Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 25;16(3):e0248398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248398

Productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net CO2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability

Alex C Valach 1,¤a,*, Kuno Kasak 1,2, Kyle S Hemes 1,3, Tyler L Anthony 1, Iryna Dronova 1,4, Sophie Taddeo 4,¤b, Whendee L Silver 1, Daphne Szutu 1, Joseph Verfaillie 1, Dennis D Baldocchi 1
Editor: Hojeong Kang5
PMCID: PMC7993764  PMID: 33765085

Abstract

Inundated wetlands can potentially sequester substantial amounts of soil carbon (C) over the long-term because of slow decomposition and high primary productivity, particularly in climates with long growing seasons. Restoring such wetlands may provide one of several effective negative emission technologies to remove atmospheric CO2 and mitigate climate change. However, there remains considerable uncertainty whether these heterogeneous ecotones are consistent net C sinks and to what degree restoration and management methods affect C sequestration. Since wetland C dynamics are largely driven by climate, it is difficult to draw comparisons across regions. With many restored wetlands having different functional outcomes, we need to better understand the importance of site-specific conditions and how they change over time. We report on 21 site-years of C fluxes using eddy covariance measurements from five restored fresh to brackish wetlands in a Mediterranean climate. The wetlands ranged from 3 to 23 years after restoration and showed that several factors related to restoration methods and site conditions altered the magnitude of C sequestration by affecting vegetation cover and structure. Vegetation established within two years of re-flooding but followed different trajectories depending on design aspects, such as bathymetry-determined water levels, planting methods, and soil nutrients. A minimum of 55% vegetation cover was needed to become a net C sink, which most wetlands achieved once vegetation was established. Established wetlands had a high C sequestration efficiency (i.e. the ratio of net to gross ecosystem productivity) comparable to upland ecosystems but varied between years undergoing boom-bust growth cycles and C uptake strength was susceptible to disturbance events. We highlight the large C sequestration potential of productive inundated marshes, aided by restoration design and management targeted to maximise vegetation extent and minimise disturbance. These findings have important implications for wetland restoration, policy, and management practitioners.

1 Introduction

Peat-dominated ecosystems contain the largest global terrestrial soil carbon (C) stores [13], with freshwater marshes accounting for almost 30% of C stocks while only covering around 5–8% of the land surface area [46]. There is growing interest in wetlands for their capacity to store C given the long residence time. This is achieved through anaerobic conditions which protect existing soil C, while vegetation continues to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The wetland acts as a negative emission technology, which helps to mitigate climate change [79]. Although anaerobic conditions reduce C loss from decomposition, these conditions, especially in inundated fresh to brackish wetlands, produce methane (CH4) and possibly nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions [10]. These are both strong GHGs, which can significantly increase the global warming potential of wetlands over decadal time periods reducing the climate mitigation benefits of restoration [1113]. However, a previous study of these wetlands showed that in some years they were immediate net GHG sinks, because the high net C uptake offset the climate forcing of the CH4 emissions [14], even without accounting for N2O uptake, which was previously found at these sites [9]. Therefore, understanding the drivers of C uptake in similarly productive freshwater wetlands is necessary to better identify and manage them as natural climate solutions. Despite this, many wetlands are being degraded by human activities or threatened by climate change [15,16], causing large C and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and depleting soil C stocks [17]. Many short-term datasets (<5 years) of wetland C fluxes show high C uptake variability with wetlands ranging from being strong C sinks to C sources [e.g. 1821]. This translates into considerable uncertainty about whether restoring wetlands offers an effective negative emission technology in the long-term and a need to identify which conditions improve this functionality [6,2226].

For wetlands to effectively sequester C, net C uptake must largely remain stable in the face of both small-scale and large-scale perturbations, from local disturbance to future environmental equilibria [22,2731]. While climate factors are an important control on wetland plant productivity and ecosystem respiration [32,33], they do not fully explain the high interannual variability [34], especially between wetland types and sites [15,35]. Evidence suggests that site-specific factors including restoration design, patterns in disturbance and succession, past land use and the effects of management practices, such as water level manipulations may play a large role in the annual net C balance of wetlands [36,37]. There are only few long-term datasets of ecosystem-level C uptake measurements [27,28], such as presented here, which are necessary to better understand the lasting net C uptake strength and sink stability. Exploring site-specific controls requires investigating multiple wetlands within the same climate under a range of restoration methods and site conditions with a suite of additional data on hydrology, soil, and vegetation [15,38,39].

The eddy covariance method allows for direct measurements of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) over an integrated ecosystem-scale area and generally assumes that the sources are homogeneous and representative of the whole site. While being micrometeorologically ideal in terms of their flatness, wetlands have high spatial complexity with regards to sources and sinks which recent publications showed is often underrepresented in many flux studies. Although there is a growing effort to quantify and account for spatial heterogeneity within the measurement area of the flux, i.e. the flux footprint [40], only few C flux datasets currently provide the wide array of supplementary measurements needed to interpret the spatial heterogeneity in more detail. This makes it difficult to connect spatial patterns, such as specific restoration and management strategies to ecosystem-level fluxes as restored ecosystems develop over time. Here we used an interdisciplinary approach that combined 21 site-years of eddy covariance measurements from five restored marshes with data on soil, water, vegetation, and meteorological conditions to better understand spatial and temporal variations in C fluxes.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (hereafter the Delta) in California, USA, represents an ideal case study for the re-establishment of wetlands following drainage for intensive agriculture [41,42]. There are several wetland restoration projects in the Delta, which provide a unique opportunity to investigate how site-specific factors like land cover and vegetation development affected yearly C budgets following restoration, as these contrasting wetlands experienced the same climatic conditions. In the Delta, the previous agricultural land-uses and hydrological modifications have changed the fundamental conditions of the wetlands, therefore we use the term ‘restored’ to describe the re-establishment of constructed marshes, albeit under artificial conditions [4345].

The continuous NEE measurements provide the difference between the capture of atmospheric CO2 from gross ecosystem productivity (GEP) via photosynthesis minus any losses to the atmosphere from autotrophic and heterotrophic ecosystem respiration. Lateral transport of dissolved and particulate C is not captured by this method, but although it has been shown to constitute a major component to C loss in natural systems [33], at these sites it is assumed to be negligible due to the limited outflow from the wetlands [46]. The C and GHG budgets of these wetlands including an assessment of the CH4 emission impacts are discussed in detail elsewhere [14].

We tested the null hypothesis that these wetlands, being located within a few kilometres of one another with similar vegetation, would converge in terms of their structure and function. We investigated 1) how vegetation cover and structure developed over time, as well as 2) the relationship of different land cover designs and vegetation types with annual net C uptake across the five restored marshes over a 10-year period.

2 Methods

All sites in this study (i.e. Sherman and Twitchell Islands) are owned by the State of California and access was provided by the state’s Department of Water Resources. The field studies did not involve endangered or protected species.

2.1 Study sites

2.1.1 The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

In the mid-19th century, the deep peat soils of the Delta wetlands were drained for agricultural purposes, exposing the C-rich soils to oxygen. Microbial oxidation resulted in an estimated loss of 83–100 Tg C [41] and together with peat compaction caused widespread land subsidence with some areas now 10 m below sea level [43,47]. A network of levees maintains the drained islands [45] but growing hydrostatic pressure from continued subsidence and sea level rise increases the risk of levee failure [43,47]. Levee breaks are costly and oftentimes irreversible, endangering much of California’s freshwater system centred in the Delta [48], which provides over 27 million people with drinking water [46] and agricultural irrigation [45]. Wetland restoration projects in the Delta primarily aim to stabilise levees and reverse land subsidence by accreting soil [49], which also has the potential to mitigate climate change by sequestering C and thereby provide additional funding from C markets to prolong the economic viability of restoration projects [50,51]. Many projects in the Delta advocate for co-equal goals [5254], including C sequestration, flood protection, water quality and supply, biodiversity habitat, and outdoor recreation [55]. However, different restoration goals can produce trade-offs when restoration practices conflict with each other [5659], therefore we solely focus on C sequestration in this study.

2.1.2 Site histories

West Pond, East Pond, and East End located on Twitchell Island and Mayberry and Sherman wetland on the nearby Sherman Island (Fig 1) comprise a meso-scale monitoring network for C, water, and energy flux measurements by eddy covariance [60]. Since the wetlands are below sea level, they lack natural hydrologic connectivity and depend on a pump system to actively manage water levels and maintain inundation suitable for marsh vegetation. Dominant species include Schoenoplectus acutus and various Typha spp., of which Typha angustifolia is classed as non-native [47,61]. These wetlands have undergone slightly different restoration practices (construction design and vegetation recruitment, see Table 1) and have experienced a range of site conditions and disturbance events. A detailed description of West and East Pond wetlands and more background information on all sites can be found elsewhere [42,44,62]. West Pond and East Pond were restored in 1997 with measurements since 2012 in West Pond and 2018 in East Pond. In 2013, roots and rhizomes were harvested from East Pond and transplanted along the surrounding levees of the neighbouring East End, restored in 2013 from a cornfield. Mayberry was restored in 2010 with a more varied bathymetry including channels (<1.5 m) and open ponds where only the margins were planted. There have been several intermediate-scale disturbance events that have affected the vegetation at this site. In 2014, and to a lesser extent in 2017, there were insect infestations that diminished the green aboveground biomass. During the latter half of 2015 until mid-2017 there was a salinity intrusion and accumulation (daily mean <7 psu), which reduced ecosystem productivity until the wetland was flushed with freshwater [63]. Sherman Wetland was restored in 2016 from a livestock pasture. The bathymetry includes large open water areas and deep channels (>2 m) separating inundated shallow plateaus which were frequently exposed during summer when the water table was lower. Apart from a small area planted with shrubs, the wetland was left to colonise unassisted.

Fig 1. Map outlining the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with the five restored wetland sites.

Fig 1

Site locations are marked (top) and enlarged (bottom) to show the wetland areas (shaded grey) and instrument tower locations (red points).

Table 1. Site characteristics of all five restored wetlands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, USA.
Site (Ameriflux ID) Previous land use Year restored Area (ha) Elevation at tower (m.a.s.l) Water level (cm) Vegetation establishment method Plant proportion in 2018: total site (85% flux footprint) Dominant plant species (%) Open water areas Flux data coverage (complete years)
West Pond (US-Tw1) Crops 1997 3 -4.9 25 Planted sections 0.997 (0.970) Typhaa (69%) S. acutus (31%) No 2013–2018 (6)
East Pond (US-Tw5) Crops 1997/2013b 2.6 -5.2 55 Planted sections/leftover rhizomes 0.968 (0.912) 59% Typhaa (59%) S. acutus (11%) Yes 2018 (1)
Mayberry (US-Myb) Pasture 2010 121 -3.5 20, 120 (channels) Margins planted 0.644 (0.480) Typhac (55%) S. acutus (28%) Yes 2010–2018 (9)
East End (US-Tw4) Crops 2013 323 -5.0 25, 60 (channels) Transplanted individuals and seeding 0.821 (0.842) Typhac (95%) S. acutus (5%) Yes 2014–2018 (5)
Sherman Wetland (US-Sne) Pasture 2016 263 -4.4 10–20, >200 (channels) Passive wind dispersal with dry areas planted 0.583 (0.454) Typha (NA) S. acutus (NA) Yes 2017–2018 (2)

Variables include previous land use, water table level, vegetation composition, and restoration methods.

NA: No vegetation survey data available.

aData taken from a 2008 vegetation survey [64].

bEast Pond vegetation was completely removed in 2013 to seed East End and is considered to reset the wetland age.

cData from vegetation transects [65].

2.2 Flux measurements

Continuous eddy covariance flux measurements of CO2 were used to quantify the land-atmosphere exchange of gases [66], along with a set of auxiliary measurements of environmental conditions, including meteorological variables, and soil and water profiles [62]. Fluxes were measured using a suite of sensors at a frequency of 10 (before 2015) or 20 Hz, consisting of open-path infrared gas analysers (LI-7500 or LI-7500A for CO2 and H2O, LiCOR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) that were calibrated every 3–6 months. Sonic anemometers measured sonic temperature and three-dimensional wind speeds at 20 Hz (WindMaster Pro 1352 or 1590, Gill Instruments Ltd, Lymington, Hampshire, England). Quality control, flux processing, and gap filling at these sites has been documented extensively in recent publications [42,63,67].

2.3 Flux footprints

Eddy covariance techniques allow for near-continuous spatially integrated measurements of NEE flux responses at high time resolutions. The flux footprint indicates the spatial extent of sources and sinks detected by the flux measurements. The vegetation cover analysis was based on footprints calculated using a basic analytical two-dimensional footprint model [68,69]. This model has been previously validated at these sites and tends to overestimate the extent compared with a more recent model [70]. The area contributing to the measured fluxes fluctuates depending on atmospheric stability conditions and surface parameterisations. Half-hourly footprints were calculated and aggregated to an annual daytime median footprint [71]. Since the flux footprint contributions approach 0 with increasing distance from the tower, only the 85% footprint extent was considered.

Although the sites are ideal for eddy covariance with consistent wind directions, large fetch, and little upwind interference, the flux measurements may not be representative of the whole site because of the high spatial heterogeneity. For example, Mayberry and Sherman Wetland had large open water channels, which were disproportionately represented in the flux footprints compared with the water to vegetation ratio of the whole site. These flux footprints only captured 70–80% of the land cover proportions of the whole site after plant establishment, unlike West Pond, which was very representative with 97–99% similarity.

2.4 Vegetation monitoring and classification

2.4.1 Image classifications

The land cover classifications within the 85% flux footprint were acquired by Eagle Digital Imaging Inc. and based on images from mid-August of 2014–2018. These orthorectified, mosaicked and radiometrically normalised images covered the red, green, blue, and near-infrared bands at a high spatial resolution (0.15 m). Due to year-to-year variability in site conditions (e.g. wind, water ripples) and vegetation appearance, footprints were classified individually for each year using a semi-automated approach combining automated object-based image segmentation with user-determined decision thresholds and manual classification of objects based on visual recognition in eCognition Developer software v.9 (Trimble Inc.). The Tabulate Area function of ArcMap v10.3.1 [72] was used to calculate the percentage of flux footprints covered by vegetation, open water, and bare soil. In addition, we collected high-resolution aerial imagery (0.05 m) in September 2018 at all sites to distinguish vegetation types within the flux footprints. The impact of image resolution on vegetation indices using these remote sensing methods was recently assessed [73].

The whole site classification to compare the footprint representativeness was done using open access aerial imagery from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (1 m resolution) taken in May or June 2012, 2014, and 2016.

2.4.2 Canopy height measurements

The vegetation heights were derived from the aerodynamic canopy height, which was calculated from the turbulence statistics using the methods of our colleagues [74,75]. The analytical equation for aerodynamic canopy height is derived from the logarithmic wind profile based on the Monin-Obukhov similarity theory for a neutral surface layer and assumes parameterisations for the displacement height and surface roughness length [76]. It depends on neutral turbulence conditions and like flux measurements, results in few valid data points during the winter season, hence we focus on the growing season data. It is susceptible to large outliers at shorter timescales despite careful filtering, so robust averaging was used to avoid bias. Half-hourly measurements were filtered by friction velocity (0.2 < u* < 0.5 m/s), boundary layer stability (|z/L| < 0.1 for near-neutral conditions), and time of day (06:00 to 18:00 hours) before being converted to daily and monthly medians. Several methods were used to measure canopy heights and compared in S2 in S1 File. Continuous aerodynamic canopy heights compared the best with available data from several ground-based transect surveys. Ground survey data of plant and litter heights within the flux footprints were only available for West Pond, East End, East Pond, and Mayberry in August 2018 [77]. All methods provide above-water canopy heights.

2.5 Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses consisted of Ordinary Least Squares linear regressions and Pearson’s correlations with root mean square errors (RMSE) shown for non-linear functions. Parametric ANOVAs with Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference tests and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn’s multiple comparisons (Z-statistics) were used for categorical comparisons (with factor “site”) between sites due to the unequal sample sizes [78]. Only full calendar site-years were used in the study and all statistical analyses were conducted using R [79] with packages openair [80], ggplot [81], FSA [82], and dplyr [83]. Uncertainty intervals were estimated by propagating the random half-hourly measurement error and the gap-filling error [42]. The coefficient of variation was used to compare interannual variability of fluxes, whereas a measure of C use or sequestration efficiency, defined as the ratio of annual net to gross ecosystem productivity (NEP/GEP) provided yearly comparisons of net C uptake potentials [84].

3 Results

3.1 Post-restoration vegetation establishment

The expansion of total vegetation cover within the flux footprint over time since restoration ranged from 0 during initial flooding to a maximum of 0.99 at West Pond (Fig 2), i.e. a mature wetland with a dense, closed canopy. Two development trajectories emerged, which were categorised as rapid and slow vegetation establishment responses. Rapid expansion occurred within the first two years after restoration (R2 = 0.85, p <0.05 for the initial linear increase) at West Pond, East End, and East Pond (after the 2013 disturbance) followed by a stable plateau at which the vegetation proportion varied from 0.91 to 0.99 (R2 = 0.14, p = 0.148). For the slow trajectory, vegetation establishment followed a log-linear fit (r = 0.90, p <0.001, RMSE = 0.096) at Mayberry, Sherman Wetland, and East Pond (before 2013), with the cover only reaching 0.7 up to 11 years following restoration.

Fig 2. Proportion of vegetation cover for all wetland sites for each year since restoration.

Fig 2

The trajectories show a two-step linear fit for sites with rapid expansion in the initial establishment phase followed by a post-establishment plateau and a log-linear fit for sites with slow expansion rates. In 2013 East Pond was disturbed to seed the nearby East End wetland and is considered newly restored after this event. These data are based on aerial imagery classifications supplemented by data gathered from ground-based survey transects [44] for West and East Ponds before 2013.

3.2 Land cover classifications

In order to link NEE to the vegetation dynamics, land cover consisting of vegetation, water, and bare soil at each site, as well as vegetation types were classified within the representative flux footprints. There was high spatial variability of land cover and vegetation between site footprints with emergent macrophyte cover types being the most prevalent (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Land cover proportions split by vegetation type.

Fig 3

This uses September 2018 as an example for all land and vegetation types (live litter, mixed vegetation, and dead litter refer to emergent macrophytes) at all the sites. Site labels are East End (EE), East Pond (EP), Mayberry (MB), Sherman Wetland (SW), and West Pond (WP). See S1 Fig in S1 File for the classified footprints.

These classifications were compared with monthly and yearly cumulative fluxes corresponding to the time window in which the image used for the classification was recorded (Fig 4). All images were taken during the growing season and corresponding annual NEE showed a linear correlation with net C uptake (R2 = 0.46, p <0.01) within the footprint (Fig 4A), but not a statistically significant relationship with annual GEP (R2 = 0.18, p = 0.07, Fig 4C). Vegetation proportion correlated both with monthly cumulative NEE (R2 = 0.65, p <0.001, Fig 4B) and monthly cumulative GEP (R2 = 0.50, p <0.001, Fig 4D). None of the emergent macrophyte litter types (i.e. dead, live, and mixed live and dead biomass) individually showed a statistically significant (p <0.05) or strong (R2 <0.5) relationship with NEE at either timescale. A finer resolution classification showed greater spatial complexity and clear differentiation of vegetation types (S1 Fig in S1 File). Relationships with monthly and annual NEE and GEP during the corresponding timeframe were only marginally improved compared with the lower resolution images of the same period (S1 Table in S1 File), so only the coarser classification results which cover a longer period are discussed. When relating the latest (2018) vegetation cover against the site-mean NEE for established years only, a net C sink was reached with vegetation proportions above 0.55 ± 0.02 (R2 = 0.86, p <0.001, based on data shown in Fig 3 and site-means calculated from annual means in Fig 4A).

Fig 4. Flux measurements against vegetation proportions.

Fig 4

Annual (top) and monthly (bottom) cumulative net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 (left) and gross ecosystem productivity (GEP, right) against vegetation cover during the growing season (May–September) from land cover classifications within the flux footprint for all available site-years with linear regressions and 95% confidence intervals (grey shading for linear regression and bars for data points). Negative NEE values denote carbon uptake by the ecosystem.

3.3 Canopy heights

West Pond had the tallest aerodynamic canopy height with a median (interquartile range, IQR) of 3.05 (2.94–3.28) m, while Sherman Wetland had the shortest canopy of 0.18 (0.16–0.26) m. Median aerodynamic canopy height differences were statistically significant for all sites (absolute Z-statistics between 2.73 to 14.53, p <0.01) with East Pond and Mayberry being the most similar (median (IQR) of 2.22 (2.09–2.40) m and 1.85 (1.75–1.96) m, respectively) followed by East End and West Pond (2.77 (2.66–2.91) m and 3.05 (2.94–3.28) m, respectively)).

When plotted as monthly medians for the whole measurement periods (Fig 5), aerodynamic canopy heights clearly displayed canopy growth each year and, where available, plant recruitment after restoration (e.g. East End in 2014, Mayberry in 2011, and Sherman Wetland in 2018). Like vegetation extent, growing season median aerodynamic canopy heights explained around half of annual NEE (R2 = 0.53, p <0.001, based on data from Fig 4A and growing season means from Fig 5).

Fig 5. Monthly median aerodynamic canopy heights.

Fig 5

Canopy heights (m) were calculated using turbulence statistics from the eddy covariance towers for all site-years during the growing season from April to October. Eddy covariance measurements were available for Sherman in 2016 (blue square) before it was converted to a wetland and showed the canopy height of the previous pasture.

3.4 Interannual carbon flux variability

Annual cumulative NEE fluxes showed large interannual variability at some of the sites, such as Mayberry and West Pond (Fig 6). Mayberry had more frequent variations between years (coefficient of variation, CV, of 0.86, n = 8), while the high CV at East End (CV of 0.98, n = 5) reduced to 0.1 when excluding the restoration year, thereby becoming the most stable C sink with a site-mean (± SD) annual NEE of -536.4 ± 55.6 gC CO2 m-2 yr-1. West Pond remained a steady sink of -467.8 ± 189.8 gC CO2 m-2 yr-1 (CV = 0.41, n = 6), whereas Sherman Wetland was a C source of 234.7 ± 137.4 gC CO2 m-2 yr-1 (CV = 0.41, n = 2).

Fig 6. Annual sums of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) against wetland age (years since restoration).

Fig 6

All complete site-years are shown with bars indicating 95% confidence intervals from propagated errors of the flux measurement and gap-filling methods. The sums for the restoration year (year 0) are not shown (i.e. incomplete years). Negative NEE values denote C uptake by the ecosystem.

A measure of C use or sequestration efficiency (i.e. the ratio of net to gross ecosystem productivity, NEP/GEP) ranged from -59% to 41% (negative values indicate C loss) with site means ± SD (and mean ± SD excluding the initial establishment year) of -38 ± 29 (-17) % (n = 2 and 1) for Sherman Wetland, 18 ± 15 (21 ±17) % (n = 8 and 7) for Mayberry, 19 ± 30 (33 ±3) % (n = 5 and 4) for East End, 29 ± 10% (n = 6) for West Pond, and 31% (n = 1) for East Pond. The positive linear regression of GEP and NEP with all site-years was moderately strong (R2 = 0.65, p <0.001, slope = 0.58) and improved to R2 = 0.89 (p <0.001, slope = 0.78) when the two outlying points (Mayberry 2012 and 2013) were excluded.

4 Discussion

Net cumulative C fluxes on annual time scales, are a key metric for comparing and evaluating restored ecosystems for their C sequestration capacity, as it shows the net effect of multiple processes representative at the ecosystem-level and highlights the differences in their functioning. All wetlands were dominated by emergent macrophytes, but differed in their distribution, rates of expansion, as well as extents of other vegetation types, which we used to link variations in C fluxes between sites and years.

4.1 Restoration design impacts initial vegetation expansion rates

The trajectories of vegetation establishment after restoration could be explained by the differences in restoration methods, i.e. different water levels from undulating bathymetry design and planting patterns. Our colleagues [44] showed that relatively small changes in water depth (25 vs. 55 cm) affected plant productivity at East and West Pond with faster colonization of shallow areas by emergent marsh vegetation. Another study [85] also indicated that there are different hydrologic constraints between Schoenoplectus and Typha species with both water levels and flooding duration affecting survival rates. Sites with shallow root zone water levels (West Pond, East Pond post-2013, and East End) followed the rapid linear establishment trajectory reaching a constant extent around 95% within 2 years. Although all three sites contained transplanted patches promoting fast colonization, only after the 2013 disturbance did East Pond follow the rapid trajectory. This was likely from the faster regrowth of leftover rhizomes, since asexual clonal expansion is more effective than recruitment from seedbanks [86], whereas before 2013 the deeper water level hindered plant recruitment. Sites with deeper water (East Pond pre-2013) and/or larger open channels (Mayberry and Sherman Wetland) followed the slower rate of expansion. It is important to note that flux datasets generally only provide the water level measured by the flux towers, which can be a poor indicator of site-wide water depth for heterogeneous sites with large variations in bathymetry. With bathymetry design and water depth being key factors of vegetation recruitment after restoration, it is vital to reduce bathymetry variations to achieve higher vegetation to water ratios when designing wetlands for C sequestration, as well as collect elevation data or more spatially resolved water depths to accurately evaluate C sequestration capabilities.

Nutrient availability may also have influenced establishment rates. Based on soil samples, we found that East End had very high nutrient levels, while Mayberry or Sherman Wetland indicated low levels (mean ± SD C:N ratios of 16.7±1.4, 15.7±0.8, and 13.1±0.2, as well as NaOH-extractable inorganic phosphorus (P) of 599 ± 105.8 compared to 152.2 ± 62.2 and 298 ± 82.6 μg P g-1 dry soil, respectively; S3 in S1 File). Although East End also had undulating bathymetry and only the levees were transplanted with S. acutus, Typha spp. spread rapidly by outcompeting other species under high P conditions because they are hyper-accumulators [87,88]. High P conditions (>500 μg g-1) have been shown to result in highly productive, but low diversity plant communities, which benefits C uptake, but counteract biodiversity targets of restoration [4,89].

The vegetation expansion functions agreed with the second hypothetical trajectory for a post-restoration vegetation index [90] and highlighted that colonisation is often non-linear. Unless rapid initial vegetation establishment can be accomplished within the first years, the final equilibrium state can take >20 years to fully unfold [91] and may require longer monitoring to assess ecosystem service capabilities [65]. Even then, restored wetlands may never reach pre-disturbance states and levels of functioning [92].

4.2 The contribution of smaller vegetation types and areas with dead litter to net carbon uptake is non-negligible

The wetland designs caused significant spatial heterogeneity between levels of plant and litter types, even though emergent macrophytes were dominant at all sites (Fig 3). West Pond had the highest relative proportion of dead litter and the lowest live vegetation reflecting both the age of the wetland and the lack of open water areas leading to a dense closed canopy with less visibly green biomass. Despite the significant litter build-up reducing and/or delaying GEP, it remained a strong C sink. Across all wetlands both cumulative monthly and annual mean NEE fluxes showed the best correlations with the total vegetation cover which included dead litter and smaller plant types. Dead and mixed litter may have obscured new underlying growth that was contributing to overall GEP [90,93]. Several studies [94,95] found that erectophyle plants, such as Typha and S. acutus had higher reflectance in visible wavelengths as the tips of the plants brown first which can conceal underlying photosynthetically active biomass in aerial images limiting the effectiveness of remotely-sensed C flux estimates in wetlands [96].

Although emergent macrophytes are dominant primary producers [97,98], other species, such as floating aquatic vegetation (e.g. Azolla and Lemna) and algae accounted for 16% and 24% of the total vegetation cover at East Pond and Sherman Wetland, respectively. Their inclusion improved the relationship between plant cover and NEE (R2 from 0.48 to 0.65) indicating that these species provided a non-negligible contribution to overall NEE. Although small-statured, such aquatic species can sequester considerable amounts of C. For example, Azolla, when cultivated as a dual crop with rice, was found to sequester additional 168 g CO2 m-2 yr-1 [99] and may have been an important C sink at global scales during the Eocene [100]. Among other benefits, it has been shown to reduce other GHG emissions, such as CH4, N2O, and water vapour from rice crops [101,102]. Lemna, which is seasonally widespread in the Delta wetlands, can also promote methanotrophy [103], as well as sequester around 3.5 gC CO2 m-2 d-1 during the peak growing season [104]. Many algal species have proved to exhibit a large capacity for CO2 sequestration [105,106] but can deplete the dissolved oxygen levels in the water leading to increased CH4 emissions and fish mortality. Floating aquatic vegetation cover can change rapidly during the growing season [107], therefore the snapshot aerial imagery used may not reflect their complete extent and contribution to the annual budgets. Due to the fast growth rate and extensive coverage it may be beneficial to promote Azolla and Lemna in restored wetlands to boost C uptake from otherwise unproductive open water areas [108].

4.3 Dense canopies may dampen carbon uptake variability

Monthly median aerodynamic canopy heights for all site-years clearly showed canopy growth during the initial vegetation establishment after restoration, e.g. East End in 2014, Mayberry in 2011, and Sherman Wetland in 2018, as well as boom years immediately following the initial growth year, i.e. East End in 2015, Mayberry in 2012 and 2013 (Fig 5). Most canopies increased by 1 m during the growing season peaking in August before experiencing die-back and windfall in September and October with open water sites having overall shorter median canopy heights (<2 m) and closed canopies being taller (3 m). Although closed canopy sites had more dead and mixed litter patches, the higher canopy heights likely compensated any reduction in GEP. Some years also indicated a mid-season dip, such as Mayberry 2016 and 2017 likely due to disturbance events that limited plant growth, i.e. the salinisation event in 2016 [63] and an insect infestation in 2017.

The minimum canopy height at the start of the growing season represents the persistent litter layer that exists year-round and required around 2 years to accumulate. Taller canopies also translated to a higher dead litter layer. Our colleagues [77] showed that the plant area index (PAI), a proxy for leaf area index, at West Pond and Mayberry reflected litter height, which remained constantly high from the ground until the top of the litter layer showing how uniform and very dense the litter is throughout the canopy. Above this layer the PAI rapidly declines indicating the openness of canopies with erectophyle species. Due to emergent macrophytes remaining erect after senescence, the resulting litter build-up may introduce greater complexity and asynchrony between the relationships of NEE with environmental drivers. It is possible that this dense layer, taking years to build up, can insulate the below-canopy environment, such as by attenuating light, creating a stronger temperature gradient within the canopy, and retaining humidity. By altering the biophysical properties, the layer can impact gas exchange [109], such as reducing respiration rates which would also explain the higher NEE despite dead vegetation patches. In their supplemental information, a previous study [110] showed that West Pond, the oldest wetland, had more asynchronous NEE driver responses at longer multiday to seasonal timescales compared to Mayberry, which was a young wetland at the time. Wetlands with more dense canopies were also more consistent C sinks regardless of age. This disconnect may lessen the effects of weather extremes on C uptake but increase responses to local ground conditions possibly explaining some of the large differences between sites and years when meteorological conditions were comparable.

4.4 Productive marshes are large net carbon sinks, but disturbance can strongly reduce sink strength

Site-mean annual NEE balances and radiative forcings were discussed and compared elsewhere [42,14] and showed that these wetlands can be GHG sinks when net C uptake is high enough to offset CH4 emissions. Hence, this study focusses on how the C uptake variability between individual years was related to vegetation dynamics which can be managed to maximise the wetland’s climate change mitigation function. It is important to note that GEP is not an independent measure, as it is calculated by the difference of partitioned ecosystem respiration from night time NEE fluxes [111], and may be overestimated by around 15% during the growing season using this partitioning method [112].

Most sites became a net C sink two years after restoration under both vegetation establishment trajectories with a total vegetation cover of 0.50 for the rapid and 0.28 for the slow trajectories, which corresponded to a cross-site mean NEE for the second years of -562 ± 35.5 gC m-2 yr-1 for the rapid and -133 ± 383 gC m-2 yr-1 for the slow trajectory wetlands, respectively. The sites with rapid vegetation expansion (West Pond, East End, and East Pond after 2013) were all consistent C sinks, whereas the slower expanding systems had C source years (Sherman Wetland, where vegetation had still not fully established after 2 years) or had greater interannual variability with some years being near C neutral (CV of 0.86 for Mayberry), most of which could be attributed to disturbance events. Net C uptake required on average 55% vegetation cover, which both trajectories achieved (at 2 and 5 years for the rapid and slow expansion trajectories respectively). Overall, vegetation proportion only accounted for less than half of year-to-year variability in NEE once plants were established. NEE only scaled with vegetation extent in the initial years, after which other factors became more dominant drivers representing a succession of NEE flux drivers. If restoration plans design a bathymetry allowing for a minimum of 55% plant cover, although potentially not reducing net C uptake, the channels and ponds will likely not accrete soil as fast as the surrounding vegetation creating larger depth gradients between the water and plants. This may lead to future maintenance issues, such as increased water use to sustain sufficient inundation for peak plant productivity and avoid drought stress.

Considerable interannual variability in C sink strength ranging from -718 ± 72.4 to -25.9 ± 55.5 gC CO2 m-2 yr-1 after vegetation establishment was seen at all sites, even 20 years post-restoration, as was found in other restored wetlands ranging from -481 to 572 gC CO2 m-2 yr-1 [113]. This agrees with the range of net C balances from undisturbed freshwater marshes of -978 to 43 gC m-2 yr-1 with a median around-272.1 gC m-2 yr-1 [26]. For most of the low uptake years in the Delta, disturbance events, including salinization [63], low water levels, and insect infestations, were responsible for lowering GEP. In other years, carryover effects were found to impact C uptake causing low C sequestration efficiencies (NEP/GEP ratio), which is determined by the balance of GEP and Reco. Such a dynamic was found at Mayberry, i.e. years 2 (2012) and 3 (2013), which had no clear indications of disturbance, but resulted in a net C neutral year in 2013. Mayberry experienced the largest vegetation growth and highest GEP in 2012, which was accompanied by higher than average Reco relative to GEP resulting in moderate net C uptake. In 2013, however, high Reco matched the high GEP leading to a C neutral year. These early years show a boom and bust cycle (Fig 6), wherein both autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration was promoted initially via the expansion of biomass including belowground roots and the input of fresh root exudates driving soil microbial activity. The following year, these easily-degradable C inputs from the excessive build-up of dead material from the previous year provided additional substrates to elevate Reco compared to GEP [114]. Another study [28] also saw successional patterns in aboveground biomass in restored wetlands with planted vegetation, where the unplanted wetland was more productive 10 years later but had lower diversity and was more susceptible to stress. Because soil C in wetlands is mostly protected by anaerobic conditions, disturbances, especially involving changes in water levels, can cause disproportionately large C losses both from increasing Reco and reducing GEP, which has been observed in other disturbed wetlands [115,116 and references therein]. Since wetland C is more susceptibile than non-saturated systems, it is crucial, where possible, to manage wetlands to mitigate the impacts of disturbance or extreme events on GEP to maintain high C sequestration, as well as minimise Reco. Management activities depend on the wetland design, but examples may include maintaining water levels to fully inundate soils, while protecting plants from salt intrusions and accumulation in freshwater systems, pest and pathogen infestations, etc. [14].

Generally, the C sequestration efficiency increased as wetlands aged. In several post-establishment site-years the C sequestration efficiency approached the theoretically constrained value of 0.3 (i.e. half the maximum value) and was similar to those measured in other aquatic systems [117] and nutrient-rich upland forest ecosystems [118]. The overall slope of NEP to GEP (slope = 0.58) approached that found in a synthesis of 92 forest sites (slope = 0.73), which are considered to have the highest climate mitigation potential in terms of C sequestration [22]. Considering the substantially longer residence time of C sequestered in wetlands (>1000 years) compared to upland forests (~100s of years), our results highlight that productive marshes provide important contributions towards C sequestration goals, especially over climate-relevant timescales. Although wetland restoration creates additional greenhouse gas emissions, these can either be reduced by management strategies (e.g. Table 2 in reference 14) or be offset partially or completely if productivity is high enough to reach an immediate net GHG sink status, as well as a future GHG sink using cumulative GHG emission metrics. Several site-years were shown to already be small to moderate net GHG sinks even with high CH4 emissions, due to the high NEP only a few years after restoration [14].

5 Conclusions

Wetland restoration as a negative emission technology requires systems to remain net C sinks over decadal to century timeframes. There is an urgent need to quantify and understand ecosystem-scale C fluxes from complex heterogeneous wetlands over longer timeframes, as studies have shown wetlands to vary from being strong C sinks to considerable C sources. To better understand the drivers of variability in C sink strength related to restoration design and vegetation dynamics, we investigated eddy covariance CO2 flux measurements covering 21 site-years of five highly productive restored marshes in a Mediterranean climate that represent a range of post-restoration stages. Our results showed that established wetlands were strong net C sinks even with high interannual variability in NEE decades after restoration.

Overall, we found that restored wetlands generally became strong C sinks as early as two years after restoration and with a vegetation cover >55%. The trajectory of vegetation establishment depended on restoration design, such as bathymetry-determined water levels and planting methods with possible legacy effects, such as nutrient inputs, from previous land use. Furthermore, seemingly unproductive patches of dead litter or small floating aquatic vegetation and algae provided a non-negligible contribution to annual net C uptake. However, the relationship of plant cover to NEE only explained around half of the interannual variability, with a stronger relationship during establishment years, indicating a succession of dominant NEE flux drivers. Canopy height, as estimated from turbulence statistics, provided insight on vegetation structure, which increased in complexity with wetland age and showed boom-bust cycles that explained undisturbed years with low C uptake. As wetlands matured, the dead litter layer created a buffer between the atmosphere and the below canopy environment possibly causing lag effects between environmental drivers of NEE which may strengthen the C sink stability. This may explain one process by which small-scale effects became more dominant drivers of NEE and some of the large variability between years when meteorological conditions were similar.

Our data showed that restored wetlands within the same climate varied significantly in their functioning, including net C uptake rates and flux drivers, which depended on the restoration design, wetland age, and disturbance events. Overall, the net C uptake capabilities of these wetlands were large but, especially wetlands with lower vegetation cover and hence C uptake, were susceptible to local disturbance events. We stress the importance and need of such site-specific characteristics to be considered in wetland restoration designs and post-restoration management. The high C sequestration efficiency, on average 20–30% of GEP, was comparable to that of upland systems, indicating that such productive marshes if well-managed may be more efficient for C sequestration than upland systems, as well as provide a wide extent of co-benefits even from small wetlands areas.

Supporting information

S1 File. Contains supporting text, figures, and tables.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback which greatly helped to improve this manuscript. The authors recognise the work of all past and present Berkeley Biometeorology Lab members who helped maintain towers and collected and processed data over the lifetime of these sites, as well as the undergraduate summer lab assistants. We thank the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for collaboration and access to the research sites.

Data Availability

All sites used in this analysis are part of the AmeriFlux network, with data available at http://ameriflux.lbl.gov/ with designations US-Tw1, US-Tw4, US-Tw5, US-Myb, and US-Sne.

Funding Statement

This work was supported in the form of funding by the California Department of Water Resources through a contract from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Department of Agriculture (NIFA grant #2011-67003-30371) awarded to DDB. Funding for the AmeriFlux core sites was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science (AmeriFlux contract #7079856) and the aerial images and footprint mapping was funded by the Delta Science Program grant #R/SF-52 awarded to DDB and KSH. KK was supported by the Estonian Research Council grant No. PSG631 and by the Baltic-American Freedom Foundation Research Scholar program. KSH, ST and TLA were supported by the California Sea Grant Delta Science Fellowship (programs R/SF-70, R/SF-71 and R/SF-89 and grant no. 2271 and 5298). McIntire Stennis grant CA- B-ECO-7673-MS awarded to WLS partially supported this work. This work uses data and processing services provided by the OpenTopography Facility with support from the National Science Foundation under NSF Award Numbers 1948997, 1948994 & 1948857.

References

  • 1.Guo LB, Gifford RM. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol, 2002; 8(4): 345–360. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Scharlemann JPW, Tanner EVJ, Hiederer R, Kapos V. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Manag, 2014; 5(1): 81–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nichols JE, Peteet DM. Rapid expansion of northern peatlands and doubled estimate of carbon storage, Nat Geosci, 2019; 12, 917–921. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. Wetlands Fifth Edition. Wiley and Sons; (Vol. 5), 2015. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Köchy M, Hiederer R, Freibauer A. Global distribution of soil organic carbon–Part 1: Masses and frequency distributions of SOC stocks for the tropics, permafrost regions, wetlands, and the world. Soil, 2015; (1), 351–365. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Villa JA, Bernal B. Carbon sequestration in wetlands, from science to practice: An overview of the biogeochemical process, measurement methods, and policy framework. Ecol Eng, 2018; 114, 115–128. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.06.037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hemes KS, Chamberlain SD, Eichelmann E, Knox SH, Baldocchi DD. A Biogeochemical Compromise: The High Methane Cost of Sequestering Carbon in Restored Wetlands. Geophys Res Lett, 2018a; 45(12), 6081–6091. 10.1029/2018GL077747. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Humpenöder F, Karstens K, Lotze-Campen H, Leifeld J, Menichetti L, Barthelmes A, et al. Peatland protection and restoration are key for climate change mitigation, Environ Res Lett, 2020; 15, 104093. 10.1088/1748-9326/abae2a [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Windham-Myers L, Bergamaschi B, Anderson F, Knox SH, Miller RL, Fujii R. Potential for negative emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) through coastal peatland re-establishment: Novel insights from high frequency flux data at meter and kilometer scales. Environ Res Lett, 2018; 13(4), 045005. 10.1088/1748-9326/aaae74. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Moseman-Valtierra S, Gonzalez R, Kroeger KD, Tang J, Chao WC, Crusius J, et al. Short-term nitrogen additions can shift a coastal wetland from a sink to a source of N2O. Atmos Environ, 2011; 26(45), 4390–4397. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Frolking S, Roulet N, Fuglestvedt J. How northern peatlands influence the Earth’s radiative budget: Sustained methane emission versus sustained carbon sequestration. J Geophys Res Biogeosci, 2006; 111(1), 1–10. 10.1029/2005JG000091. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Günther A, Barthelmes A, Huth V, Joosten H, Jurasinski G, Koebsch F, et al. Prompt rewetting of drained peatlands reduces climate warming despite methane emissions, Nat Commun, 2020; 11(1), 1–5. 10.1038/s41467-019-13993-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Neubauer SC, Megonigal JP. Moving Beyond Global Warming Potentials to Quantify the Climatic Role of Ecosystems. Ecosyst, 2015; 18(6), 1000–1013. 10.1007/s10021-015-9879-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Valach AC, Kasak K, Hemes KS, Szutu D, Verfaillie J, Baldocchi DD. A Synthesis of Carbon Flux Trajectories and Site Conditions from the Restoration of Impounded Marshes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In: Wetland Carbon and Environmental Management, (eds) Krauss K.W., Zhu Z., and Stagg C.L. AGU publishing: USA, accepted. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mitsch WJ, Bernal B, Nahlik AM, Mander Ü, Zhang L, Anderson CJ, et al. Wetlands, carbon, and climate change. Landsc Ecol, 2013; 28(4), 583–597. 10.1007/s10980-012-9758-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Petrescu AMR, Lohila A, Tuovinen J- P, Baldocchi DD, Desai AR, Roulet NT, et al. The uncertain climate footprint of wetlands under human pressure. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2015; 112(15), 4594–4599. 10.1073/pnas.1416267112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Syvitski JPM, Kettner AJ, Overeem I, Hutton EWH, Hannon MT, Brakenridge GR, et al. Sinking deltas due to human activities. Nat Geosci, 2009; 2, 681–686. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Altor A, Mitsch WJ. Pulsing hydrology, methane emissions and carbon dioxide fluxes in created marshes: A 2-year ecosystem study. Wetlands, 2008; 28(2), 423–438. 10.1672/07-98.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Anderson F, Bergamaschi B, Sturtevant C, Knox SH, Hastings L, Windham-Myers L, et al. Variation of energy and carbon fluxes from a temperate freshwater wetland and implications for carbon market verification protocols. J Geophys Res Biogeosci, 2016; 121, 1–19. 10.1002/2015JG003083 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Li X, Wahlroos O, Haapanala S, Pumpanen J, Vasander H, Ojala A, et al. Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes from different surface types in a created urban wetland. Biogeosciences, 2020; 17, 3409–3425. 10.5194/bg-17-3409-2020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Schäfer KVR, Duman T, Tomasicchio K, Tripathee R, Sturtevant C. Carbon dioxide fluxes of temperate urban wetlands with different restoration history. Agric For Meteorol, 2019; 275, 223–232. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.05.026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G, Miteva DA, et al. Natural Climate Solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2017; 11–12. 10.1073/pnas.1619329114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kayranli B, Scholz M, Mustafa A, Hedmark Å. Carbon Storage and Fluxes within Freshwater. Wetlands, 2010; 30, 111–124. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mitsch WJ, Mander Ü. Wetlands and carbon revisited. Ecol Eng, 2018; 114, 1–6. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.12.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Negandhi K, Edwards G, Kelleway JJ, Howard D, Safari D, Saintilan N. Blue carbon potential of coastal wetland restoration varies with inundation and rainfall. Sci Rep, 2019; 9(4368), 1–9. 10.1038/s41598-019-40763-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Taillardat P, Thompson BS, Garneau M, Trottier K, Friess DA. Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration, Interface Focus, 2020; 10, 20190129. 10.1098/rsfs.2019.0129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Krauss KW, Noe GB, Duberstein JA,Conner WH, Stagg CL, Cormier N, et al. The Role of the Upper Tidal Estuary in Wetland Blue Carbon Storage and Flux. Global Biogeochem Cycles, 2018; 32, 817–839. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mitsch WJ, Zhang L, Anderson CJ, Altor AE, Hernández ME. Creating riverine wetlands: Ecological succession, nutrient retention, and pulsing effects. Ecol Eng, 2005; 25(5), 510–527. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.04.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Emilson EJS, Carson MA, Yakimovich KM, Osterholz H, Dittmar T, Gunn JM, et al. Climate-driven shifts in sediment chemistry enhance methane production in northern lakes. Nat Commun, 2018; 9(1), 1801. 10.1038/s41467-018-04236-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McLeod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte CM, et al. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering C. Front Ecol Environ, 2011; 9(10), 552–560. 10.1890/110004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Parker VT, Callaway J, Schile LM, Vasey MC, Herbert ER. Climate Change and San Francisco Bay-Delta Tidal Wetlands Climate Change and San Francisco Bay–Delta Tidal Wetlands. SF Est Wat Sci, 2011; 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lu W, Xiao J, Liu F, Zhang Y, Liu C, Lin G. Contrasting ecosystem CO2 fluxes of inland and coastal wetlands: a meta-analysis of eddy covariance data. Glob Chang Biol, 2017; 23(3), 1180–1198. 10.1111/gcb.13424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rogers K, Kelleway J, Saintilan N, Megonigal P, Adams J, Holmquist J, et al. Wetland carbon storage controlled by millennial-scale variation in relative sea-level rise, Nat Lett, 2019; 567 (7746), 91–95. 10.1038/s41586-019-0951-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Piao S, Wang X, Wang K, Li X, Bastos A, Canadell JG, et al. Interannual variation of terrestrial carbon cycle: Issues and perspectives, Glob Chang Biol, 2020; 26(1), 300–318. 10.1111/gcb.14884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Saunois M, Bousquet P, Poulter B, Peregon A, Ciais P, Canadell JG, et al. The global methane budget 2000–2012. Earth Syst Sci Data, 2016; 8, 697–751. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abbott KM, Elsey-Quirk T, DeLaune RD. Factors influencing blue carbon accumulation across a 32-year chronosequence of created coastal marshes. Ecosphere, 2019; 10(8). 10.1002/ecs2.2828 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Luyssaert S, Inglima I, Jung M, Richardson AD, Reichstein M, Papale D, et al. CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob Chang Biol, 2007; 13(12), 2509–2537. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01439.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Childers D. A Decade of Ecosystem-Scale Research at an Aridland Constructed Treatment Wetland, Front Environ Sci, 2020; 8:576936. 10.3389/fenvs.2020.576936 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pugh CA, Reed DE, Desai AR, Sulman BN. Wetland flux controls: how does interacting water table levels and temperature influence carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in northern Wisconsin? Biogeochem Lett, 2018; 137, 15–25. 10.1007/s10533-017-0414-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tuovinen J- P, Aurela M, Hatakka J, Räsänen A, Virtanen T, Mikola J, et al. Interpreting eddy covariance data from heterogeneous Siberian tundra: land cover-specific methane fluxes and spatial representativeness. Biogeosciences, 2019; 16, 255–274. 10.5194/bg-16-255-2019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Drexler J, Khanna S, Schoellhamer DH, Orlando JJ. The Fate of Blue Carbon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California, USA. In: Windham-Myers L. C., A Blue Carbon Primer. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hemes KS, Chamberlain SD, Eichelmann E, Anthony T, Valach AC, Kasak K, et al. Assessing the carbon and climate benefit of restoring degraded agricultural peat soils to managed wetlands. Agric For Meteorol, 2019; 268(1), 202–214. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.01.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Deverel S, Leighton D. Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA. SF Est Wat Sci, 2010; 6(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Miller RL, Fujii R. Re-establishing marshes can turn a current carbon source into a carbon sink in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California, USA. River Deltas: Types, Structures and Ecology. Nova Science Publishers: New York City, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mount J, Twiss R. Subsidence, sea level rise, and seismicity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. SF Est Wat Sci, 2005; 3(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Miller RL, Fram MS, Fujii R, Wheeler G. Subsidence Reversal in a Re-established Wetland in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA. SF Est Wat Sci, 2008; 6(3), 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Deverel SJ, Bachand S, Brandenberg SJ, Jones CE, Stewart JP, Zimmaro P. Factors and Processes Affecting Delta Levee System Vulnerability. SF Est Wat Sci, 2016; 14(4), 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bates MEL Jr. Delta Subsidence Reversal, Levee Failure, and Aquatic Habitat—A Cautionary Tale. SF Est Wat Sci, 2013; 11(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Windham-Myers L, Crooks S, Troxler TG. A blue carbon primer, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2019. 10.1002/etc.4535 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Essl F, Erb K- H, Glatzel S, Pauchard A. Climate change, carbon market instruments, and biodiversity: focusing on synergies and avoiding pitfalls. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2018. 9(1), e486. 10.1002/wcc.486. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Howard J, Hoyt S, Isensee K, Pidgeon E, Telszewski M (eds.). Coastal Blue Carbon: Methods for assessing carbon stocks and emissions factors in mangroves, tidal salt marshes, and seagrass meadows. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Conservation International, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2014.
  • 52.Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. Delta vision strategic plan. State of California, Resources Agency, California, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Laleh S, Madani K, Naeeni STO. Finding the socially optimal solution for California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta problem. Reston, VA: ASCE copyright Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress; May 22. 26, 2011, Palm Springs, California| d 20110000. American Society of Civil Engineers, USA.
  • 54.Lund JR. Comparing futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Public Policy Instit. of CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Delta Stewardship Council. The Delta Plan. Sacramento: State of California, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kimmerer WJ, Murphy DD, Angermeier PL. A Landscape-level Model for Ecosystem Restoration in the San Francisco Estuary and its Watershed. SF Est Wat Sci, 2005; 3(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Luoma SN, Dahm CN, Healey M, Moore JN. Challenges Facing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Complex, Chaotic, or Simply Cantankerous? SF Est Wat Sci, 2015; 13(7), 1–25. 10.15447/sfews.2015v13iss3art7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Perring MP, Audet P, Lamb D. Novel ecosystems in ecological restoration and rehabilitation: Innovative planning or lowering the bar? Ecol Process, 2014; 3(1), 8. 10.1186/2192-1709-3-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Suding KN, Gross KL, Houseman GR. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evol, 2004; 19(1), 46–53. 10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Baldocchi D, Detto M, Sonnentag O, Verfaillie J, Teh YA, Silver W, et al. The challenges of measuring methane fluxes and concentrations over a peatland pasture. Agric For Meteorol, 2012; 153, 177–187. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.04.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.San Francisco Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center, A Delta Transformed: Ecological Functions, Spatial Metrics, and Landscape Change in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Ecosystem Restoration Program. A Report of SFEI-ASC’s Resilient Landscapes Program, Publication #729, San Francisco Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center, Richmond, CA, 2014.
  • 62.Eichelmann E, Hemes KS, Knox SH, Oikawa PY, Chamberlain SD, Sturtevant C, et al. The effect of land cover type and structure on evapotranspiration from agricultural and wetland sites in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California. Agric For Meteorol, 2018; 256–257, 179–195. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.03.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chamberlain SD, Eichelmann E, Hemes KS, Szutu D, Verfaillie J, Baldocchi DD. Effect of drought-induced salinization on wetland methane emissions, gross ecosystem photosynthesis, and their interactions, Ecosyst, 2019; 1–14, 10.1007/s10021-019-00430-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Miller RL, Fujii R. Plant community, primary productivity, and environmental conditions following wetland re-establishment in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. Wetl Ecol Manag, 2010; 18(1), 1–16. 10.1007/s11273-009-9143-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Taddeo S, Dronova I. Indicators of vegetation development in restored wetlands. Ecol Indic, 2018; 94, 454–467. 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.07.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Baldocchi DD, Hicks BB, Meyers TP. Measuring Biosphere-Atmosphere Exchanges of Biologically Related Gases with Micrometeorological Methods. Ecology, 1988; 69(5), 1331–1340. 10.2307/1941631 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Knox SH, Sturtevant C, Matthes JH, Koteen L, Verfaillie J, Baldocchi D. Agricultural peatland restoration: effects of land-use change on greenhouse gas (CO2 and CH4) fluxes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Glob Chang Biol, 2015; 21(2), 750–765. 10.1111/gcb.12745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Detto M, Montaldo N, Albertson JD, Mancini M, Katul G. Soil moisture and vegetation controls on evapotranspiration in a heterogeneous Mediterranean ecosystem on Sardinia, Italy. Water Resour Res, 2006; 42(8), W08419. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hsieh CI, Katul G, Chi T. An approximate analytical model for footprint estimation of scaler fluxes in thermally stratified atmospheric flow. Adv Water Resour, 2000; 23(7), 765–772. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kljun N, Calanca P, Rotach MW, Schmid HP. A simple two-dimensional parameterisation for Flux Footprint Prediction (FFP), Geosci Model Dev, 2015; 8, 3695–3713. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Hatala-Matthes J, Sturtevant C, Verfaillie J, Knox SH, Baldocchi D. Parsing the variability in CH 4 flux at a spatially heterogeneous wetland: Integrating multiple eddy covariance towers with high-resolution flux footprint analysis. J Geophys Res Biogeosci, 2014; 119(7), 1322–1339. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Esri Inc. (2020). ArcMap v10.3.1. Esri Inc. https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Dronova I, Taddeo S, Hemes KS, Knox SH, Valach AC, Oikawa PY, et al. Remotely sensed phenological heterogeneity of restored wetlands: linking vegetation structure and function, Agric For Meteorol, accepted 2020; 296, 108215. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108215 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Chu H, Baldocchi DD, Poindexter C, Abraha M, Desai AR, Bohrer G, et al. Temporal Dynamics of Aerodynamic Canopy Height Derived from Eddy Covariance Momentum Flux Data Across North American Flux Networks. Geophys Res Lett, 2018; 45(17), 9275–9287. 10.1029/2018GL079306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Pennypacker S, Baldocchi D. Seeing the Fields and Forests: Application of Surface-Layer Theory and Flux-Tower Data to Calculating Vegetation Canopy Height. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 2016; 158, 165–182. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Raupach M. Simplified expressions for vegetation roughness length and zero-plane displacement as functions of canopy height and area index. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 1994; 71, 211–216. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Dronova I, Taddeo S. Canopy Leaf Area Index in Non-Forested Marshes of the California Delta. Wetlands, 2016; 36, 705–716. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Dunn O. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 1964; 6, 241–252. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Team RStudio. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA, 2019. http://www.rstudio.com/. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Carslaw DC, Ropkins K. openair—an R package for air quality data analysis. Environmental Modelling and Software, 2012; 27–28, 52–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Ogle DH, Wheeler P, Dinno A. FSA: Fisheries Stock Analysis. R package version 0.8.22, 2018. Retrieved from https://github.com/droglenc/FSA. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Flechard CR, van Oijen M, Cameron DR, de Vries W, Ibrom A, Buchmann N, et al. Carbon/nitrogen interactions in European forests and semi-natural vegetation. Part 2: Untangling climatic, edaphic, management and nitrogen deposition effects on carbon sequestration potentials, Biogeosciences, 2020; 6(17), 1621–1654. 10.5194/bg-17-1621-2020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Sloey TM, Willis JM, Hester MW. Hydrologic and edaphic constraints on Schoenoplectus acutus, Schoenoplectus californicus, and Typha latifolia in tidal marsh restoration. Restor Ecol, 2015; 23(4), 430–438. 10.1111/rec.12212. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Sloey T, Hester M. The Role of Seed Bank and Germination Dynamics in the Restoration of a Tidal Freshwater Marsh in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. SF Est Wat Sci, 2019; 17(3). 10.15447/sfews.2019v17iss3art5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Newman S, Grace JB, Koebel JW. Effects of Nutrients and Hydroperiod on Typha, Cladium, and Eleocharis: Implications for Everglades Restoration. Ecol Appl, 1996; 6(3), 774–783. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Svengsouk LJ, Mitsch WJ. Dynamics of mixtures of Typha latifolia and Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani in nutrient-enrichment wetland experiments. Am Midl Nat, 2001; 145(2), 309–324. 10.1674/0003-0031(2001)145[0309:Domotl]2.0.Co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Hong MG, Nam BE, Kim JG. Effects of soil fertility on early development of wetland vegetation from soil seed bank: focusing on biomass production and plant species diversity. J Plant Biol, 2017; 60, 241–248. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Matthews JW, Spyreas G, Endress AG. Trajectories of vegetation-based indicators used to assess wetland restoration progress. Ecol Appl, 2009; 19(8), 2093–2107. 10.1890/08-1371.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Mitsch WJ, Wilson RF. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecol Appl, 1996; 6(1), 77–83. 10.2307/2269554 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R. Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems. PLoS Biol, 2012; 10(1), e1001247. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Berkowitz JF. Development of restoration trajectory metrics in reforested bottomland hardwood forests applying a rapid assessment approach. Ecol Indic, 2013; 34, 600–606. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.06.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Byrd KB, O’Connell JL, Di Tommaso S, Kelly M. Evaluation of sensor types and environmental controls on mapping biomass of coastal marsh emergent vegetation. Remote Sens Environ, 2014; 149, 166–180. 10.1016/J.RSE.2014.04.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Langley JA, Megonigal JP. Field-based radiometry to estimate tidal marsh plant growth in response to elevated CO2 and nitrogen addition. Wetlands, 2012; 32, 571–578. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Schile LM, Byrd KB, Windham-Myers L, Kelly M. Accounting for non-photosynthetic vegetation in remote-sensing-based estimates of carbon flux in wetlands. Remote Sens Lett, 2013; 6(4), 542–551. 10.1080/2150704X.2013.766372 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Bouchard V, Frey SD, Gilbert JM, Reed SE. Effects of macrophyte functional group richness on emergent freshwater wetland functions. Ecology, 2007; 88(11), 2903–2914. 10.1890/06-1144.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Rothman E, Bouchard V. Regulation of carbon processes by macrophyte species in a Great Lakes coastal wetland. Wetlands, 2007, 27(4), 1134–1143. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Surenthiran S, Loganathan P. Carbon sequestration of Azolla and soil nitrogen mineralization. Proceedings of International Forestry and Environment Symposium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Speelman EN, Van Kempen MML, Barke J, Brinkhuis H, Reichart GJ, Smolders AJP, et al. The Eocene Arctic Azolla bloom: environmental conditions, productivity and carbon drawdown. Geobiology, 2009; 7, 155–170. 10.1111/j.1472-4669.2009.00195.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Bharati K, Mohanty SR, Singh DP, Rao VR, Adhya TK. Influence of incorporation or dual cropping of Azolla on methane emission from a flooded alluvial soil planted to rice in eastern India. Agriculture, Ecosyst Environ, 2000; 79, 73–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Prasanna R, Kumar V, Kumar S, Kumar Yadav A, Tripathi U, Kumar Singh A, et al. Methane production in rice soil is inhibited by cyanobacteria. Microbiol Res, 2002; 157, 1–6. 10.1078/0944-5013-00124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Iguchi H, Umeda R, Taga H, Oyama T, Yurimoto H, Sakai Y. Community composition and methane oxidation activity of methanotrophs associated with duckweeds in a freshwater lake. J Biosci Bioeng, 2019; 128(4), 450–455. 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2019.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Mohedano RA, Tonon G, Costa RHR, Pelissari C, Belli Filho P. Does duckweed ponds used for wastewater treatment emit or sequester greenhouse gases? Sci Total Environ, 2019; 691, 1043–1050. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Lee JS, Lee JP. Review of advances in biological CO2mitigation technology. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng, 2003; 8, 354–359. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Sahoo D, Elangbam G, Devi SS. Using algae for carbon dioxide capture and bio-fuel production to combat climate change. Phykos, 2012; 42(1), 32–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Brouwer P, van der Werf A, Schluepmann H, Reichart G- J, Nierop KG. Lipid yield and composition of Azolla filiculoides and the implications for biodiesel production. Bioenergy Res, 2015; 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Kollah B, Patra AK, Mohanty SR. Aquatic microphylla Azolla: a perspective paradigm for sustainable agriculture, environment and global climate change. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 2016; 23(5), 4358–4369. 10.1007/s11356-015-5857-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Hemes KS, Eichelmann E, Chamberlain SD, Knox SH, Oikawa PY, Sturtevant C, et al. A Unique Combination of Aerodynamic and Surface Properties Contribute to Surface Cooling in Restored Wetlands of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. J Geophys Res Biogeosci, 2018b; 7(123), 2072–2090. 10.1029/2018JG004494 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Sturtevant C, Ruddell BL, Knox SH, Verfaillie J, Hatala Matthes J, Oikawa P, et al. Identifying scale-emergent, non-linear, asynchronous processes of wetland methane. J Geophys Res Biogeosci, 2016; 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Knox SH, Hatala JA, Sturtevant CS, Oikawa PY, Verfaillie J, Baldocchi D. Biophysical controls on interannual variability in ecosystem-scale CO2 and CH4 exchange in a California rice paddy. J Geophys Res Biogeosci, 2016; 121, 1–24. 10.1002/2015JG003247. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Keenan TF, Migliavacca M, Papale D, Baldocchi D, Reichstein M, Torn M, et al. Widespread inhibition of daytime ecosystem respiration. Nat Ecol Evol, 2019; 3(3), 407–415. 10.1038/s41559-019-0809-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Duman T, Schäfer KVR. Partitioning net ecosystem carbon exchange of native and invasive plant communities by vegetation cover in an urban tidal wetland in the New Jersey Meadowlands (USA), Ecol Eng, 2018; 224, 16–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Cardon ZG, Czaja AD, Funk JL, Vitt PL. Periodic carbon flushing to roots of Quercus rubra saplings affects soil respiration and rhizosphere microbial biomass. Oecologia, 2002; 133(2), 215–223. 10.1007/s00442-002-1045-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Macreadie PI, Hughes AR, Kimbro DL. Loss of ‘Blue Carbon’ from Coastal Salt Marshes Following Habitat Disturbance. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8(7): e69244. 10.1371/journal.pone.0069244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Moomaw W.R., Chmura G.L., Davies G.T. et al. Wetlands In a Changing Climate: Science, Policy and Management. Wetlands, 2018; 38, 183–205. 10.1007/s13157-018-1023-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Sinsabaugh RL, Manzoni S, Moorhead DL, Richter A. Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: Stoichiometry, methodology and modelling. Ecol Lett, 2013; 16(7), 930–939. 10.1111/ele.12113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Fernández-Martínez M, Vicca S, Janssens IA, Sardans J, Luyssaert S, Campioli M, et al. Nutrient availability as the key regulator of global forest carbon balance. Nat Clim Chang, 2014; 4(6), 471–476. 10.1038/nclimate2177. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hojeong Kang

17 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-35610

Wetland restoration for natural climate solutions: Productive wetlands quickly become net CO2 sinks, but multiyear sink strength and stability vary with site-level factors related to restoration design and management

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Valach,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 01 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hojeong Kang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers were generally positive about the paper, but raised several issues that should be addressed. I'd recommend the authors to address them thoroughly and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

"NO"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. We note that Figures 1 and Supplementary Figures S1-3 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

4.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and Supplementary Figures S1-3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

4.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study combines eddy covariance data from five different restored peat-rich wetlands in the San Joaquin delta to evaluate the carbon sink potential of restored wetland as a climate change mitigation option. The authors also compile data on plant cover within the flux footprints to better understand simple indicators of when restored sites will act as carbon sinks. The authors found that wetlands quickly became carbon sinks, but the sink strength varied between years, which they refer to as “fragility”. Overall, the results are sounds and this is a valuable data set used to interrogate management options. Aside from some minor corrections, I suggest that the authors also more clearly demonstrate how fragile the carbon sink function of these restored sites is. They compare these systems to forests, but it would also be worthwhile to place the interannual variability into the context of the interannual variability that would be observed in an undisturbed (or at least less disturbed) marsh system. I also think that making some clearer management recommendations/policy recommendations at the end of the paper could strengthen it overall (i.e., should marsh restoration be considered a climate change mitigation strategy? What does “well-managed” look like/require?).

Specific comments:

Line 84: How much does the past management actions affect the post-restoration outcome (i.e., could the same restoration approaches result in different outcomes depending on the management during agricultural use)?

Line 90-91: Is this really a fair assumption? At least in freshwater inland peatlands these losses can be a very important component of the C budget (Roulet et al 2007, Evans et al 2016).

Line 98: But will those values be included here again for management considerations?

Line 271: I think it should be “NEE and GEP during the corresponding…”

Lines 320-321: Isn’t the correlation between GEP and NEP confounded since the former is calculated from the latter? Do you really need this correlation to explain the findings?

Line 358: I suggest rewording this as something like “Based on soil samples, we found that East End had very high nutrients…”

Line 377: What “despite”. I would guess that the litter build-up is a good indicator that the site is a C sink (i.e., you are visually seeing the C accumulate in the accumulating litter). I guess, the thought is that the litter is a new source for C release via respiration?

Line 437: I’m not sure you really show the fragility in this section. It’s true that they were C sources in some years, but this was mainly in the early years post-restoration or during known disturbances. There are also risks for other types of C sinks (like forests mentioned in this section), so I think the reasons marshes might be more fragile needs to be more clearly explained in this section, or how you define this interannual variability needs to be reworded.

Reviewer #2: Summary. Freshwater peatlands store large amounts of carbon in their soils and vegetation, and there is growing interest in using wetland restoration, conservation and management techniques as a climate mitigation strategies. This paper takes advantage of long-term eddy covariance CO2 flux measurements and associated measurements of vegetation community and restoration design to measure CO2 sink strength in 5 wetlands. All 5 wetlands experience similar climate conditions, allowing the authors to explore site-specific controls of CO2 sink. The manuscript shows that vegetation recovery followed 2 distinct trajectories based on restoration design and that most became a CO2 sink after reaching 55% vegetation cover. The manuscript offers additional insights into the temporal variability of sink strength. The manuscript is timely and generally well written. I offer a few comments below.

General Comments.

The title is a mouthful. I don’t think it is ‘wrong’ per se, it is just really long. I have to wonder if there is any way to trim it down and still give the reader a sense of the story.

The authors are clear that in the current MS they are focusing on time-series of CO2 fluxes to explore their controls and that they are not attempting to conduct a fully greenhouse gas accounting for these systems (e.g., L96-98; L438-440). This decision makes sense to me, especially considering that radiative forcing has been explored elsewhere, but it does limit the ability of the authors to make a strong case for climate mitigation in these systems and explore their use as ‘natural climate solutions’. Is there is a chance to fold in a bit more about CH4 and N2O fluxes in the discussion to further make the case that there is, indeed, a net climate benefit for restoration of these systems once they become net CO2 sinks? A full greenhouse gas balance is beyond the scope of the paper, but perhaps some broad brushstrokes for context?

I found the paragraph beginning in L389 to come out of nowhere. This is the first mention of Azolla in the entire manuscript aside from in the legend of Figure 3 (where it looks to cover ~15% in a single site). The authors then give a fair amount of space to Azolla, including conversation around its impacts on CH4 and N2O fluxes, which are not even measured in the current work. I take the point that floating plants and algae are non-negligible contributors to NEE in the study, but this discussion felt really disjointed from the rest of the paper to me.

Minor comments:

L17. Consider replacing “litter decomposition rates” with “decomposition”. It isn’t just litter that decays slowly (so does SOM, if litter and SOM are actually different things in a peatland?) and I think the word rate is redundant in this context.

L21. Consider removing “potentials”. You show that restoration impacts C sequestration, not just the potential for this process, right?

L27. Consider removing “and rates”

L31. Can you clarify what you mean by “which most wetlands achieved with vegetation establishment”? Are you saying that most systems become sinks once they hit the 55% threshold?

L32. I might add in the equation that you used to define sequestration efficiency (NEP/GPP) here.

L42-44. Estimates of carbon stocks in northern peatland soils have recently been expanded. Might be worth looking at -- Nichols, J.E., Peteet, D.M., 2019. Rapid expansion of northern peatlands and doubled estimate of carbon storage. Nature Geoscience 12, 917–921.

L50. I think you’re missing a word here. Perhaps “…uncertainty ABOUT whether….

L62. Can you replace the subject, “This”, with something more concrete? Something like “Exploring these site-specific controls requires….”

L65. I think you can rewrite this without making the authors (“us”) a part of the story. “The eddy covariance method allows for direct measurements of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) over an integrated ecosystem-scale area, and generally assumes that the sources are homogeneous and representative of the whole site.”

L81. Consider removing configurations.

L112-113. I think you need to add a comma after irreversible

L138-139. I think you need to add a comma after 2014. I also think that since there were multiple outbreaks you need to use were here. “In 2014, and to a lesser extent in 2017, there WERE insect infestationS that diminished the green aboveground biomsass.”

Table 1. Can you clarify why the dominant plant species in the Sherman Wetland is NA in this table? There is clearly some vegetation there (58% coverage). What does NA mean here?

L156. I would not discuss the eddy covariance methods used to measure CH4 if those data are not going to be considered in this paper.

L177-178. This language is redundant

L263. Can you clarify what is meant by “with vegetation cover >0.1” here? When I look at Figure 4a, it looks like your linear relationship was built with all of the data, including sites with lower vegetation cover. What am I missing here?

Figure 4. Just a note that you discuss this figure in the order 4a, 4c, 4b, 4d in the text. Do you want to move the panels to align with this order? I am also a bit confused by the units used on the vertical axis in Figure 4b and 4d. In the text, you suggest that you are looking at controls of monthly CUMULATIVE NEE and GEP. Yet, the axis units are PER MONTH. If this is a cumulative sum of multiple months, how can it be a per month number?

L167 (and elsewhere). My understanding is that i.e. (and e.g.) should be followed by commas “i.e.,” as these are abbreviations for phrases.

L269-273. I think this is a run-on sentence. Consider breaking it up and starting a second sentence with “Hence, we only discuss…”

L358-364. I appreciate the decision to put the detailed nutrient information in the supplement to streamline the story in the main body of the manuscript. However, I wonder if there is a way to be a bit more specific about nutrient levels in the main text. Could you provide summary statistics instead of “very high” and “low” when discussing nutrient levels.

L396. Replace “methane” with “CH4” – you’ve already used the abbreviation elsewhere

L484. Remove “here”.

L489. Replace “methane” with “CH4”

Reviewer #3: This is a fascinating paper, and I have no comments on the details. The manuscript is well written; the analysis is clear, the methods sound and the conclusions are based on the evidence provided.

However, I have one concern about the manuscript utility. If the goal is to assess the vegetation dynamics through time and how it affects the CO2 sequestration that is fine, this is of little use for wetlands and is only part of the story. This is especially true as the authors' selling point is the importance of knowing how the sequestration of CO2 into the stored organic matter is vital for assessing wetland restoration for climate mitigation potential. Yes, it is essential, but it is only part of the story. The paper seems to be to be an incomplete analysis as it ignores the other radiative gases. This team has dealt with the multi-gas problem in other studies, which they cite and say that it has been dealt with other authors (refs 41 – 43). Still, in part, the authors justify their study by arguing that the assessment of CO2 sequestration attributed to restoration needs to be done in the context of the site and wetlands involved. Without including the other GHGs, a conclusion of the role of restoration in mitigating climate cannot be made.

The authors should have the data to do this since they did, at least the CH4, and possibly the N2O EC measurements alongside the CO2 measurements. Vegetation and the same environmental variables that are important for CO2 uptake, are also important, though differently for CH4. In other papers (Environ Res Lett, 2018; 13(4), 045005). This group has shown that ebullition is important in these wetlands. Still, the CH4 production that allows the concentration of CH4 to build up to a level where ebullition can be supported is critically dependent on the vegetation in their study sites. It is the teams ERL paper that provides the argument for the need to analyze the other gases to assess the climate mitigation – “Fifth, as wetlands develop, the relative importance of CO2 vs. CH4 vs. N2O in constraining net GWP may vary significantly,”

The study could be completed by at least adding CH4. What would this do – the authors could make second x-axis on their graphs (Fig 4 & 6) that would have net GHG exchange in CO2 equivalents. Then the conclusions would change substantially. Rather than 2 to 3 years being the critical cross over time, it would be sometime later - one to many decades later, depending on the strength of the CH4 flux. One of the authors has participated in a study that explicitly treats the two- gas problem for wetlands (Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2015; 112(15), 4594-4599). I am not sure if N2O is important – it often is not in wetlands, but since the wetlands being restored were used for grazing, it might be important?

If the authors cannot do the assessment, I suggest they should at least acknowledge that the CO2 sequestration is only part of the restoration - climate mitigation. If they do not have sufficient long-term measurements of CH4 and N2O to do a complete analysis, based on their observations in ERL, they could do some back of the envelope calculations to indicate how much the x-axis would shift in their diagrams when the GHG potential is included. We have struggled with the same problem for peatlands and discussed the GHG mitigation potential for restored peatlands in Nugent et al. ERL 14: (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab56e6. 2019). I am not pushing this paper on the authors but provide it as an example of how the story change be quite different when the analysis is complete.

Nigel Roulet, McGill University January 2021

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Nigel Roulet

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 25;16(3):e0248398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248398.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Feb 2021

Response to Reviewers

We would like to thank the editor and the three reviewers for taking time to review the manuscript and for their insightful and constructive comments. Our responses are under each point and section (and in italic in the Response to Reviewers document) and we hope we were able to make all the appropriate changes and explanations and welcome further questions and feedback.

All line numbers refer to the revised marked-up version of the manuscript where changes to the text can be clearly identified.

Reviewer 1

General comments:

Reviewer #1: This study combines eddy covariance data from five different restored peat-rich wetlands in the San Joaquin delta to evaluate the carbon sink potential of restored wetland as a climate change mitigation option. The authors also compile data on plant cover within the flux footprints to better understand simple indicators of when restored sites will act as carbon sinks. The authors found that wetlands quickly became carbon sinks, but the sink strength varied between years, which they refer to as “fragility”. Overall, the results are sounds and this is a valuable data set used to interrogate management options. Aside from some minor corrections, I suggest that the authors also more clearly demonstrate how fragile the carbon sink function of these restored sites is. They compare these systems to forests, but it would also be worthwhile to place the interannual variability into the context of the interannual variability that would be observed in an undisturbed (or at least less disturbed) marsh system. I also think that making some clearer management recommendations/policy recommendations at the end of the paper could strengthen it overall (i.e., should marsh restoration be considered a climate change mitigation strategy? What does “well-managed” look like/require?).

We thank the reviewer for the helpful comments and highlighting the lack of clarity around our description of C sink fragility. We have rephrased the section on C sink strength and persistence and emphasised how even these strong C sinks can very rapidly become considerable C sources (lines 541-549). In the revisions we explain that because most of the C is stored in the peat and protected by flooding, simply reducing the water level can induce disproportionate C losses both from soil C oxidation, but also reduced C uptake efficiency. This C dynamic differs from non-saturated ecosystems making wetland C sinks particularly susceptible to disturbance even with high vegetation cover and many years after restoration. In some cases, the wetlands can be managed to reduce the impacts of disturbance, but this strongly depends on the design of the wetland making it difficult to list specific measures. However, we have added a few example suggestions. We also show an example where a natural cycle of litter build-up and flushing affected the C uptake strength representing other sources of variability that may be less controllable with management or if possible require significant intervention.

Section 4.4 discussing the C budgets (lines 517 onward) has been edited and now also includes a comparison of our annual C budgets to ranges from other sites classed as undisturbed, although, as you precisely point out, it is very difficult to find truly undisturbed wetlands and even fewer C flux datasets thereof, but it provides some context for the budget ranges presented here, in that these wetlands do appear to be representative of other freshwater marsh C dynamics.

We also expanded the importance of C uptake in terms of GHG budgets based on a previous study (see reference 14). In summary, the high C uptake in these wetlands was sufficient to offset the radiative impacts of the CH4 emissions (N2O fluxes were negligible or even negative), emphasising the importance of C uptake from vegetation dynamics and productivity in wetlands for climate change mitigation. We have added this information in the introduction (lines 58-67) and in the discussion (lines 517-566). Based on that study and the information of this study, we emphasise the importance of wetland management options limiting conditions which reduce plant productivity to maintain a strong C sink. We have added a few management examples applicable to our examples (lines 547-549) and refer to our previous study, which provided a more expansive list of management suggestions including CH4 and N2O emissions.

Specific comments:

1. Line 84: How much does the past management actions affect the post-restoration outcome (i.e., could the same restoration approaches result in different outcomes depending on the management during agricultural use)?

The reasoning for this sentence was to highlight the fact that these wetlands have been fundamentally altered from their original natural state (150 years ago), both from draining and farming practices, but also by the restoration methods used. The wetlands are now below the mean sea level, they are surrounded by levees, and have an artificial pumping system to connect them to the local hydrology. This means they are more similar to a constructed wetland than a restored one and only mimic the natural hydrology and functioning.

However, it is true, that the previous agricultural practices also affected the soil nutrient levels, which is touched on in the Supplementary Information (SI 3), e.g. that sites previously planted with corn/maize had higher P levels than sites used as degraded pastures, the latter of which also took longer for vegetation to fill in. Since only few soil cores were available and only one site had soil data from both before and after restoration (from a pasture), it was difficult to make clear predictions of the impacts, so the limited discussion was moved to the SI. Further soil sampling is underway to supplement the limited data currently available to look into this aspect in more detail, but this may be an example where similar restoration methods yielded different wetland systems. However, the underlying soils of the wetlands do vary from mostly C-rich Rindge muck Histosols to more mineral Gazwell and Scribner Mollisols, so there are still too many different variables interacting to directly compare all components and make definitive conclusions.

2. Line 90-91: Is this really a fair assumption? At least in freshwater inland peatlands these losses can be a very important component of the C budget (Roulet et al 2007, Evans et al 2016).

Again, this is an excellent question which is being addressed at our sites in a separate study. Preliminary data have shown that the eddy covariance measurements agree closely with the C accumulation rates measured from long soil cores indicating little lateral loss, but monthly water sampling at the outflows are still being conducted to quantify the aqueous C loss. The assumption that there is little lateral C loss is further supported by the low flow rate/ long residence times of the water in the wetlands (i.e. 7-10 days in the smallest wetland and longer in the larger ones, see reference 46). The sentence in the text has been changed to reflect this.

3. Line 98: But will those values be included here again for management considerations?

Indeed, including methane and nitrous oxide emissions was initially planned, but the final manuscript became too long so this part of the assessment was then moved to a separate study, which has since been accepted as a peer-reviewed book chapter to be published in Spring 2021 (see refence 14). As mentioned above, the findings of that study are now more specifically mentioned in the introduction and discussion to provide better context and additional insight.

4. Line 271: I think it should be “NEE and GEP during the corresponding…”

Corrected.

5. Lines 320-321: Isn’t the correlation between GEP and NEP confounded since the former is calculated from the latter? Do you really need this correlation to explain the findings?

This is indeed the case and is also highlighted at the start of section 4.4 (lines 493-496). However, this type of plot is often used in studies to compare the C uptake efficiency, hence it was initially included here to allow for visual comparison with other studies (lines 550-556). However, we have now removed Figure 7 and only refer to the slope in the discussion to compare with previous studies.

6. Line 358: I suggest rewording this as something like “Based on soil samples, we found that East End had very high nutrients…”

Done. Also added the mean ± SD in parentheses.

7. Line 377: What “despite”. I would guess that the litter build-up is a good indicator that the site is a C sink (i.e., you are visually seeing the C accumulate in the accumulating litter). I guess, the thought is that the litter is a new source for C release via respiration?

Here, “despite” referred to the fact that the dense litter layer may be shading new growth, hence reducing and/or delaying GEP, but also constitutes a large source of C for aerobic respiration. This sentence has been changed to reflect this.

8. Line 437: I’m not sure you really show the fragility in this section. It’s true that they were C sources in some years, but this was mainly in the early years post-restoration or during known disturbances. There are also risks for other types of C sinks (like forests mentioned in this section), so I think the reasons marshes might be more fragile needs to be more clearly explained in this section, or how you define this interannual variability needs to be reworded.

As mentioned above, further explanations on this have been added (lines 541-549) at the end of the paragraph, which was rewritten to be more concise and better differentiate the C sink strength magnitude and variability and why it is important.

Reviewer 2

Reviewer #2: Summary. Freshwater peatlands store large amounts of carbon in their soils and vegetation, and there is growing interest in using wetland restoration, conservation and management techniques as a climate mitigation strategies. This paper takes advantage of long-term eddy covariance CO2 flux measurements and associated measurements of vegetation community and restoration design to measure CO2 sink strength in 5 wetlands. All 5 wetlands experience similar climate conditions, allowing the authors to explore site-specific controls of CO2 sink. The manuscript shows that vegetation recovery followed 2 distinct trajectories based on restoration design and that most became a CO2 sink after reaching 55% vegetation cover. The manuscript offers additional insights into the temporal variability of sink strength. The manuscript is timely and generally well written. I offer a few comments below.

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments and for taking time to provide a thorough review, including stylistic feedback to improve the manuscript.

General Comments:

The title is a mouthful. I don’t think it is ‘wrong’ per se, it is just really long. I have to wonder if there is any way to trim it down and still give the reader a sense of the story.

We shortened the title to “Productive wetlands restored for C sequestration quickly become net CO2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability”.

The authors are clear that in the current MS they are focusing on time-series of CO2 fluxes to explore their controls and that they are not attempting to conduct a fully greenhouse gas accounting for these systems (e.g., L96-98; L438-440). This decision makes sense to me, especially considering that radiative forcing has been explored elsewhere, but it does limit the ability of the authors to make a strong case for climate mitigation in these systems and explore their use as ‘natural climate solutions’. Is there is a chance to fold in a bit more about CH4 and N2O fluxes in the discussion to further make the case that there is, indeed, a net climate benefit for restoration of these systems once they become net CO2 sinks? A full greenhouse gas balance is beyond the scope of the paper, but perhaps some broad brushstrokes for context?

We agree with this observation and have included more information from our previous study on the overall climate mitigation potentials of these wetlands (see reference 14) to provide better context for this manuscript, hence the respective sections (1 and 4.4 with lines 55-67 and 517-566) have been expanded and also refer to the wider GHG budgets of these sites and their GHG sink potential. To emphasise the focus on the CO2 component in this manuscript, we instead refer to the wetland’s climate mitigation role as a negative emission technology through C sequestration.

I found the paragraph beginning in L389 to come out of nowhere. This is the first mention of Azolla in the entire manuscript aside from in the legend of Figure 3 (where it looks to cover ~15% in a single site). The authors then give a fair amount of space to Azolla, including conversation around its impacts on CH4 and N2O fluxes, which are not even measured in the current work. I take the point that floating plants and algae are non-negligible contributors to NEE in the study, but this discussion felt really disjointed from the rest of the paper to me.

Azolla and Lemna are now mentioned in the previous paragraph (line 428) and the following paragraph has been shortened as well (lines 432-453).

Minor comments:

1. L17. Consider replacing “litter decomposition rates” with “decomposition”. It isn’t just litter that decays slowly (so does SOM, if litter and SOM are actually different things in a peatland?) and I think the word rate is redundant in this context.

Done.

2. L21. Consider removing “potentials”. You show that restoration impacts C sequestration, not just the potential for this process, right?

Done.

3. L27. Consider removing “and rates”

Done.

4. L31. Can you clarify what you mean by “which most wetlands achieved with vegetation establishment”? Are you saying that most systems become sinks once they hit the 55% threshold?

Correct, most wetlands became on average net C sinks once vegetation coverage exceeded 55%, which was reached after the initial growth years (~2 years). The sentence has been changed for clarity to “… which most wetlands achieved once vegetation was established.”

5. L32. I might add in the equation that you used to define sequestration efficiency (NEP/GPP) here.

Done.

6. L42-44. Estimates of carbon stocks in northern peatland soils have recently been expanded. Might be worth looking at -- Nichols, J.E., Peteet, D.M., 2019. Rapid expansion of northern peatlands and doubled estimate of carbon storage. Nature Geoscience 12, 917–921.

Thank you for the reference suggestion. It has been added and the text updated.

7. L50. I think you’re missing a word here. Perhaps “…uncertainty ABOUT whether….

Added.

8. L62. Can you replace the subject, “This”, with something more concrete? Something like “Exploring these site-specific controls requires….”

Done.

9. L65. I think you can rewrite this without making the authors (“us”) a part of the story. “The eddy covariance method allows for direct measurements of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) over an integrated ecosystem-scale area, and generally assumes that the sources are homogeneous and representative of the whole site.”

Done.

10. L81. Consider removing configurations.

Done.

11. L112-113. I think you need to add a comma after irreversible

Done.

12. L138-139. I think you need to add a comma after 2014. I also think that since there were multiple outbreaks you need to use were here. “In 2014, and to a lesser extent in 2017, there WERE insect infestationS that diminished the green aboveground biomsass.”

Done.

13. Table 1. Can you clarify why the dominant plant species in the Sherman Wetland is NA in this table? There is clearly some vegetation there (58% coverage). What does NA mean here?

NA stands for Not Available, since there are no data available yet from ground surveys of vegetation at a species level from this wetland. To clarify, the assumed dominant species have been added to the table, i.e. Typha and S. acutus (as emergent macrophytes are the largest vegetation class from Fig 3), while the % split shows ‘NA’, which has been added to the table key, to reflect the lack of ground survey confirmation.

14. L156. I would not discuss the eddy covariance methods used to measure CH4 if those data are not going to be considered in this paper.

Done.

15. L177-178. This language is redundant

The sentence has been shortened to ”Although the sites are ideal for eddy covariance with consistent wind directions, large fetch, and little upwind interference, the flux measurements may not be representative of the whole site because of the high spatial heterogeneity.”

16. L263. Can you clarify what is meant by “with vegetation cover >0.1” here? When I look at Figure 4a, it looks like your linear relationship was built with all of the data, including sites with lower vegetation cover. What am I missing here?

This is correct. The 0.1 proportion vegetation cover is the x intercept but has now been removed for clarity.

17. Figure 4. Just a note that you discuss this figure in the order 4a, 4c, 4b, 4d in the text. Do you want to move the panels to align with this order? I am also a bit confused by the units used on the vertical axis in Figure 4b and 4d. In the text, you suggest that you are looking at controls of monthly CUMULATIVE NEE and GEP. Yet, the axis units are PER MONTH. If this is a cumulative sum of multiple months, how can it be a per month number?

The figure panels have been rearranged according to the text sequence. The monthly panels show sums of 30 min fluxes for each month, while the annual plots sum the fluxes for the entire year. The monthly plots were added to more accurately compare the fluxes and vegetation cover measurements during the same time period during the growing season to limit the impact of seasonal differences.

18. L167 (and elsewhere). My understanding is that i.e. (and e.g.) should be followed by commas “i.e.,” as these are abbreviations for phrases.

Both with and without are considered correct, but a ‘following comma’ is more common in American English, as well as when the abbreviation precedes a longer sentence fragment, e.g., as used in this example sentence to demonstrate. After checking the instances in the manuscript, these abbreviations were only used before lists or single words or numbers, so the following comma has been omitted.

19. L269-273. I think this is a run-on sentence. Consider breaking it up and starting a second sentence with “Hence, we only discuss…”

The sentence has been split into “A finer resolution classification showed greater spatial complexity and clear differentiation of vegetation types (Figure S1 in SI). Relationships with monthly and annual NEE and GEP during the corresponding timeframe were only marginally improved compared with the lower resolution images of the same period (Table S1), so only the coarser classification results which cover a longer period are discussed”

20. L358-364. I appreciate the decision to put the detailed nutrient information in the supplement to streamline the story in the main body of the manuscript. However, I wonder if there is a way to be a bit more specific about nutrient levels in the main text. Could you provide summary statistics instead of “very high” and “low” when discussing nutrient levels.

Mean and standard deviations from the supplementary information on nutrient levels have been added to the text (lines 398-400) to provide more accurate descriptions.

21. L396. Replace “methane” with “CH4” – you’ve already used the abbreviation elsewhere

Done.

22. L484. Remove “here”.

Done.

23. L489. Replace “methane” with “CH4”

Done.

Reviewer 3

Reviewer #3: This is a fascinating paper, and I have no comments on the details. The manuscript is well written; the analysis is clear, the methods sound and the conclusions are based on the evidence provided.

However, I have one concern about the manuscript utility. If the goal is to assess the vegetation dynamics through time and how it affects the CO2 sequestration that is fine, this is of little use for wetlands and is only part of the story. This is especially true as the authors' selling point is the importance of knowing how the sequestration of CO2 into the stored organic matter is vital for assessing wetland restoration for climate mitigation potential. Yes, it is essential, but it is only part of the story. The paper seems to be to be an incomplete analysis as it ignores the other radiative gases. This team has dealt with the multi-gas problem in other studies, which they cite and say that it has been dealt with other authors (refs 41 – 43). Still, in part, the authors justify their study by arguing that the assessment of CO2 sequestration attributed to restoration needs to be done in the context of the site and wetlands involved. Without including the other GHGs, a conclusion of the role of restoration in mitigating climate cannot be made.

The authors should have the data to do this since they did, at least the CH4, and possibly the N2O EC measurements alongside the CO2 measurements. Vegetation and the same environmental variables that are important for CO2 uptake, are also important, though differently for CH4. In other papers (Environ Res Lett, 2018; 13(4), 045005). This group has shown that ebullition is important in these wetlands. Still, the CH4 production that allows the concentration of CH4 to build up to a level where ebullition can be supported is critically dependent on the vegetation in their study sites. It is the teams ERL paper that provides the argument for the need to analyze the other gases to assess the climate mitigation – “Fifth, as wetlands develop, the relative importance of CO2 vs. CH4 vs. N2O in constraining net GWP may vary significantly,”

The study could be completed by at least adding CH4. What would this do – the authors could make second x-axis on their graphs (Fig 4 & 6) that would have net GHG exchange in CO2 equivalents. Then the conclusions would change substantially. Rather than 2 to 3 years being the critical cross over time, it would be sometime later - one to many decades later, depending on the strength of the CH4 flux. One of the authors has participated in a study that explicitly treats the two- gas problem for wetlands (Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2015; 112(15), 4594-4599). I am not sure if N2O is important – it often is not in wetlands, but since the wetlands being restored were used for grazing, it might be important?

If the authors cannot do the assessment, I suggest they should at least acknowledge that the CO2 sequestration is only part of the restoration - climate mitigation. If they do not have sufficient long-term measurements of CH4 and N2O to do a complete analysis, based on their observations in ERL, they could do some back of the envelope calculations to indicate how much the x-axis would shift in their diagrams when the GHG potential is included. We have struggled with the same problem for peatlands and discussed the GHG mitigation potential for restored peatlands in Nugent et al. ERL 14: (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab56e6. 2019). I am not pushing this paper on the authors but provide it as an example of how the story change be quite different when the analysis is complete.

Nigel Roulet, McGill University January 2021

Dear Nigel Roulet,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your helpful feedback and discussion.

We fully agree that vegetation and CO2 uptake are only one aspect of the climate mitigation potential of wetlands and are very glad to see this being highlighted. We recently conducted a more detailed study on exactly this issue (reference 14), which included the CH4 fluxes (and touched on N2O, since there are very few available data), as well as a discussion of different metrics to calculate GHG budgets and how they affect the climate forcing of wetlands. Because of this separate study we specifically did not go into more detail about it in this manuscript. The previous study also looked at the options of reducing CH4 emissions and generally improving the CH4 to CO2 uptake ratio in wetland restoration, which included a table of management suggestions, which we now refer to here. Just to summarise, we found that as expected lower CH4 emissions resulted in smaller GHG budgets. Generally, the wetlands in the Delta have quite high CH4 emissions even under drier conditions (e.g. around 20 gC CH4 m-2 yr-1). However, these sites were not just large C sinks, but we found that the high productivity was enough to offset the radiative impact of the CH4 causing the wetland to be a net GHG sink. In some cases, it was enough to make them an immediate net GHG sink using several GWP conversion metrics, while all wetlands that were net C sinks on average became cumulative net GHG sinks with a crossover time around 50-200 years after restoration. Therefore, at these sites the large net C uptake through the vegetation is key in maintaining their climate mitigation function. Because of that study, we focus here on how vegetation dynamics unfold after restoration and how they relate to restoration design, so that C uptake can be maximised and maintained in the long-term through targeted design and management strategies. So as to better align the reader’s expectations and not overreach the scope of the present study we have rephrased the text to focus on wetlands as negative C emission technologies as part of their climate change mitigation potential. We have added the results of our previous studies in the introduction to better frame the context here (lines 58-67) and also in the discussion in Section 4.4. (lines 516-566).

We generally have come to the conclusion now that we have longer and more complete datasets that freshwater wetlands can be very effective both sequestering C (albeit at the cost of greater short-term radiative forcing), as well as protecting the existing large soil C stocks over geological timescales making them important systems for climate change mitigation. The key nuance is that these properties can easily fluctuate or reverse under certain conditions, hence the call for greater monitoring and management. Furthermore, there is currently much focus on only considering the immediate radiative impacts, which are often lower in other wetland types, such as salt marshes, however, those systems tend to also have much lower productivity and sequester considerably less C in the long-term. Naturally, these systems are also valuable and worth protecting and restoring. Based on our data we aim to highlight that productive wetlands which otherwise may be deemed undesirable because of larger CH4 emissions, should still be a conservation and restoration priority because of their long-term climate change mitigation benefits. With our studies we hope to encourage further discussions about how to accurately estimate the climate impacts of wetlands over climate-relevant timescales and therefore better assess and prioritise restoration/conservation activities. To achieve this, we need to communicate these nuances to policymakers, restoration practitioners, and the wider community.

We apologise that this previous study was not better highlighted in this manuscript. It was supposed to be published in summer 2020 but was delayed due to the virus and now is rescheduled to be published this spring. Because of copyright issues we specifically refrained from reproducing key content in case this paper was published first. We hope the new phrasing, context, and discussion has improved the manuscript’s focus and utility, but would be delighted to discuss this issue further with you.

Decision Letter 1

Hojeong Kang

26 Feb 2021

Productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net CO2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability

PONE-D-20-35610R1

Dear Dr. Valach,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hojeong Kang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have properly addressed and clarified all issues that had been raised by the reviewers. The paper is now acceptable for the publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hojeong Kang

15 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-35610R1

Productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net CO2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability

Dear Dr. Valach:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Hojeong Kang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Contains supporting text, figures, and tables.

    (DOCX)

    Data Availability Statement

    All sites used in this analysis are part of the AmeriFlux network, with data available at http://ameriflux.lbl.gov/ with designations US-Tw1, US-Tw4, US-Tw5, US-Myb, and US-Sne.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES