Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorSmeaton, Craig
dc.contributor.authorBarlow, Natasha
dc.contributor.authorAustin, William
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-21T00:35:54Z
dc.date.available2021-01-21T00:35:54Z
dc.date.issued2020-04-01
dc.identifier.citationSmeaton , C , Barlow , N & Austin , W 2020 , ' Coring and compaction : best practice in blue carbon stock and burial estimations ' , Geoderma , vol. 364 , no. C , 114180 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114180en
dc.identifier.issn0016-7061
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 265808594
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 39eda2e7-5975-4160-93c3-3110c61fdb15
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0003-4535-2555/work/67919695
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85078040315
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000517855200005
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/21294
dc.descriptionThis work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/R010846/1) Carbon Storage in Intertidal Environments (C-SIDE) project.en
dc.description.abstractA comparison of gouge and hammer coring techniques in intertidal wetland soils highlights a significant effect of soil compaction of up to 28% associated with the widely applied hammer coring method employed in Blue Carbon research. Hammer coring reduces the thickness of the soil profile and increases the dry bulk density, which results in an overestimation of the soil OC stock of up to 22%. In saltmarshes with multiple different soil units, we show that hammer coring is unsuitable for the calculation of OC stocks and should be avoided in favour of Russian or gouge cores. Compaction changes both soil dry bulk density and porosity and we show that resultant radiometric chronologies are compromised, almost doubling mass accumulation rates. While we show that the OC (%) content of these sediments is largely unchanged by coring method, the implication for OC burial rates are profound because of the significant effect of hammer coring on soil mass accumulation rates.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofGeodermaen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114180en
dc.subjectSaltmarshen
dc.subjectCompactionen
dc.subjectCoringen
dc.subjectGougeen
dc.subjectHammeren
dc.subjectAge modelen
dc.subjectSoilen
dc.subjectBlue carbonen
dc.subjectSedimenten
dc.subjectIntertidalen
dc.subjectGE Environmental Sciencesen
dc.subjectEnvironmental Science (miscellaneous)en
dc.subjectEarth-Surface Processesen
dc.subjectDASen
dc.subject.lccGEen
dc.titleCoring and compaction : best practice in blue carbon stock and burial estimationsen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.sponsorNERCen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Geography & Sustainable Developmenten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Bell-Edwards Geographic Data Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Coastal Resources Management Groupen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Marine Alliance for Science & Technology Scotlanden
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. St Andrews Sustainability Instituteen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114180
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2021-01-21
dc.identifier.grantnumberNE/R010846/1en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record