed. Additional
species present in the plot are listed below in parentheses. Means were calculated as the average of five plots for
each dominant vegetation type.
2.1.1 Wells NERR, Maine
The Webhannet Estuary (Figure 3) is part of the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR)
and the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in Wells, ME and lies within the Arcuate
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 6
Embayments coastal compartment of Maine’s coast (Kelley 1987). This high salinity estuary is well-
mixed, owing to its large tidal range and low river discharge (~1 m3/sec; Dionne et al. 2006,
Fitzgerald et al. 1989). Pope’s Creek, Depot Brook, Blacksmith Brook, and the Webhannet River
introduce little minerogenic sediment to the estuary; most “new” sediment to the system is the result
of re-worked glacigenic deposits exposed sub- or intertidally (Byrne & Ziegler 1977; Shipp 1989;
Kelley et al. 1995). The tidal marsh platform is underlain by thick deposits of peat (> 5 m in places;
Kelley et al. 1995) and incised by numerous tidal channels, creeks and salt marsh pools (Wilson et al.
2009, 2010). Tidal exchange with the ocean is restricted to a single inlet at Wells Harbor and marshes
are flooded twice-daily by semidiurnal tides. Vegetation is dominated by high-marsh meadow (mostly
Spartina patens), intermixed with forb pannes (mostly Triglochin maritimum and Plantago
maritima). Spartina alterniflora dominates at lower elevations and along the banks of tidal creeks
(Jacobson & Jacobson 1989). Sampling for this study was confined to the area between Drakes Island
Road and Mile Road.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 7
Figure 3. The Wells NERR located in Wells, ME showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this study (right)
2.1.2 Delaware NERR, Delaware
The St. Jones Reserve, located in Dover, DE, is one of two components of the Delaware National
Estuarine Research Reserve that are sub-estuaries of the Delaware River/Bay Estuary. This reserve is
distributed along 8.8 km of predominantly brackish tidal river situated at the lower end of the St.
Jones River watershed, with the river discharging into mid-Delaware Bay. Salt marsh habitats in the
St. Jones Reserve are dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and salt hay (Spartina
patens), buffered by wooded fringe, farmlands, and meadows.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 8
Figure 4. The Delaware NERR located in Dover, DE showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this study (right)
2.1.3 North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR, South Carolina
The North Inlet Estuary is a small, bar-built estuary, approximately 3,200 ha in size with a watershed
of approximately 3,800 ha. In general, freshwater input to the estuary is relatively minor, and comes
largely via precipitation-driven groundwater inflow from the surrounding watershed. Most of this
watershed is forested and < 2% of the watershed is developed. The estuarine basin is dominated by
inter-tidal salt marsh comprised mainly of salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), although the
fringing back-barrier and upland border marshes demonstrate the typical salt marsh plant species
zonation patterns found in the Southeast United States. These marshes are flooded and drained twice
daily by semidiurnal tides through several large sub-tidal creeks interconnected by numerous smaller
inter-tidal creeks. Exchange with the ocean is restricted to a single inlet, with some limited exchange
of water with the adjacent Winyah Bay estuary to the south (Buzzelli et al. 2004).
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 9
Sampling for the present study was confined to the Crabhaul Creek sub-basin of North Inlet, which is
the most western of the individual tidal creek/marsh sub-basins of North Inlet. The marsh platform of
Crabhaul Creek boarders the upland forest and displays distinct vegetation zones from creek bank to
upland edge typical of marshes of the Southeastern United States. It is one of the few sub-basins in
North Inlet to have a broad high marsh zone, including both a mixed meadow composed of species
such as Spartina patens, Distichlis spicata, Borrichia frutescens, and Limonium carolinianum, as well
as a hyper-saline zone of salt panne and dense growth of Salicornia depressa. Stratigraphy and
radiocarbon dating indicates that Crabhaul Creek was forested about 2,600 years before present and
that the marsh platform continues to actively expand south and west, transgressing forest habitat on
its western, upland edge (Gardner & Porter 2001).
Figure 5. The North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR located in Georgetown, SC showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this study (right)
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 10
2.1.4 Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR, Florida
The GTM NERR is comprised of approximately 300 km2 of relatively undeveloped coastal and
estuarine habitat, 47 km2 of which is salt marsh, in northeast Florida in the transition zone between
subtropical and temperate climates. The Reserve, which is split into two main components north and
south of the city of St. Augustine, forms a narrow bar-bounded, tidally-dominated estuarine
ecosystem that spans approximately 56 km north to south. Similar to other southeastern USA Atlantic
coast estuaries, the GTM NERR consists of a mosaic of multiple interconnected estuarine habitats
that include the vegetated marsh edge and surface, marsh pools, tidal creeks, and open water habitats.
Sediment cores were collected from six sites spread throughout the Reserve in tributaries of the
Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers.
Figure 6. The GTM NERR located in, FL showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this study (right)
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 11
2.1.6 Grand Bay NERR, Mississippi
The Grand Bay Estuary, located in Jackson County immediately adjacent to the Mississippi-Alabama
state line, is the largest estuary in Mississippi encompassing about 7,304 hectares (18,049 acres). This
National Estuarine Research Reserve is a pristine, intact coastal plain salt marsh system which
includes tidal and non-tidal wetlands (Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 1998). Because it
is a strongly marine-influenced and micro-tidal estuary (< 1 m tide range), it is dominated primarily
by Juncus roemerianus with scattered smaller patches of Spartina alterniflora, driven primarily by an
irregular flooding regime (Wieland 2007).
Figure 7. The Grand Bay NERR located in, MS showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this study (right)
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 12
2.1.7 San Francisco NERR, California
Rush Ranch, one of two components of the San Francisco Bay NERR, includes approximately 1,050
acres of high-elevation brackish marsh innervated with tidal sloughs and creeks and bordered by
undeveloped uplands. Although Rush Ranch is mostly surrounded by a mosaic of managed wetlands,
the area sampled for this study is subject to tidal inundation and receives limited seasonal inputs of
local run-off. An important aspect of the region is the lack of any major local freshwater influence
other than upstream flows coming through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
Figure 8. The San Francisco NERR located in Wells, CA showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this study (right)
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 13
2.1.8 Lake Superior NERR, Wisconsin
Sediment samples were taken in the upper Pokegama River embayment, a tributary of the St. Louis
River that flows into Lake Superior in northwestern Wisconsin. The Pokegama River flows through a
highly erodible clay plain that was created from glacio-lacustrine deposits following the last
glaciation (approx. 10,000 years BP). The embayment developed following the drowning of the St.
Louis River mouth which was caused by differential isostatic rebound; greater crustal rise in the east
resulted in a rise in the lake outlet at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan effectively “drowning” river mouths
in western Lake Superior. The bay is relatively young, created approximately 1,000 BP when the
Sault outlet began to govern the water level of Lake Superior. Pokegama Bay exhibits estuarine
properties due to the tides and seiches of Lake Superior. Water levels fluctuate with a daily mean
fluctuation of 12.6 cm at the mouth and a river-lake transition zone where river and lake waters mix
that extends > 20 km upriver from the mouth. The primary habitat in Pokegama Bay is emergent
freshwater marsh with dominant vegetation including; Carex lacustris, Typha spp. (Typha latifolia,
Typha angustifolia, and Typha x glauca), Sparganium eurycarpum, and Sagittaria rigida.
Figure 9. The Lake Superior NERR located in Superior, WI showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this study (right)
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 14
2.1.9 Old Woman Creek NERR, Ohio
Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve and State Nature Preserve (OWC) is located
on the southern coast of Lake Erie, 5 km east of the city of Huron, OH, USA. The OWC preserve
includes 60 hectares of freshwater estuarine wetlands, extending 2.1 km south of the Lake Erie
shoreline (Herdendorf et al. 2004). The estuary drains a 69 km2 watershed, which is dominated by
agricultural land use (Herdendorf et al. 2004). The headwaters of Old Woman Creek originate at
about 270 m above sea level on a till plain surface and descend 96 m to Lake Erie, flowing through
rolling till plain, high Berea escarpment, and lake plain (Herdendorf et al. 2004). The OWC NERR
includes a 60 hectare freshwater barred drowned river-mouth wetland (Albert et al. 2005). A barrier
beach at the mouth of the estuary closes the inlet of the estuary to Lake Erie for approximately 40%
of the year, preventing direct surface water exchange. The mean depth of the estuary is 0.4 m, with
channel depths up to at least 3.5 m in constricted areas (i.e., under road and rail bridges; Herdendorf
et al. 2004). Depth increases gradually when the inlet is closed and decreases quickly and drastically
in response to a precipitation-induced breaching of the barrier beach. Water residence time when the
inlet is unbarred is less than one day. The majority of wetland habitat is located in the main basin of
the estuary, which contains 82% of the total estuary area. Dominant submerged and emergent
vegetation includes coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), pondweed (Potamogeton spp.), American
lotus (Nelumbo lutea), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), swamp smartweed (Polygonum
hydropiperoides), broadfruit bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarum), narrowleaf cattail (Typha
angustifolia), and common reed (Phragmites australis). Exposed mudflats are common during late
fall and early spring, when the inlet is open and water levels are low. The dominant vegetative
community (submerged versus emergent) can vary substantially among years in response to Lake Erie
water levels (Trexel-Kroll 2002).
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 15
Figure 10. The Old Woman Creek NERR located in Wells, OH showing landscape views (left) and representative examples of dominant vegetation types sampled in this study (right)
2.2 Field Methods & Laboratory Techniques
A modified 7.62 cm diameter coring device was used to sample the upper 20 cm of sediment (Figures
11, 12). At each site, 20 cores were collected using a random, stratified sampling scheme with the
four dominant vegetation types at each site as strata (Figure 13, Table 2). Each core location was
photographed, dominant vegetation type recorded, visual percent cover estimated for a 1 m2 plot
(Appendix 2), aboveground biomass clipped for a centralized 0.25 m2 plot, and a hand-held GPS
point collected. Biomass was bagged and sorted in the lab into live and dead factions, dried at 60˚C to
a constant weight, then weighed. Cores were collected from the center of the clipped plot, capped,
kept upright and cool in the field, then were frozen and shipped in coolers upright to the Wells NERR
for processing. Core compaction was estimated in the field by measuring the elevation difference of
the sediment surface inside and outside of the core barrel. Any core compaction was noted in the field
and corrected for during sectioning (Appendix 3). If compaction was greater than 5 cm a new core
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 16
was collected; compaction for all cores averaged 0.6 cm. All cores arrived frozen at the Wells NERR
with stratigraphy intact (evidenced by photographs pre- and post-shipping). Cores were thawed, split,
photographed (Appendix 4), and sectioned at 5 cm (or corrected) intervals (Appendix 3). The lowest
section (15-20 cm) of one Lake Superior core (PO-WI-01-2014) was not retrieved, leaving the total
number of sediment samples at n = 639. Each core section was dried at 60˚C for 72 hours or until a
constant weight was achieved (after Howard et al. 2014). Dry weight and wet volume were used to
calculate sediment dry bulk density, where:
Dry bulk density (g/cm3) = dry weight (g) / wet volume (cm3)
Any rocks, shells, or other large items were removed from the dried samples, which were then ground
to a fine powder in a SPEX 8000M Mixer/Mill to homogenize sediment over the sample interval.
Samples were split into replicates for separate LOI (Wells NERR) and carbon analyses (North Inlet-
Winyah Bay NERR). Percent organic matter by loss on ignition (Ball 1964; Craft et al. 1991) was
calculated by mass loss after samples were combusted at 450˚C for 8 hours, where,
Percent organic matter = (dry mass before combustion – dry mass after combustion)/
dry mass before combustion *100
Direct determinations of sediment carbon content were conducted on subsamples from above LOI
analysis using a Costech ECS 4010 Elemental Analyzer calibrated with atropine standards (Costech
#031042; 70.56% C, 4.84% N). Total carbon content (%) was determined by analyzing approximately
5 – 15 mg of the samples that had been dried (60 °C), ground and homogenized for LOI analysis. To
correct for possible bias associated with inorganic carbon content (%) of sediments (e.g., carbonates),
a separate subsample of approximately 25 – 40 mg (corresponding to the dried LOI samples that were
subsequently combusted at 450 °C for 8h) was analyzed to determine carbon content of the sample
ash, which by definition is taken to be all inorganic carbon. To calculate the organic carbon content
(%) of sediment samples, the inorganic carbon content, scaled by the ratio of ash weight to dry
weight, was subtracted from the total carbon content (Howard et al. 2014).
Analytical performance of the elemental analyzer was verified for each run of the instrument by
analyzing atropine check standards, Buffalo River sediment standards (National Institute of Standards
and Technology certified reference material, RM #8704; 3.351% C) and North Inlet marsh sediment
internal standards produced at the Baruch Marine Field Laboratory. Atropine check standards as well
as a method blank were run every 15 samples, while a sample of either the Buffalo River sediment or
the North Inlet marsh sediment was run every 10 samples. Across all instrument runs, percent
recovery of carbon content for Buffalo River Sediment standard reference material averaged 100.81%
(n=106), with a range of 97.9 to 103.6 % and a coefficient of variation (CV) of 1.1%. For 32 sediment
samples randomly selected for duplicate analysis, mean CV for % organic carbon determinations was
5.1%.
From the percent organic carbon values, we calculated sediment carbon density, using the following
formula:
Sediment carbon density (gC/cm3) = dry bulk density (g/cm3)*(percent organic carbon/100)
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 17
Figure 11. The modified coring device used in this study. Close-up of the core head showing the cutting crown to reduce sediment compaction (a). We manufactured a removable key with handle (b) to assist in core collection. Assembled cores before shipping (c)
Figure 12. Faces of the fieldwork: Kristin Wilson, Wells NERR, Maine (a), Erik Smith North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR, South Carolina (b), Shon Schooler, Lake Superior NERR, Wisconsin (c), and Jason Lynn, Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR, Florida (d)
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 18
Figure 13. Core locations (yellow dots) for each study site; also available online at http://bit.ly/1utPbJ8. Photographs are from ArcOnline.
2.3 Data Analyses
2.3.1 Statistical Analyses
For every site, visual percent cover estimates were averaged across plots for each dominant
vegetation type and standard deviations calculated to create the values listed in Table 2. Dominant
vegetation types were binned by zone (low or high) based on known elevations at each site. Down
core values for percent organic matter, percent organic carbon, dry bulk density, and carbon density
were averaged to calculate mean values and standard deviations per core. To explore the relationship
between percent sediment organic matter and percent organic carbon content, polynomial and linear
regressions with and without the intercepts forced through zero, were run on the global data set.
Using the AICcmodavg package in RStudio (RStudio, Boston, MA) weighted Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC) values and an evidence ratio were calculated to compare and select the best of the
four models; this model was then compared to that of Craft et al. 1991, the most widely-cited
calibration curve. To determine if site significantly influenced the best fit model, the restricted log
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 19
likelihoods of the model and a mixed model that specified site as a random effect, were compared
(RStudio, RStudio, Boston, MA). In RStudio (RStudio, Boston, MA), a breakpoint analysis was
conducted on log-transformed data to examine potential regional differences in the relationship
between sediment dry bulk density and organic carbon content (%). To explore within and across site
variability in sediment properties (organic carbon content (%), dry bulk density, and organic carbon
density) and to meet assumptions of normality, dry bulk density values were log transformed and
percent organic carbon data cube root transformed and an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in JMP
software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) run, to compare means across sites. Where ANOVA results were
significant (p < 0.05), a Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc test was used to
determine differences among means across sites. Statistical results are presented on the untransformed
data. For salt and brackish water sites, to explore across site differences in sediment carbon density by
zone, a 2-way ANOVA with site and zone as factors was run in JMP (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Least
squares linear and non-linear regression analysis was used to determine whether mean sediment
carbon density in the upper 20 cm could be predicted by total aboveground biomass. An ANOVA and
Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test when applicable, were used to understand within site differences in mean
organic sediment carbon density by dominant vegetation type.
2.3.2 Data Workshop
From February 23-27, 2015, six Research Coordinators from participating NERRs traveled to Maine
for a workshop to discuss project progress, preliminary results, and plans for writing a manuscript
from this work (Figure 14). Unfortunately, individuals from the Lake Superior NERR and San
Francisco Bay were unable to attend; however, co-PIs Wilson and Smith updated these reserves
following the workshop.
Figure 14. Workshop participants ponder preliminary results (a). From left to right, Amelie Jensen (Research Technician, Wells NERR), Tim Dubay (Research Technician, Wells NERR), Kristin Wilson (Research Coordinator, Wells NERR), Nikki Dix (Research Coordinator, GTM NERR), Mark Woodrey (Research Coordinator, Grand Bay NERR), Lyndie Hice-Dunton (Research Coordinator, Delaware NERR), and Erik Smith (North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR). Taking a break from data analyses, Research Coordinators snowshoe to the salt marsh to observe Maine’s frozen carbon
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 20
stores (b). From left to right, Nikki Dix, Mark Woodrey, Lyndie Hice-Dunton, Erik Smith, Kristin Wilson, and Kristi Arend (Research Coordinator, Old Woman Creek NERR)
3 Study Results & Discussion
3.1 A Comparison of Methodologies: Percent LOI vs. Percent Carbon Content
Across all sediment samples (n=639) organic carbon and organic matter contents ranged from 0.03 to
43.81 % and 1.44. to 79.01 %, respectively. These ranges are similar to those observed previously in
marsh habitats (e.g., Craft 1991; Callaway et al. 2012) as well as in upland forest soils (e.g., De Vos
et al. 2007). As has been observed in all previous studies comparing organic carbon content by
elemental analysis and organic matter content by LOI, the two measures were strongly correlated
across all samples in the present study (Figure 15). While both linear and polynomial forms of
regressions were highly significant, a comparison of models based on the weighted AIC value and the
evidence ratio (2.33), reveals that a polynomial regression with an intercept represents the best model
fit to the data (Table 3; Figure 15). This result is similar to that of Craft et al. (1991) in suggesting a
nonlinear relationship is the better fit between organic carbon and LOI measurement, although the
Craft model specifically excludes an intercept term and the data in the present study do not exhibit
nearly the same degree of curvature in this relationship as those measured by Craft et al. (1991). It
should be noted, however, that in the difference between the linear and polynomial fit, in terms of
explanatory power (as judged by R2 values) is quite small, less than a third of one percent, and over
most of the data distribution the regression lines are essentially indistinguishable from one another.
While the use of LOI and a single predictive model could account for better than 97 % of the
variability in organic carbon concentration across all sites and vegetation types combined, there were
some significant departures from this single broad relationship when data from individual marsh sites
were considered separately (Table 4). Results from the model comparison reveal that site contributes
significantly to the variance in the global relationship (df = 4, p <0.0001). These results thus suggest
that the choice and appropriateness of calibration curves to predict organic carbon from LOI
measurements may be scale dependent and use of regional calibration curves may be judicious in
some instances and given adequate resources, results that agree with the recommendations of Howard
et al. 2014. The most extreme example of this in the present data set is the differences in the nature of
the relationships observed between upper and lower marsh zones in South Carolina. Here, the slope of
the linear fit (to be consistent with previous studies in this location) between organic carbon content
and LOI for the lower marsh zone was almost half of that derived for the upper marsh zone (0.279 vs.
0.544, for lower and upper zones, respectively). The use of a single predictive relationship in this
marsh would thus lead to large errors within each zone. Interestingly, the slope of the relationship
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 21
found for the low marsh in the present study is quite similar to the slope obtained (0.225) in the one
earlier study conducted in the lower marsh of this same estuary (Morris and Whiting 1986). It is
likely that the unusually low slope found by both studies for this lower marsh is due to the high clay
content of these sediments, which has been shown to affect the results of the LOI methodology (De
Vos et al. 2005; Chatterjee et al. 2009). Indeed, it has been proposed previously for terrestrial soils
that the exact form of the relationship between organic carbon and LOI depends heavily on the
performance of the LOI method in different soil types rather than the inherent nature of carbon to
organic matter ratios (De Vos et al. 2005, Szava-Kovats 2009).
Table 3. Results of the model comparison showing Model 2 to be the best fit model, where y = percent organic carbon and x = percent organic matter by LOI
Model Equation R2 AIC Delta AIC AIC Weighted
1 y = -0.8798 + 0.4842x 0.9739 1947.748 79.33 0.0
2 y = -0.1931 + 0.4043x + 0.0015x2 0.9770 1868.420 0.00 0.7
3 y = 0.4539x 0.9865 2078.480 210.06 0.0
4 y = 0.3891x + 0.0017x2 0.9903 1870.115 1.70 0.3
Craft et al. 1991 y = 0.40x + 0.0025x2 0.990 ~ ~ ~
Table 4. Individual regression lines for each site, where y = percent organic carbon and x = percent organic matter by LOI
Site Polynomial Equation R2
Global y = 0.0015x2 + 0.4043x - 0.1930 0.9771
ME y = 0.0014x2 + 0.3770x + 1.5778 0.9804
DE y = 0.0012x2 + 0.4426x - 0.9266 0.9901
SC y = -0.0296x2 + 0.8983x - 1.2207 0.7520
FL y = 0.0055x2 + 0.2663x + 0.1453 0.9346
MS y = -0.0001x2 + 0.4670x - 0.6158 0.9874
CA y = 0.00008x2 + 0.5323x - 3.3027 0.9942
WI y = 0.0080x2 + 0.1911x + 1.1727 0.7941
OH y = 0.0009x2 + 0.4689x - 0.3390 0.9870
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 22
Figure 15. Sediment organic carbon content (%) versus organic matter content by LOI (%)
Over the entire dataset there was a significant inverse relationship between sediment organic carbon
content and the dry bulk density of that sediment, as has been seen previously (e.g., Callaway et al.
2012). In contrast to previous studies, however, the portion of the data that had the very lowest
organic carbon content clearly deviated from the relationship observed for the remainder of the
dataset (Figure 16). Results of a break point analysis of the dry bulk density versus organic carbon
content revealed two distinct relationships (Figure 16). Analysis indicated that this shift in the
relationship between organic carbon content and bulk density occurred at an organic carbon content
of 2.04 %. Above this value, the relationship observed in this study was highly significant and had a
slope very similar to those observed in previous studies (e.g., Callaway et al. 2012, Hansen and
Nestlerode 2014). Below this value of 2.04 % organic carbon content, the relationship was not
statistically significant and organic carbon content continued to decline while bulk density values
remained essentially constant. Interestingly, the samples with organic carbon content below 2.04 %
were almost exclusively from the southeastern United States (South Carolina, Florida, and
Mississippi), and were largely confined to the mid-marsh halophyte and/or short-form Spartina
alterniflora vegetation zone, which is typically dominated by very sandy sediments.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 23
Figure 16. Relationship between sediment dry bulk density and sediment organic carbon content (%) showing two distinct relationships as reveled by break point analysis
3.2 Variability in Sediment Properties
Across all eight NERR sites, sediment organic carbon density ranged from 0.001 to 0.061 g C cm-3,
with a grand mean of 0.030 ± 0.011 g C cm-3. This mean value is similar to the mean (0.039) reported
by Chmura et al. (2003) for salt marsh sediments in their global synthesis of organic carbon storage in
tidal saline wetlands and may be skewed lower because only marsh sites are included in this analysis.
There were significant differences among sites for mean organic carbon content (F7,152 = 24.975, p <
.0001), mean dry bulk density (F7,152 = 20.923, p < .0001), and mean organic carbon density (F7,152 =
12.475, p < .0001; Figure 17). Since organic carbon density is the product of the percentage of
organic carbon and the bulk density of the sediments, and sites with greater percent organic carbon
content generally had lower dry bulk density values, variability in organic carbon density was muted
relative to among-site differences in raw organic carbon content. Within-site ranges in sediment
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 24
carbon density tended to be more variable for southeastern United States sites (Mississippi, Florida,
and South Carolina) and California than other northeast or freshwater sites that had smaller ranges.
Organic carbon content and density both generally increased with increasing latitude, a trend similar
to that observed by Chmura et al. (2003). As such, the marshes of Maine had significantly more
organic carbon per cm3 of sediments than every other site except California and Delaware. Organic
carbon content and density did not appear to have any relationship to site salinity, however, a finding
similar to what has been reported for fresh to saline wetlands along the Gulf of Mexico (Hansen and
Nestlerode 2014). The two freshwater wetlands both had mean organic carbon densities that were
almost exactly in the middle of the range observed across the saline marshes (Figure 17).
Figure 17. Distribution of organic carbon content (upper panel), bulk density (middle panel) and organic carbon density (lower panel) within and across eight marsh sites of the NERRS. Median values denoted by horizontal line, boxes contain the 25th and 75th quartiles, whiskers denote the
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 25
10th and 90th percentiles, and outliers are denoted by points. Sites with the same letter are not significantly different from one another (p > 0.05). State abbreviations indicate site location
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 26
In addition to significant variability in the means of carbon content, bulk density and carbon density
among sites, there were also clear differences in the degree of variability in these measures within
sites, as well. Previous studies have reported significant differences in organic carbon density as a
function of marsh elevation. For example, in tidal marshes of San Francisco Bay, mid and high
marsh zones had significantly more organic carbon content than did the low marsh zone, although the
reverse pattern held true for bulk density (Callaway et al. 2012). For the eight marshes sampled in this
study, significant spatial variability by zone was observed at some sites but not others (F11,108 =
12.069, p < .0001). Sites with significant differences (p < 0.05 for all) in organic carbon density
between high and low marsh zones were South Carolina, Mississippi, and California. The pattern in
these differences was not consistent across those sites, however. In Mississippi, the low marsh zone
had significantly greater organic carbon density than the high marsh zone, while in South Carolina
and California, the opposite pattern was observed.
When considering variability by vegetation communities rather than elevation zone, mean sediment
organic carbon density was significantly different among vegetation types for half the sites sampled
(Maine, Mississippi, California, and South Carolina; Figure 18). In Maine, Spartina alterniflora tall
form, had significantly less carbon per cm3 than forb pannes which were similar to Spartina
alterniflora short form and Spartina patens values. In Mississippi, high marsh plant communities like
those dominated by S. patens/S. spartinae and Salicornia virginica/Batis maritima had lower
sediment organic carbon density values than lower zones. In California, the Schoenoplectus
acutus/californicus community type had significantly lower sediment carbon density than other
dominant vegetation types which were all the same. In South Carolina, Juncus roemerianus had
significantly greater sediment organic carbon density compared to other vegetative zones. These
results reveal that there is considerable spatial variation in sediment carbon density in the upper 20
cm at the marsh scale, at least for some sites (Maine, Mississippi, California, and South Carolina).
Differences in sediment organic carbon density among different vegetation communities could not be
explained by the standing biomass of those plant communities, however, as there were not significant
relationships between any measures of sediment organic carbon density and total aboveground
biomass, either within or among sites. Combined, these findings have implications for calculations of
marsh-scale carbon budgets.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 27
Figure 18. Mean sediment carbon density by dominant vegetation type, zone, and site. Bars that share the same letter are not statistically significant from one another
4 Conclusions & Future Work
4.1 Key Findings
This study greatly increases the number of sites across the United States for which sediment carbon
density measurements exist and improves understanding of methodologies that use loss on ignition as
a proxy for sediment organic carbon.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 28
To address uncertainties in coastal blue carbon stores, the original goals of this study were to:
1. Compare direct measures of sediment organic carbon determined by elemental analysis and
organic matter concentration measured by loss on ignition in a subset of eight National
Estuarine Research Reserves across the United States that encompass a range of salinity,
vegetation, and geomorphic conditions, to assess the viability of the loss on ignition
methodology as a means of reliably estimating sediment organic carbon content.
o Key Finding: Results show that sediment organic matter by loss on ignition (LOI)
and sediment organic carbon content (%) are highly correlated, that the global
relationship differs from other published studies (e.g., Craft et al. 1991; Callaway
et al. 2012), and that individual sites significantly contribute to the variation
observed in this global relationship.
o Key Implications: Across broad scales, a single curve adequately captures the
vast majority of the variability in sediment organic carbon explained by LOI. In
some regions, however, fine scale variability in sediment properties may dictate
the use of site-specific calibration curves.
2. Quantify sediment organic carbon density at the eight NERRS sites thus increasing the
number of locations across the United States for which marsh carbon density measures exist,
thus filling critical gaps in current carbon storage estimates across a range of marsh types.
o Key Findings:
Mean sediment organic carbon density in the upper 20 cm ranged from
0.001 to 0.061 g C cm-3, with a grand mean of 0.030 ± 0.011 g C cm-3,
and this differed significantly by site. Sediments from Maine and
California contained significantly more organic carbon per cubic
centimeter than the other sites sampled.
Mean sediment organic carbon density also differed significantly by high
and low marsh zones in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida, though
the pattern of this difference was not uniform. In Mississippi, the low
marsh zone had significantly greater organic carbon density than the high
marsh zone, while in South Carolina and California, the opposite pattern
was observed.
Mean sediment organic carbon density differed significantly by
vegetation type at half of the sites sampled (Maine, Mississippi,
California, and South Carolina). These results reveal that there is
considerable within marsh spatial variation in sediment organic carbon
density in the upper 20 cm.
o Key Implications: Significant differences in sediment carbon density exist by site,
zone, and vegetation type for some marshes. This spatial variation has important
consequences for how marsh-scale carbon budgets are calculated and
incorporated into blue carbon policies.
4.2 Future Studies
Future work should further expand the number of locations for which sediment carbon density
measurements exist and explore the degree to which additional regional calibration curves are needed.
Additional studies should also explore changes in sediment carbon density with depth by collecting
longer cores to improve calculations of carbon budgets at the marsh scale. The 28 Reserves of the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System are excellent potential partners to expand blue carbon
work in protected wetlands of the United States that encompass a range of marsh types, management
regimes, and natural and anthropogenic stressors.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 29
5 Appendices
Appendix 1. Photographs of each plot used to calculate the visual percent cover estimates organized by dominant vegetation zone. Labels below each photograph refer to the core ID
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 30
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 31
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 32
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 33
Appendix 2. Visual percent cover estimates by site and plot
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 34
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 35
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 36
Appendix 3. Bulk density, percent organic matter, percent organic carbon, and sediment carbon density down-core (top 20 cm for homogenized 5 cm intervals)
State Core ID Sample Interval Dry Bulk Density
% Organic Carbon
% Organic Matter
Sediment Carbon Density Dominant Vegetation
ME WH-ME-01-2014 0-5 0.20 22.86 46.90 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-01-2014 5-10 0.15 27.66 57.01 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-01-2014 10-15 0.15 25.64 52.85 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-01-2014 15-20 0.22 16.20 31.12 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-02-2014 0-5 0.10 30.87 65.64 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-02-2014 5-10 0.10 33.70 69.59 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-02-2014 10-15 0.11 32.28 67.57 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-02-2014 15-20 0.11 29.57 60.46 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-03-2014 0-5 0.13 20.57 45.53 0.03 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-03-2014 5-10 0.17 20.17 41.09 0.03 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-03-2014 10-15 0.46 8.80 13.80 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-03-2014 15-20 0.24 16.15 29.12 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-04-2014 0-5 0.31 16.24 35.68 0.05 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-04-2014 5-10 0.32 14.40 26.65 0.05 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-04-2014 10-15 0.31 9.82 21.12 0.03 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-04-2014 15-20 0.37 9.12 19.16 0.03 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-05-2014 0-4.75 0.25 16.91 36.57 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-05-2014 4.75-9.5 0.25 15.88 34.26 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-05-2014 9.5-14.25 0.23 21.27 40.69 0.05 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-05-2014 14.25-19 0.31 16.93 32.51 0.05 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-06-2014 0-4.75 0.28 18.78 39.23 0.05 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-06-2014 4.75-9.5 0.19 21.85 47.39 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-06-2014 9.5-14.25 0.18 20.15 41.11 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-06-2014 14.25-19 0.15 21.66 44.41 0.03 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-07-2014 0-5 0.57 7.74 16.84 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-07-2014 5-10 0.48 7.57 17.05 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-07-2014 10-15 0.46 7.53 16.52 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-07-2014 15-20 0.52 7.61 17.19 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-08-2014 0-5 0.21 25.93 55.22 0.05 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-08-2014 5-10 0.18 22.02 46.50 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-08-2014 10-15 0.16 24.86 53.90 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-08-2014 15-20 0.18 27.17 51.77 0.05 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-09-2014 0-5 0.54 7.82 18.09 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-09-2014 5-10 0.44 6.12 15.54 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-09-2014 10-15 0.39 8.67 18.66 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-09-2014 15-20 0.38 11.34 33.17 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-10-2014 0-5 0.17 24.99 55.59 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-10-2014 5-10 0.18 28.77 59.94 0.05 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-10-2014 10-15 0.19 25.18 50.15 0.05 Spartina alterniflora short
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 37
ME WH-ME-10-2014 15-20 0.19 24.40 50.49 0.05 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-11-2014 0-5 0.19 20.34 43.02 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-11-2014 5-10 0.20 21.80 44.84 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-11-2014 10-15 0.21 18.21 39.22 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-11-2014 15-20 0.20 20.07 41.13 0.04 Spartina patens
ME WH-ME-12-2014 0-5 0.43 8.32 18.33 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-12-2014 5-10 0.42 8.85 17.73 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-12-2014 10-15 0.41 7.82 18.23 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-12-2014 15-20 0.38 8.01 17.06 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-13-2014 0-5 0.20 28.00 58.03 0.06 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-13-2014 5-10 0.17 24.07 49.60 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-13-2014 10-15 0.19 33.06 65.20 0.06 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-13-2014 15-20 0.19 43.81 79.01 0.08 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-14-2014 0-4.75 0.31 13.92 26.30 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-14-2014 4.75-9.5 0.21 20.44 43.03 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-14-2014 9.5-14.25 0.24 19.36 41.04 0.05 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-14-2014 14.25-19 0.28 15.81 34.76 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-15-2014 0-5 0.14 25.43 55.61 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-15-2014 5-10 0.16 24.76 54.30 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-15-2014 10-15 0.14 24.33 51.14 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-15-2014 15-20 0.14 23.45 47.80 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-16-2014 0-5 0.52 10.81 22.03 0.06 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-16-2014 5-10 0.20 24.79 49.38 0.05 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-16-2014 10-15 0.16 24.37 47.95 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-16-2014 15-20 0.26 16.77 34.38 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
ME WH-ME-17-2014 0-5 0.34 7.62 18.82 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-17-2014 5-10 0.36 9.01 17.65 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-17-2014 10-15 0.37 10.55 16.81 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-17-2014 15-20 0.26 10.48 22.86 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
ME WH-ME-18-2014 0-5 0.28 22.42 45.42 0.06 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-18-2014 5-10 0.36 10.22 22.43 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-18-2014 10-15 0.82 4.23 5.81 0.03 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-18-2014 15-20 0.42 9.72 16.06 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-19-2014 0-5 0.38 11.72 23.39 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-19-2014 5-10 0.48 9.04 16.39 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-19-2014 10-15 0.46 9.70 18.80 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-19-2014 15-20 0.49 8.07 16.14 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-20-2014 0-4.75 0.27 20.95 43.74 0.06 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-20-2014 4.75-9.5 0.34 17.92 36.84 0.06 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-20-2014 9.5-14.25 0.70 5.32 11.10 0.04 Forb panne
ME WH-ME-20-2014 14.25-19 0.67 4.68 10.35 0.03 Forb panne
DE SJ-DE-01-2014 0-4.625 0.30 10.59 24.56 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-01-2014 4.625-9.25 0.37 11.02 25.06 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 38
DE SJ-DE-01-2014 9.25-13.875 0.37 11.23 25.21 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-01-2014 13.875-18.5 0.39 9.14 20.82 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-02-2014 0-4.125 0.22 19.48 41.83 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-02-2014 4.125-8.25 0.22 16.67 35.78 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-02-2014 8.25-12.375 0.28 13.08 28.14 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-02-2014 12.375-16.5 0.26 14.41 30.97 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-03-2014 0-4.25 0.26 13.31 28.94 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-03-2014 4.25-8.5 0.31 13.10 30.11 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-03-2014 8.5-12.75 0.28 13.58 30.93 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-03-2014 12.75-17 0.32 11.14 25.52 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-04-2014 0-5 0.33 9.99 23.43 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-04-2014 5-10 0.42 9.82 23.16 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-04-2014 10-15 0.37 9.04 21.43 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-04-2014 15-20 0.42 10.00 22.41 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-05-2014 0-5 0.43 7.92 17.52 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-05-2014 5-10 0.50 6.93 15.96 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-05-2014 10-15 0.50 7.15 16.35 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-05-2014 15-20 0.50 6.11 14.20 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-06-2014 0-5 0.88 4.96 12.96 0.04 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-06-2014 5-10 0.73 4.68 11.62 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-06-2014 10-15 0.56 4.68 11.81 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-06-2014 15-20 0.66 4.69 11.67 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-07-2014 0-4.5 0.73 4.85 12.65 0.04 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-07-2014 4.5-9 0.49 4.98 12.70 0.02 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-07-2014 9-13.5 0.50 5.76 14.33 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-07-2014 13.5-18 0.44 7.22 17.16 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-08-2014 0-4.375 0.77 5.03 12.76 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-08-2014 4.375-8.75 0.60 4.61 11.57 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-08-2014 8.75-13.125 0.63 4.02 11.07 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-08-2014 13.125-17.5 0.59 4.01 10.85 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-09-2014 0-3.875 0.61 5.38 13.97 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-09-2014 3.875-7.75 0.62 5.24 13.97 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-09-2014 7.75-11.625 0.53 5.52 14.38 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-09-2014 11.625-15.5 0.56 5.43 13.91 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-10-2014 0-4 0.72 4.79 12.44 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-10-2014 4-8 0.81 4.73 12.00 0.04 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-10-2014 8-12 0.51 6.39 15.52 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-10-2014 12-16 0.54 6.46 15.74 0.04 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-11-2014 0-5 0.26 14.12 30.27 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-11-2014 5-10 0.24 16.92 36.54 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-11-2014 10-15 0.27 13.68 28.46 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-11-2014 15-20 0.26 14.42 30.39 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-12-2014 0-4.625 0.24 12.79 29.62 0.03 Spartina patens
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 39
DE SJ-DE-12-2014 4.625-9.25 0.24 13.64 30.73 0.03 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-12-2014 9.25-13.875 0.28 13.07 29.50 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-12-2014 13.875-18.5 0.33 11.91 26.97 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-13-2014 0-4.25 0.33 12.03 26.38 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-13-2014 4.25-8.5 0.28 11.73 25.95 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-13-2014 8.5-12.75 0.26 11.94 26.14 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-13-2014 12.75-17 0.21 14.76 33.66 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-14-2014 0-5 0.26 12.26 28.71 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-14-2014 5-10 0.36 12.05 25.83 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-14-2014 10-15 0.40 10.04 22.78 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-14-2014 15-20 0.25 18.13 38.17 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
DE SJ-DE-15-2014 0-4.375 0.35 9.13 22.56 0.03 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-15-2014 4.375-8.75 0.33 9.47 23.77 0.03 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-15-2014 8.75-13.125 0.48 5.68 15.30 0.03 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-15-2014 13.125-17.5 0.40 6.32 18.17 0.03 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-16-2014 0-4.25 0.50 6.00 15.48 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-16-2014 4.25-8.5 0.54 6.00 15.47 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-16-2014 8.5-12.75 0.45 6.29 16.14 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-16-2014 12.75-17 0.45 6.52 15.93 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
DE SJ-DE-17-2014 0-5 0.27 11.91 27.16 0.03 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-17-2014 5-10 0.26 11.26 26.28 0.03 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-17-2014 10-15 0.33 10.90 24.83 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-17-2014 15-20 0.36 6.69 17.83 0.02 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-18-2014 0-3.75 0.67 4.54 12.79 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-18-2014 3.75-7.5 0.49 5.18 13.55 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-18-2014 7.5-11.25 0.38 5.83 14.05 0.02 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-18-2014 11.25-15 0.47 7.58 19.36 0.04 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-19-2014 0-5 0.22 16.85 36.95 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-19-2014 5-10 0.33 14.21 32.16 0.05 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-19-2014 10-15 0.52 7.98 19.55 0.04 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-19-2014 15-20 0.41 8.36 19.61 0.03 Spartina patens
DE SJ-DE-20-2014 0-4.25 0.51 6.87 16.80 0.03 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-20-2014 4.25-8.5 0.56 6.61 17.12 0.04 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-20-2014 8.5-12.75 0.49 7.68 19.52 0.04 Spartina cynosuroides
DE SJ-DE-20-2014 12.75-17 0.41 9.95 23.15 0.04 Spartina cynosuroides
FL MO-FL-01-2014 0-4.625 0.63 3.88 11.45 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL MO-FL-01-2014 4.625-9.25 0.66 2.77 8.29 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL MO-FL-01-2014 9.25-13.875 0.74 2.93 8.15 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL MO-FL-01-2014 13.875-18.5 0.63 3.26 9.45 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL MO-FL-02-2014 0-4.75 0.59 4.33 12.81 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
FL MO-FL-02-2014 4.75-9.5 0.53 5.44 15.17 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
FL MO-FL-02-2014 9.5-14.25 0.43 6.39 17.79 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
FL MO-FL-02-2014 14.25-19 0.42 6.48 18.75 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 40
FL MO-FL-03-2014 0-5 0.75 2.83 8.11 0.02 Batis maritima
FL MO-FL-03-2014 5-10 0.62 3.57 10.34 0.02 Batis maritima
FL MO-FL-03-2014 10-15 0.43 4.56 14.78 0.02 Batis maritima
FL MO-FL-03-2014 15-20 0.42 5.05 13.74 0.02 Batis maritima
FL MO-FL-04-2014 0-5 0.31 9.81 26.40 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
FL MO-FL-04-2014 5-10 0.28 9.86 26.75 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
FL MO-FL-04-2014 10-15 0.31 10.79 27.43 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
FL MO-FL-04-2014 15-20 0.37 10.18 26.28 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
FL PI-FL-01-2014 0-5 0.31 12.67 28.78 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
FL PI-FL-01-2014 5-10 0.30 13.80 30.59 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
FL PI-FL-01-2014 10-15 0.37 13.91 27.95 0.05 Spartina alterniflora short
FL PI-FL-01-2014 15-20 0.45 12.47 22.27 0.06 Spartina alterniflora short
FL PI-FL-02-2014 0-4.875 0.42 8.83 20.02 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
FL PI-FL-02-2014 4.875-9.75 0.50 8.23 16.62 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
FL PI-FL-02-2014 9.75-14.625 0.38 13.38 23.10 0.05 Juncus roemerianus
FL PI-FL-02-2014 14.625-19.5 0.42 8.09 14.82 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
FL PI-FL-03-2014 0-5 0.36 8.75 21.94 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL PI-FL-03-2014 5-10 0.28 9.77 24.62 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL PI-FL-03-2014 10-15 0.34 10.67 24.52 0.04 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL PI-FL-03-2014 15-20 0.37 9.16 22.03 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL PI-FL-04-2014 0-4.625 1.13 2.89 6.64 0.03 Batis maritima
FL PI-FL-04-2014 4.625-9.25 1.21 1.57 3.97 0.02 Batis maritima
FL PI-FL-04-2014 9.25-13.875 1.34 1.90 3.37 0.03 Batis maritima
FL PI-FL-04-2014 13.875-18.5 1.55 1.37 2.82 0.02 Batis maritima
FL HI-FL-01-2014 0-5 1.21 1.31 3.44 0.02 Batis maritima
FL HI-FL-01-2014 5-10 1.19 0.95 3.00 0.01 Batis maritima
FL HI-FL-01-2014 10-15 1.27 0.74 2.62 0.01 Batis maritima
FL HI-FL-01-2014 15-20 1.34 0.72 2.57 0.01 Batis maritima
FL HI-FL-02-2014 0-5 0.46 5.33 13.76 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
FL HI-FL-02-2014 5-10 0.81 2.94 8.60 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
FL HI-FL-02-2014 10-15 1.01 1.82 5.42 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
FL HI-FL-02-2014 15-20 1.12 1.71 5.03 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
FL HI-FL-03-2014 0-5 1.18 1.09 2.97 0.01 Juncus roemerianus
FL HI-FL-03-2014 5-10 1.22 0.82 2.38 0.01 Juncus roemerianus
FL HI-FL-03-2014 10-15 1.32 0.77 2.42 0.01 Juncus roemerianus
FL HI-FL-03-2014 15-20 1.42 0.88 2.59 0.01 Juncus roemerianus
FL HI-FL-04-2014 0-4.75 0.60 3.22 9.84 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL HI-FL-04-2014 4.75-9.5 0.50 3.58 14.08 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL HI-FL-04-2014 9.5-14.25 0.54 2.86 10.11 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL HI-FL-04-2014 14.25-19 0.52 3.33 12.09 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL JC-FL-01-2014 0-4.75 1.23 0.64 2.31 0.01 Juncus roemerianus
FL JC-FL-01-2014 4.75-9.5 1.24 0.55 2.36 0.01 Juncus roemerianus
FL JC-FL-01-2014 9.5-14.25 1.34 0.81 2.39 0.01 Juncus roemerianus
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 41
FL JC-FL-01-2014 14.25-19 1.43 0.43 2.39 0.01 Juncus roemerianus
FL JC-FL-02-2014 0-5 0.47 5.84 16.16 0.03 Batis maritima
FL JC-FL-02-2014 5-10 0.78 3.34 9.46 0.03 Batis maritima
FL JC-FL-02-2014 10-15 0.76 3.23 9.09 0.02 Batis maritima
FL JC-FL-02-2014 15-20 0.69 3.02 9.22 0.02 Batis maritima
FL JC-FL-03-2014 0-4.925 0.28 8.48 23.20 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
FL JC-FL-03-2014 4.925-9.85 0.30 9.30 25.39 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
FL JC-FL-03-2014 9.85-14.775 0.34 6.62 20.72 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
FL JC-FL-03-2014 14.775-19.7 0.36 5.58 18.60 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
FL JC-FL-04-2014 0-5 0.38 5.60 18.67 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL JC-FL-04-2014 5-10 0.40 6.23 19.76 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL JC-FL-04-2014 10-15 0.30 7.25 21.21 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL JC-FL-04-2014 15-20 0.34 7.07 19.27 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL PC-FL-02-2014 0-5 0.42 7.08 18.99 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
FL PC-FL-02-2014 5-10 0.40 8.14 21.09 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
FL PC-FL-02-2014 10-15 0.42 6.84 18.93 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
FL PC-FL-02-2014 15-20 0.51 5.98 17.44 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
FL PC-FL-03-2014 0-5 0.35 9.44 23.78 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
FL PC-FL-03-2014 5-10 0.32 8.55 22.80 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
FL PC-FL-03-2014 10-15 0.36 8.60 22.94 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
FL PC-FL-03-2014 15-20 0.41 8.33 22.09 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
FL WO-FL-01-2014 0-5 0.44 5.54 15.38 0.02 Batis maritima
FL WO-FL-01-2014 5-10 0.55 3.55 9.65 0.02 Batis maritima
FL WO-FL-01-2014 10-15 0.61 3.14 9.49 0.02 Batis maritima
FL WO-FL-01-2014 15-20 0.86 1.64 5.98 0.01 Batis maritima
FL WO-FL-02-2014 0-5 1.04 0.95 3.29 0.01 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL WO-FL-02-2014 5-10 1.11 0.59 2.18 0.01 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL WO-FL-02-2014 10-15 1.34 0.26 1.58 0.00 Spartina alterniflora tall
FL WO-FL-02-2014 15-20 1.32 0.10 1.77 0.00 Spartina alterniflora tall
OH OW-OH-01-2014 0-5 0.19 17.69 34.55 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-01-2014 5-10 0.73 4.52 9.00 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-01-2014 10-15 1.13 2.37 5.32 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-01-2014 15-20 1.04 2.65 5.53 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-02-2014 0-5 0.10 22.68 46.51 0.02 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-02-2014 5-10 0.15 19.49 38.13 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-02-2014 10-15 0.14 19.31 40.18 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-02-2014 15-20 0.28 12.17 24.85 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-03-2014 0-5 0.34 7.76 17.89 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-03-2014 5-10 0.42 5.59 13.39 0.02 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-03-2014 10-15 0.47 5.10 11.83 0.02 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-03-2014 15-20 0.95 2.85 6.77 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-04-2014 0-5 0.28 9.06 19.44 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-04-2014 5-10 0.56 7.85 17.04 0.04 Phragmites australis
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 42
OH OW-OH-04-2014 10-15 0.51 5.99 13.44 0.03 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-04-2014 15-20 0.84 4.96 10.63 0.04 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-05-2014 0-5 0.27 18.57 35.70 0.05 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-05-2014 5-10 0.38 15.08 28.99 0.06 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-05-2014 10-15 0.55 9.45 19.88 0.05 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-05-2014 15-20 0.65 7.61 15.71 0.05 Phragmites australis
OH OW-OH-06-2014 0-5 0.22 8.94 19.54 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-06-2014 5-10 0.24 10.01 21.46 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-06-2014 10-15 0.38 6.11 14.15 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-06-2014 15-20 0.44 5.43 12.70 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-07-2014 0-5 0.16 16.22 32.51 0.03 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-07-2014 5-10 0.22 17.03 35.36 0.04 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-07-2014 10-15 0.22 20.01 41.20 0.04 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-07-2014 15-20 0.41 9.33 19.44 0.04 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-08-2014 0-5 0.61 3.14 6.89 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-08-2014 5-10 0.99 2.71 7.00 0.03 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-08-2014 10-15 1.07 2.20 5.10 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-08-2014 15-20 1.07 2.04 4.85 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-09-2014 0-5 0.34 7.57 15.29 0.03 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-09-2014 5-10 0.43 7.75 16.38 0.03 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-09-2014 10-15 0.44 6.47 14.79 0.03 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-09-2014 15-20 0.48 6.58 15.84 0.03 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-10-2014 0-4.8 0.53 4.01 9.35 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-10-2014 4.8-9.6 0.68 4.20 7.58 0.03 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-10-2014 9.6-14.4 0.65 3.77 8.22 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-10-2014 14.4-19.2 0.90 2.74 8.07 0.02 Typha angustifolia
OH OW-OH-11-2014 0-5 0.28 9.53 21.23 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-11-2014 5-10 0.33 11.64 23.95 0.04 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-11-2014 10-15 0.46 7.05 16.94 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-11-2014 15-20 0.56 5.32 13.63 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-12-2014 0-5 0.28 11.01 21.30 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-12-2014 5-10 0.27 12.08 24.16 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-12-2014 10-15 0.44 10.17 20.73 0.04 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-12-2014 15-20 0.44 8.26 16.79 0.04 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-13-2014 0-4.3 0.38 7.06 15.16 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-13-2014 4.3-8.6 0.54 4.80 11.02 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-13-2014 8.6-12.9 0.76 3.62 9.32 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-13-2014 12.9-17.2 0.68 3.98 9.97 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-14-2014 0-4.375 0.50 3.48 8.47 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-14-2014 4.375-8.75 0.71 3.08 7.54 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-14-2014 8.75-13.125 0.89 2.87 7.59 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-14-2014 13.125-17.5 0.74 3.20 8.80 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-15-2014 0-5 0.53 4.90 10.53 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 43
OH OW-OH-15-2014 5-10 0.65 4.83 11.97 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-15-2014 10-15 0.75 3.16 8.33 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-15-2014 15-20 0.65 3.52 9.21 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
OH OW-OH-16-2014 0-5 0.27 9.03 18.89 0.02 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-16-2014 5-10 0.44 6.55 15.07 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-16-2014 10-15 0.61 4.29 4.47 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-16-2014 15-20 0.98 3.50 8.58 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-17-2014 0-5 0.58 2.79 6.84 0.02 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-17-2014 5-10 0.80 3.12 7.68 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-17-2014 10-15 0.98 2.42 5.99 0.02 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-17-2014 15-20 0.96 2.09 4.92 0.02 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-18-2014 0-5 0.21 12.76 27.49 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-18-2014 5-10 0.44 5.85 11.54 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-18-2014 10-15 0.63 6.60 11.83 0.04 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-18-2014 15-20 0.91 4.18 8.28 0.04 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-19-2014 0-5 0.34 11.25 23.91 0.04 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-19-2014 5-10 0.60 5.76 13.36 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-19-2014 10-15 0.67 4.73 11.86 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-19-2014 15-20 0.64 5.92 13.53 0.04 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-20-2014 0-5 0.60 3.90 9.61 0.02 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-20-2014 5-10 0.75 4.18 9.45 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-20-2014 10-15 0.78 4.34 9.07 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
OH OW-OH-20-2014 15-20 0.64 4.34 10.19 0.03 Leersia oryzoides
SC CM-SC-01-2014 0-4.75 0.60 3.60 12.79 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-01-2014 4.75-9.5 0.53 3.44 10.96 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-01-2014 9.5-14.25 0.70 2.81 9.72 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-01-2014 14.25-19 0.55 3.36 12.31 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-02-2014 0-5 0.31 4.78 17.62 0.01 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-02-2014 5-10 0.32 4.84 16.89 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-02-2014 10-15 0.40 5.20 16.73 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-02-2014 15-20 0.38 4.92 16.56 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-03-2014 0-4.5 0.52 4.12 14.36 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-03-2014 4.5-9 0.92 3.73 10.25 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-03-2014 9-13.5 0.81 3.54 10.54 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-03-2014 13.5-18 0.71 3.00 10.28 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-04-2014 0-5 0.39 4.81 17.51 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-04-2014 5-10 0.36 4.65 17.09 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-04-2014 10-15 0.38 4.49 16.12 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-04-2014 15-20 0.40 4.47 16.65 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-05-2014 0-4.5 0.38 5.38 16.75 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-05-2014 4.5-9 0.41 4.98 15.14 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-05-2014 9-13.5 0.43 5.53 14.95 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
SC CM-SC-05-2014 13.5-18 0.44 5.03 15.48 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 44
SC CM-SC-06-2014 0-5 1.17 1.98 5.76 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-06-2014 5-10 1.19 1.67 4.60 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-06-2014 10-15 1.41 1.05 2.94 0.01 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-06-2014 15-20 1.17 0.39 2.07 0.00 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-07-2014 0-5 1.05 2.80 5.51 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-07-2014 5-10 1.04 3.36 4.68 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-07-2014 10-15 1.33 0.76 2.76 0.01 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-07-2014 15-20 1.42 0.39 1.74 0.01 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-08-2014 0-5 1.25 3.20 5.26 0.04 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-08-2014 5-10 1.14 1.47 4.67 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-08-2014 10-15 1.25 0.99 3.35 0.01 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-08-2014 15-20 1.28 0.33 2.33 0.00 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-09-2014 0-5 0.93 2.95 6.89 0.03 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-09-2014 5-10 0.87 2.63 6.74 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-09-2014 10-15 1.01 1.46 4.02 0.01 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-09-2014 15-20 1.19 0.69 2.86 0.01 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-10-2014 0-5 0.94 2.52 6.37 0.02 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-10-2014 5-10 0.98 1.37 4.07 0.01 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-10-2014 10-15 1.23 0.50 2.36 0.01 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-10-2014 15-20 1.37 0.27 1.49 0.00 Spartina alterniflora short
SC CM-SC-11-2014 0-5 0.75 6.56 10.75 0.05 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-11-2014 5-10 0.79 6.63 11.46 0.05 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-11-2014 10-15 0.98 3.82 9.49 0.04 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-11-2014 15-20 0.81 6.84 12.75 0.06 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-12-2014 0-5 1.06 3.35 6.76 0.04 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-12-2014 5-10 1.43 0.98 3.28 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-12-2014 10-15 1.40 0.84 3.47 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-12-2014 15-20 1.32 3.48 6.21 0.05 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-13-2014 0-5 1.44 1.76 2.94 0.03 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-13-2014 5-10 1.27 0.51 2.09 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-13-2014 10-15 1.42 0.30 1.69 0.00 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-13-2014 15-20 1.87 0.43 1.89 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-14-2014 0-5 1.29 1.28 2.37 0.02 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-14-2014 5-10 1.11 0.86 2.59 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-14-2014 10-15 1.40 0.87 2.45 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-14-2014 15-20 1.48 0.69 2.09 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-15-2014 0-5 1.28 1.55 3.20 0.02 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-15-2014 5-10 1.32 0.94 2.38 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 45
SC CM-SC-15-2014 10-15 1.49 0.59 1.69 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-15-2014 15-19.5 1.66 0.39 1.77 0.01 Salicornia depressa/mixed
SC CM-SC-16-2014 0-5 0.90 4.28 7.49 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-16-2014 5-10 0.69 6.50 15.02 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-16-2014 10-15 0.69 8.82 17.55 0.06 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-16-2014 15-20 1.15 5.93 8.47 0.07 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-17-2014 0-5 1.35 1.57 2.91 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-17-2014 5-10 1.23 1.67 3.80 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-17-2014 10-15 1.17 2.23 4.65 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-17-2014 15-20 1.25 1.30 3.52 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-18-2014 0-5 0.70 3.93 9.16 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-18-2014 5-10 0.66 7.28 11.99 0.05 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-18-2014 10-15 1.02 7.08 10.66 0.07 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-18-2014 15-20 1.45 1.98 4.31 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-19-2014 0-5 0.93 3.84 9.68 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-19-2014 5-10 0.59 7.09 18.09 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-19-2014 10-15 1.21 8.64 9.73 0.10 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-19-2014 15-20 1.50 2.00 3.98 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-20-2014 0-5 0.81 7.06 12.98 0.06 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-20-2014 5-10 0.79 8.07 9.29 0.06 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-20-2014 10-15 1.25 3.91 6.10 0.05 Juncus roemerianus
SC CM-SC-20-2014 15-20 1.50 1.32 2.14 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
WI PO-WI-01-2014 0-3.75 0.38 4.02 10.26 0.02 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-01-2014 3.75-7.5 0.73 3.77 10.30 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-01-2014 7.5-11.25 0.83 4.16 11.35 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-01-2014 11.25-15 0.49 3.21 9.33 0.02 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-02-2014 0-4.5 0.41 5.14 14.03 0.02 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-02-2014 4.5-9 0.49 5.46 14.03 0.03 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-02-2014 9-13.5 0.53 4.83 13.11 0.03 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-02-2014 13.5-17 0.64 5.94 17.15 0.04 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-03-2014 0-5 0.58 5.21 11.97 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-03-2014 5-10 1.00 3.10 8.62 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-03-2014 10-15 1.10 2.21 6.58 0.02 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-03-2014 15-20 0.74 2.60 7.81 0.02 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-04-2014 0-4.5 0.24 11.71 23.58 0.03 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-04-2014 4.5-9 0.34 13.03 26.52 0.04 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-04-2014 9-13.5 0.50 4.99 12.39 0.03 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-04-2014 13.5-18 0.52 3.26 8.59 0.02 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-05-2014 0-5 0.58 4.95 11.37 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-05-2014 5-10 0.82 3.31 8.83 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-05-2014 10-15 0.90 2.52 7.59 0.02 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-05-2014 15-20 0.86 2.57 7.47 0.02 Carex lacustris
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 46
WI PO-WI-06-2014 0-4.25 0.40 7.71 17.58 0.03 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-06-2014 4.25-8.5 0.58 6.51 13.58 0.04 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-06-2014 8.5-12.75 0.76 4.23 10.05 0.03 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-06-2014 12.75-17 0.75 4.07 9.43 0.03 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-07-2014 0-4.25 0.88 3.43 7.27 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-07-2014 4.25-8.5 1.02 2.67 6.25 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-07-2014 8.5-12.75 0.95 4.92 11.00 0.05 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-07-2014 12.75-17 0.63 3.50 8.75 0.02 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-08-2014 0-5 0.80 3.02 8.72 0.02 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-08-2014 5-10 0.68 3.70 9.53 0.03 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-08-2014 10-15 0.59 3.20 9.56 0.02 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-08-2014 15-20 0.76 2.63 7.57 0.02 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-09-2014 0-4.25 1.18 1.10 2.79 0.01 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-09-2014 4.25-8.5 1.40 0.85 2.65 0.01 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-09-2014 8.5-12.75 1.09 4.79 10.53 0.05 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-09-2014 12.75-17 0.96 2.73 7.17 0.03 Carex lacustris
WI PO-WI-10-2014 0-5 1.37 0.63 1.52 0.01 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-10-2014 5-10 1.28 5.10 4.35 0.07 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-10-2014 10-15 1.06 2.23 9.96 0.02 Typha sp.
WI PO-WI-11-2014 0-4.5 0.42 8.36 22.10 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-11-2014 4.5-9 0.52 5.90 14.20 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-11-2014 9-13.5 0.54 3.82 19.87 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-11-2014 13.5-18 0.82 5.73 11.01 0.05 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-12-2014 0-5 0.41 4.65 11.48 0.02 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-12-2014 5-10 0.64 4.99 11.99 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-12-2014 10-15 0.85 3.48 9.07 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-12-2014 15-20 0.77 3.02 8.31 0.02 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-13-2014 0-4.25 0.54 5.33 14.11 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-13-2014 4.25-8.5 0.58 4.94 14.27 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-13-2014 8.5-12.75 0.57 5.18 14.12 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-13-2014 12.75-17 0.85 3.56 9.88 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-14-2014 0-5 0.67 6.06 12.87 0.04 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-14-2014 5-10 0.67 5.59 12.72 0.04 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-14-2014 10-15 0.60 4.89 12.07 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-14-2014 15-20 0.51 4.58 11.35 0.02 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-15-2014 0-4.75 0.62 4.28 11.21 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-15-2014 4.75-9.5 0.62 3.40 9.60 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-15-2014 9.5-14.25 0.67 3.24 8.45 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-15-2014 14.25-19 0.74 3.18 8.37 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-16-2014 0-5 0.78 4.31 10.79 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-16-2014 5-10 0.73 3.77 9.56 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-16-2014 10-15 0.76 3.61 13.42 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-16-2014 15-20 0.75 2.73 7.74 0.02 Sagittaria rigida
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 47
WI PO-WI-17-2014 0-4.75 0.75 3.90 9.93 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-17-2014 4.75-9.5 0.68 3.68 9.03 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-17-2014 9.5-14.25 0.83 2.92 7.19 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-17-2014 14.25-19 0.73 3.11 7.28 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-18-2014 0-5 1.18 3.28 8.44 0.04 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-18-2014 5-10 0.98 3.54 8.53 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-18-2014 10-15 0.70 3.46 8.37 0.02 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-18-2014 15-20 0.66 3.23 8.30 0.02 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-19-2014 0-4.5 0.68 3.17 7.90 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-19-2014 4.5-9 0.66 3.96 9.47 0.03 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-19-2014 9-13.5 0.53 4.51 11.55 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-19-2014 13.5-18 0.48 5.14 12.54 0.02 Sparganium eurycarpum
WI PO-WI-20-2014 0-5 0.73 3.44 7.98 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-20-2014 5-10 0.76 5.44 7.94 0.04 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-20-2014 10-15 0.69 3.34 8.00 0.02 Sagittaria rigida
WI PO-WI-20-2014 15-20 0.95 3.16 8.05 0.03 Sagittaria rigida
MS MB-MS-01-2014 0-5 1.52 0.03 1.52 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-01-2014 5-10 1.36 1.97 1.68 0.03 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-01-2014 10-15 1.40 0.46 2.36 0.01 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-01-2014 15-20 1.17 1.49 5.71 0.02 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-02-2014 0-5 1.03 2.51 7.20 0.03 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-02-2014 5-10 1.00 1.76 5.64 0.02 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-02-2014 10-15 1.20 1.03 4.26 0.01 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-02-2014 15-20 1.59 0.62 3.47 0.01 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-03-2014 0-5 1.42 1.03 4.14 0.01 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-03-2014 5-10 1.51 0.35 2.73 0.01 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-03-2014 10-15 1.49 0.14 2.29 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-03-2014 15-20 1.40 0.08 2.02 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-04-2014 0-5 0.65 0.10 1.74 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-04-2014 5-10 0.98 0.15 1.90 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-04-2014 10-15 1.24 0.07 1.56 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-04-2014 15-20 1.07 0.10 1.44 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-05-2014 0-5 1.32 0.18 1.63 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-05-2014 5-10 1.45 0.42 2.16 0.01 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-05-2014 10-15 1.42 0.07 1.63 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-05-2014 15-20 1.58 0.06 1.65 0.00 Salt panne
MS MB-MS-06-2014 0-5 0.73 4.43 10.33 0.03 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-06-2014 5-10 0.97 2.47 6.64 0.02 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-06-2014 10-15 1.33 0.92 3.33 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-06-2014 15-20 1.21 0.43 2.47 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-07-2014 0-5 0.61 6.92 15.51 0.04 Spartina patens-spartinae
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 48
MS MB-MS-07-2014 5-10 1.18 3.02 8.11 0.04 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-07-2014 10-15 1.45 1.00 3.74 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-07-2014 15-20 1.25 0.62 2.82 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-08-2014 0-5 0.83 4.00 9.73 0.03 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-08-2014 5-10 0.96 3.73 8.66 0.04 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-08-2014 10-15 1.35 1.91 5.92 0.03 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-08-2014 15-20 1.49 1.03 3.91 0.02 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-09-2014 0-5 1.47 0.69 1.85 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-09-2014 5-10 1.33 0.49 2.16 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-09-2014 10-15 1.30 0.26 1.96 0.00 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-09-2014 15-20 1.35 0.29 1.95 0.00 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-10-2014 0-5 1.02 1.14 2.92 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-10-2014 5-10 1.07 0.82 2.77 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-10-2014 10-15 1.29 0.64 2.55 0.01 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MB-MS-10-2014 15-20 1.41 0.22 1.81 0.00 Spartina patens-spartinae
MS MY-MS-11-2014 0-5 0.45 5.37 13.55 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-11-2014 5-10 0.44 7.95 18.66 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-11-2014 10-15 0.39 6.04 15.46 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-11-2014 15-20 0.41 5.96 14.57 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-12-2014 0-5 0.77 3.04 7.61 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-12-2014 5-10 0.53 5.54 12.25 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-12-2014 10-15 0.28 8.90 19.92 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-12-2014 15-20 0.24 12.31 26.65 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-13-2014 0-5 0.57 5.71 13.44 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-13-2014 5-10 0.41 9.16 20.64 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-13-2014 10-15 0.33 7.51 17.51 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-13-2014 15-20 0.29 8.70 21.46 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-14-2014 0-5 0.48 4.46 10.98 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-14-2014 5-10 0.63 4.58 11.33 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-14-2014 10-15 0.36 6.61 16.84 0.02 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-14-2014 15-20 0.36 7.90 19.25 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-15-2014 0-5 0.56 7.43 15.45 0.04 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-15-2014 5-10 0.65 4.93 11.39 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-15-2014 10-15 0.64 5.05 11.89 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS MY-MS-15-2014 15-20 0.55 5.08 12.37 0.03 Juncus roemerianus
MS NR-MS-16-2014 0-5 0.27 7.98 19.63 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-16-2014 5-10 0.32 8.29 19.52 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-16-2014 10-15 0.32 10.10 22.48 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-16-2014 15-20 0.36 6.60 14.83 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 49
MS NR-MS-17-2014 0-5 0.37 8.08 19.42 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-17-2014 5-10 0.49 6.35 15.02 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-17-2014 10-15 0.34 8.07 18.74 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-17-2014 15-20 0.34 8.22 17.55 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-18-2014 0-5 0.34 5.69 13.84 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-18-2014 5-10 0.44 4.79 11.61 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-18-2014 10-15 0.37 5.67 13.42 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-18-2014 15-20 0.38 6.96 15.52 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-19-2014 0-5 0.40 6.91 16.01 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-19-2014 5-10 0.47 6.58 14.54 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-19-2014 10-15 0.37 9.10 19.98 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-19-2014 15-20 0.36 7.97 16.91 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-20-2014 0-5 0.34 9.87 24.27 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-20-2014 5-10 0.50 6.32 14.86 0.03 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-20-2014 10-15 0.39 6.16 14.89 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
MS NR-MS-20-2014 15-20 0.40 5.40 14.12 0.02 Spartina alterniflora tall
CA RR-CA-01-2014 0-5 0.27 13.13 30.90 0.04 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-01-2014 5-10 0.38 15.92 34.24 0.06 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-01-2014 10-15 0.51 9.78 25.54 0.05 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-01-2014 15-20 0.47 8.12 22.52 0.04 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-02-2014 0-4.875 0.20 17.40 39.44 0.03 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-02-2014 4.875-9.75 0.32 12.95 30.49 0.04 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-02-2014 9.75-14.625 0.44 10.07 26.12 0.04 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-02-2014 14.625-19.5 0.62 4.22 15.41 0.03 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-03-2014 0-5 0.19 30.29 64.38 0.06 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-03-2014 5-10 0.20 20.09 44.63 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-03-2014 10-15 0.24 16.41 36.92 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-03-2014 15-20 0.30 12.21 30.16 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-04-2014 0-5 0.24 19.53 43.93 0.05 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-04-2014 5-10 0.26 15.06 35.27 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-04-2014 10-15 0.24 13.62 33.54 0.03 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-04-2014 15-20 0.27 14.77 35.55 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-05-2014 0-5 0.20 27.38 57.84 0.05 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-05-2014 5-10 0.23 17.36 38.90 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-05-2014 10-15 0.26 19.81 42.56 0.05 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-05-2014 15-20 0.25 17.23 39.63 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-06-2014 0-5 0.18 22.14 49.00 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 50
CA RR-CA-06-2014 5-10 0.21 20.38 45.75 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-06-2014 10-15 0.24 17.23 37.80 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-06-2014 15-20 0.28 14.26 34.14 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-07-2014 0-4.5 0.34 10.00 25.66 0.03 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-07-2014 4.5-9 0.36 9.07 23.26 0.03 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-07-2014 9-13.5 0.42 14.10 32.56 0.06 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-07-2014 13.5-18 0.52 9.19 23.51 0.05 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-08-2014 0-5 0.17 23.71 52.12 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-08-2014 5-10 0.21 20.64 44.88 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-08-2014 10-15 0.26 15.21 34.95 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-08-2014 15-20 0.27 11.97 31.12 0.03 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-09-2014 0-5 0.51 4.15 13.55 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-09-2014 5-10 0.41 4.26 15.07 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-09-2014 10-15 0.54 3.34 12.01 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-09-2014 15-20 0.70 4.01 13.28 0.03 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-10-2014 0-5 0.46 5.74 18.22 0.03 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-10-2014 5-10 0.32 5.33 17.50 0.02 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-10-2014 10-15 0.26 8.90 23.41 0.02 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-10-2014 15-20 0.36 11.14 26.94 0.04 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-11-2014 0-5 0.15 24.37 51.06 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-11-2014 5-10 0.27 12.02 29.94 0.03 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-11-2014 10-15 0.22 15.66 35.96 0.03 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-11-2014 15-20 0.29 13.99 33.74 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-12-2014 0-5 0.16 24.74 52.98 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-12-2014 5-10 0.22 19.84 43.98 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-12-2014 10-15 0.22 17.92 39.87 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-12-2014 15-20 0.23 23.65 49.92 0.05 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-13-2014 0-5 0.19 23.40 51.49 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-13-2014 5-10 0.26 15.37 34.94 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-13-2014 10-15 0.28 20.72 45.02 0.06 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-13-2014 15-20 0.25 18.03 40.22 0.05 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-14-2014 0-5 0.19 22.05 47.35 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-14-2014 5-10 0.27 15.96 35.29 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-14-2014 10-15 0.28 20.56 43.75 0.06 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 51
CA RR-CA-14-2014 15-20 0.23 14.73 34.09 0.03 Distichlis spicata / Salicornia pacifica
CA RR-CA-15-2014 0-5 0.38 5.90 16.65 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-15-2014 5-10 0.48 3.52 12.26 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-15-2014 10-15 0.50 5.65 16.63 0.03 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-15-2014 15-20 0.46 7.26 20.07 0.03 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-16-2014 0-5 0.19 27.39 58.13 0.05 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-16-2014 5-10 0.19 16.59 37.79 0.03 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-16-2014 10-15 0.27 19.77 42.03 0.05 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-16-2014 15-20 0.20 20.18 44.41 0.04 Distichlis spicata / Juncus balticus
CA RR-CA-17-2014 0-5 0.52 6.26 16.12 0.03 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-17-2014 5-10 0.45 12.01 26.43 0.05 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-17-2014 10-15 0.36 6.79 17.95 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-17-2014 15-20 0.42 3.63 14.83 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-18-2014 0-5 0.51 5.41 15.62 0.03 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-18-2014 5-10 0.44 4.42 14.02 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-18-2014 10-15 0.76 3.69 12.89 0.03 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-18-2014 15-20 0.46 4.66 16.27 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-19-2014 0-5 0.29 12.96 31.55 0.04 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-19-2014 5-10 0.28 15.83 36.46 0.04 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-19-2014 10-15 0.34 15.49 33.78 0.05 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-19-2014 15-20 0.39 12.08 27.26 0.05 Schoenoplectus americanus
CA RR-CA-20-2014 0-5 0.22 4.54 15.10 0.01 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-20-2014 5-10 0.21 5.02 15.71 0.01 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-20-2014 10-15 0.18 7.56 20.54 0.01 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
CA RR-CA-20-2014 15-20 0.19 9.45 21.62 0.02 Schoenoplectus acutus/californicus
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 52
Appendix 4. Photographs of core splits for each site organized by dominant vegetation type and labelled with the core ID
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 53
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 54
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 55
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 56
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 57
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 58
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 59
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 60
Appendix 5. Completed project synopsis
Spatial Variability in Carbon Storage Within and Across Marshes of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), USA: A Comparison of Methodologies and Coastal Regions
Last Modified (30 March 2015)
*Note, this information may be shared only after this work has been published in the
peer-reviewed literature.
Principal Investigators (Name, Affiliation)
Kristin Wilson, Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve Erik Smith, North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Project description (“What” from JPAC poster)
This research fills critical gaps in understanding the spatial variability of carbon storage within and across the National Estuarine Research Reserves System (NERRS) of Maine, Delaware, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, California, Wisconsin, and Ohio. This study quantified the percent soil organic matter, percent organic carbon content, and variability in sediment carbon density in the upper 20 cm of the soil across a range of marsh types that differ in geomorphic setting, dominant vegetation, and salinity. Results assist with the prediction of carbon stocks in salt marshes experiencing changing environmental conditions and anthropogenic stressors and where access to the more expensive analytical technology and expertise is unavailable or cost-prohibitive.
Key results (and context within which they were achieved. E.g. “the first…”) that CEC can share May include graph or table
Results show that sediment organic matter by loss on ignition and sediment organic carbon content (%) are highly correlated, that the global relationship differs from other published studies (e.g., Craft et al. 1991; Callaway et al. 2012), and that individual sites significantly contribute to variation in this global relationship (figure below). Study results reveal that across broad spatial scales, a single curve adequately captures the vast majority of the variability in sediment organic carbon explained by LOI. At finer spatial scales and in some regions, variability in sediment properties may dictate the use of site-specific
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 61
calibration curves.
Sediment organic carbon content (%) versus organic matter content by LOI (%). Results of a break point analysis revealed a shift in the
relationship between organic carbon content and dry bulk density at an organic carbon content of 2.04 %. Above this value, the relationship was highly significant and had a slope very similar to those observed in previous studies. Below this value, the relationship was not statistically significant. Interestingly, the samples with organic carbon content below 2.04 % were almost exclusively from the southeastern United States (South Carolina, Florida, and Mississippi), and were largely confined to the mid-marsh halophyte and/or short-form Spartina alterniflora vegetation zone.
Mean sediment organic carbon density in the upper 20 cm ranged from 0.001 to 0.061 g C cm-3, with a grand mean of 0.030 ± 0.011 g C cm-3, and mean densities differed significantly by site. Sediments from Maine and California contained significantly more organic carbon per cubic centimeter than the other sites sampled (figure below).
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 62
Distribution of organic carbon density within and across eight marsh sites of the NERRS. Median values denoted by horizontal line, boxes contain the 25th and 75th quartiles, whiskers denote the 10th and 90th percentiles, and outliers are denoted by points. Sites with the same letter are not significantly different from one another (p > 0.05). State abbreviations indicate site location.
Mean sediment organic carbon density differed significantly by high and low marsh zones in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida, though the pattern of this difference was not consistent across sites. In Mississippi, the low marsh zone had significantly greater organic carbon density than the high marsh zone, while in South Carolina and California, the opposite pattern was observed.
Mean sediment organic carbon density differed significantly by vegetation at half the sites sampled (Maine, Mississippi, California, and South Carolina). These results reveal that there is considerable spatial variation in sediment organic carbon density in the upper 20 cm at the marsh scale.
Science/Policy Implications
Results suggest that region-specific calibration curves that relate sediment organic matter to sediment carbon content, are needed in some regions.
Results reveal significant spatial variation in sediment organic carbon density in the upper 20 cm by site, zone, and vegetation type in some marshes. These findings have implications for how marsh-scale carbon budgets are calculated and incorporated into blue carbon policies.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 63
Challenges/ Lessons Learned
The timeframe for completing this project was tight, especially because it took ~2 months of the 12-month project period to get funds in hand.
The data workshop was critical to advance analyses of the data. More lead time to prep for this event and more time for post-workshop follow-up, would have benefitted data syntheses.
Gaps/Future Research Needs
Explore changes in sediment carbon density with depth (>20 cm) by collecting longer cores to improve calculations of carbon budgets at the marsh scale.
Continue to explore spatial variability in carbon density measurements and link these to high-resolution habitat maps of marshes.
Top opportunities for collaboration across North America
The 28 NERRs are excellent platforms and partners to expand blue carbon work in protected wetlands of the United States that encompass a range of marsh types, management strategies, and natural and anthropogenic stressors.
Recommendations
Expand the number of locations for which sediment carbon density measurements exist and explore the degree to which additional regional calibration curves are needed.
Publications (citations and links)
None yet. We are currently preparing a peer-reviewed manuscript to PLOS ONE with anticipated submission in May 2015.
Photos (and photo captions)
Co-PIs Kristin Wilson (left) of the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve and Erik Smith (right) of the North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve collect cores for the project.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 64
Cores were collected from the eight National Estuarine Research Reserves included in this photo compilation. Top row (Maine, Delaware, Florida, South Carolina). Bottom row (Mississippi, California, Wisconsin, Ohio). The National Estuarine Research Reserve System a network of 28 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-supported, protected sites throughout the United States that are dedicated to protecting and restoring coastal ecosystems through integrated research, stewardship, education, and community partnerships.
In the upper 20 cm, cores from Maine marshes contained significantly more carbon per cubic centimeter than all other sites except California. Compared to Maine, cores from the southeastern United States had significantly lower sediment carbon densities, but were similar to one another. Superficially, these differences can be observed in the above photo collage.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 65
6 Works Cited
Albert, D.A., D.A. Wilcox, J.W. Ingram, T.A. Thompson. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic classification for
Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Journal of Great Lakes Research 31(S1): 129-146.
Ball, D.F. 1964. Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in non-
calcareous soils. Journal of Soil Science 15: 84–92.
Beaumont, N.J., L. Jones, A. Garbutt, J.D. Hansom, M. Toberman. 2014. The value of carbon
sequestration and storage in coastal habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 137: 32-40.
Bernal, B., W.J. Mitsch. 2013. Carbon sequestration in freshwater wetlands in Costa Rica and
Botswana. Biogeochemistry 115: 77-93.
Buzzelli, C., O. Akman, T. Buck, E. Koepfler, J. Morris, and A. Lewitus. 2004. Relationships among
water-quality parameters from the North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
South Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research 45: 59-74.
Byrne, R.J., J. Ziegler. 1997. Coastal engineering study, Wells Harbor, Maine. Waltham,
Massachusetts: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, 89p.
Callaway, J.C., E.L. Borgnis, R.E. Turner, C.S. Milan. 2012. Carbon sequestration and sediment
accretion in San Francisco Bay tidal wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts 35: 1163-1181.
Chatterjee, A., R. Lal, L. Wielopolski, M. Z. Martin, and M. H. Ebinger. 2009. Evaluation of
Different Soil Carbon Determination Methods. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 28: 164-178.
Chmura, G.L. 2013. What do we need to assess the sustainability of the tidal salt marsh carbon sink?
Ocean and Coastal Management 83: 25-31.
Chmura, G.L., S.C. Anisfeld, D.R. Cahoon, J.C. Lynch. 2003. Global carbon sequestration in tidal,
saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(4): 1111, doi:10.1029/2002GB001917.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2013. North American Blue Carbon Scoping Study.
Montreal, Canada. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 49pp.
Coverdale, T.C., C.P. Brisson, E.W. Young, S.F. Yin, J.P. Donnelly, M.D. Bertness. 2014. Indirect
human impacts reverse centuries of carbon sequestration and salt marsh accretion. PLOS ONE
9(3): e93296.
Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehman, S. Joye, R. Park, S. Pennings, H. Guo, M. Machmuller. 2009.
Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 7(2): 73-78.
Craft, C.B., E.D. Seneca, S.W. Broome. 1991. Loss on ignition and Kjeldahl digestion for estimating
organic carbon and total nitrogen in estuarine marsh soils: calibration with dry combustion.
Estuaries 14(2): 175-179.
Crooks, S., S. Emmett-Mattox, J. Findsen. 2010. Findings of the national blue ribbon panel on the
development of a greenhouse gas offset protocol for tidal wetlands restoration and management
action plant to guide protocol development. Restore America’s Estuaries, Phillip Williams &
Associates, Ltd., and Science Applications International Corporation.
De Vos, B., B. Vandecasteele, J. Deckers, and B. Muys. 2005. Capability of loss-on-ignition as a
predictor of total organic carbon in non-calcareous forest soils. Communications in Soil Science
and Plant Analysis 36: 2899-2921.
Dionne, M., C. Dalton, H. Wilhelm, editors. 2006. Site Profile of the Wells National Estuarine
Research Reserve. Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve. Wells, ME. 313 pp.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 66
Fitzgerald, D.M., Lincoln, J.M., Fink, L.K., and Caldwell, D.W., 1989. Morphodynamics of tidal inlet
systems in Maine. Studies in Maine Geology, 5, 67-96, Maine Geological Survey, Augusta,
Maine.
Gardner, L., and D. Porter. 2001. Stratigraphy and geologic history of a southeastern salt marsh basin,
North Inlet, South Carolina, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management 9: 371-385.
Hedges, J.I., J. H. Stern. 1984. Carbon and nitrogen determinations of carbonate-containing solids.
Limnology and Oceanography 29(3): 657-663
Herdendorf, C.E., D.M. Klarer, R.C. Herdendorf. 2004. The ecology of Old Woman Creek, Ohio: An
estuarine and watershed profile. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife,
Columbus, OH.
Howard, J., S. Hoyt, K. Isensee, M. Telszewski, E. Pidgeon (eds). 2014. Coastal blue carbon:
methods for assessing carbon stocks and emissions factors in mangroves, tidal salt marshes, and
sea grasses. Conservation International, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of
UNESCO, International Union for Conservation of Nature. Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Jacobson, H.A., G.L. Jacobson Jr. 1989. Variability in vegetation of tidal marshes in Maine.
Canadian Journal of Botany 67: 230-238.
Kelley, J.T. 1987. An inventory of coastal environments and classification of Maine’s glaciated
coastline. In, Fitzgerald, D.M. and Rosen, P.S. (eds.), Glaciated Coasts, Orlando, FL: Academic,
pp. 151-176.
Kelley, J.T., W.R. Gehrels, D.F. Belknap. 1995. Late Holocene relative sea-level rise and the
geological development of tidal marshes at Wells, Maine, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal Research
11(1): 136-153.
Lavery, P.S., M-A. Mateo, O. Serrano, M. Rozaimi. 2013. Variability in the carbon storage of sea
grass habitats and its implications for global estimates of blue carbon ecosystem service. PLOS
ONE 8(9): e73748.
Macreadie, P.I., A.R. Hughes, D.L. Kimbro. 2013. Loss of “blue carbon” from coastal salt marshes
following habitat disturbance. PLOS ONE 8(7): e69244.
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. 1998. Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Reserve Management Plan. Mississippi Department of
Marine Resources, Biloxi, Mississippi.
Morris, J. T., and G. J. Whiting. 1986. Emission of gaseous carbon dioxide from salt marsh sediments
and its relation to other carbon losses. Estuaries 9: 9-19.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2011. System-wide monitoring program plan.
Available: http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/Doc/PDF/Research/2011SWMPPlan.pdf
Pendleton, L., D.C. Donato, B.C. Murray, S. Crooks, W.A. Jenkins, S. Sifleet, C. Craft, J.W
Fourqurean, J.B. Kauffman, N. Marba, P. Megonigal, E. Pidgeon, D. Herr, D. Gordon, A.
Bladera. 2012. Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of
vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLOS ONE 7(9): e43542
Pribyl, D. W. 2010. A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor. Geoderma
156: 75-83.
Saintilan, N., K. Rogers, D. Mazumder, C. Woodroffe. 2013. Allochthonous and autochthonous
contributions to carbon accumulation and carbon store in southeaster Australian coastal wetlands.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 128: 84-92.
Marsh Carbon Storage in the National Estuarine Research Reserves, USA - Version 1
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 67
Shipp, R.C. 1989. Quaternary stratigraphy of the inner continental shelf and adjacent coastal region of
Maine. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Orono, Maine: University of Maine, 832p.
Szava-Kovats, R. 2009. Re-analysis of the Relationship between Organic Carbon and Loss-on-
Ignition in Soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 40: 2712-2724.
Trexel-Kroll, D. 2002. Succession of floating-leaf to emergent plant communities following reduced
water levels in Old Woman Creek estuary. M.Sc. Thesis, Miami University, Oxford, OH.
Wieland, R.G. 2007. Habitat types and associated ecological communities of the Grand Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve. Pages 103-147 in Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve:
An Ecological Characterization (Peterson, M.S., G.L. Waggy and M.S. Woodrey, editors). Grand
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Moss Point, Mississippi.
Wilson, K.R., J.T. Kelley, A. Croitoru, M. Dionne, D. F. Belknap, R. Steneck. 2009. Stratigraphic
and ecophysical characterizations of salt pools: dynamic landforms of the Webhannet Salt Marsh,
Wells, ME, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 855-870.
Wilson, K.R., J.T. Kelley, B.R. Tanner, D.F. Belknap. 2010. Probing the origins and stratigraphic
signature of salt pools from north-temperate marshes in Maine, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal
Research 26(6): 1007-1026.